babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Justin Trudeau = Harper with a smile

Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

It seems increasingly clear to me that on all the really major issues, Trudeau sees eye to eye with Harper and disagrees with the NDP.

In this interview he pledges his undying fait in pipelines and attacks Tom Mulcair daring to be less than enthusiastic about Keytone XL. Add this to his support for the takeo9ver of Nexen by China, his pledge to "put Quebec in its place" and his believe that the senate shoudl stay the same as it is now and you get Justin prepping to become the Nick Clegg of Canada

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/05/justin_trudeau_thomas_mulc...


Comments

DaveW
Offline
Joined: Dec 24 2008

one more time, you are focusing on details of policy since that is your thing;

if the broader voting public were as interested in policy, J.T. would not be running 1st in national polls ...

it's largely a personality and a tone, more optimistic and open after the dour Harper period


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Ultimately, I am interested in what the Prime Minister of Canada actually DOES. His personality is a problem for his or her spouse and immediate entourage. I think people who voted Tory in the past and are getting fed up with Harper are right to turn to Justin Trudeau because he will offer them exactly what they want - Harper Conservative policies communicated by someone with "sunnier" personality...a Ronald Reagan type.

People on the left who have voted NDP need to be aware that while they might project that because Justin is "hip" he must have all these groovy leftwing policy - he does not! I think the task for the NDP is going to be to get the message out that Justin Trudeau is actually a rightwing "blue Grit" who supports pipleines every which way and likes the senate as is...and that's probably just the tip of the iceberg!


mark_alfred
Online
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Trudeau is a puppet for some backroom operators.  In fact (here's my conspiracy brain coming out), I think one of them is possibly Harper himself.  The whole Brazeau thing looked like it was staged by Conservatives to elevate Trudeau so that Rae would back down.  Rae, after all, could have been a problem since he's open to cooperation w/ the NDP and is not a complete puppet of business.  There'll be some attacks lobbed Trudeau's way, but nothing with the same vehemence that we saw with previous Lib leaders.  It'll all be for show to keep the NDP sidelined and to keep the focus on right-wing issues.  Trudeau is likely getting payola from Harper's cronies for the job of playing a luring decoy to potential NDPers.


DaveW
Offline
Joined: Dec 24 2008

There will be plenty of time for JT to appear without advisers filtering his every move, lots of policy clarification, gaffes, etc etc,  but more than policy has affected public opinion, or else the Opposition NDP would be the first beneficiary of all the anti-Harper sentiment.


mark_alfred
Online
Joined: Jan 3 2004

DaveW wrote:

There will be plenty of time for JT to appear without advisers filtering his every move, lots of policy clarification, gaffes, etc etc,  but more than policy has affected public opinion, or else the Opposition NDP would be the first beneficiary of all the anti-Harper sentiment.

Agreed.  He'll have two years to stick his foot in his mouth.  Initially there will be the stammering, then the odd verbal ticks, then the weeping, and finally the all-out temper tantrums.  Should be amusing.


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012

 I think he'll continue being sheltered by the media. They know how rightwing Trudeau is, but also he's a friendlier face for the Elites. Harper is getting long in the tooth and has the charm of a Crookdile, so they know they need a replacement, not just for Harper, but also for his merry band of fools.

 If they don't try to make Trudeau look like Canada's next Prime Minister, Mulcair will take it instead as the Tories finally choke on thier own poison.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

Trudeau does have this instant "progressive" image. I think the media has stereotyped him as soft and young, which must mean he's going to create a friendlier Canada in some vague way as only a soft young person can. And meanwhile his policy proposals are tacking right. His "stereotype" allows him to tack right, earn votes there, without taking damage among progressives.

That is, unless his actual stances on issues come out.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

People gravitated to John F. Kennedy because he was "hip", then he promptly brought the world to the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis, launched the Bay of Pigds invasion and did zilch for civil rights (LBJ deserves all the credit for that) - but he was HIP!

On a similar note Pierre Trudeau did nothing to expand social services in canada - that all happened under Pearson, he brought in the war measures act, accepted nuclear tipped cruise missiles on canadian soil and brought in and enforced very regressibe abortion laws - he was HIP and did pirouettes!


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
Dispite what the media will do to help him, it will come out eventually. As will his incompetence. And +1 on the JFK vs LBJ comment. Johnson was a 100 times the prez as JFK. Yet who gets immortalized and mourned, whose court gets compared to camelot? JFKs. It makes me sick People can be so fucking stupid when it comes to politics.

Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

The fact that JFK was assassinated has a lot to do with that...if he had lived he would probably been narrowly re-elected in '64 and gone down in history as a very mediocre forgettable president.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

And it's a VERY open question as to whether JFK would ever have steered a real Civil Rights Act through the segregationist hierarchy of the U.S. Senate of 1964.


Centrist
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2004

Stockholm wrote:

The fact that JFK was assassinated has a lot to do with that...if he had lived he would probably been narrowly re-elected in '64 and gone down in history as a very mediocre forgettable president.

But the Republican challenger was Goldwater - whom even Republicans considered both nutty, dangerous, and waaaaay out there. That's why LBJ had the largest landslide in terms of popular vote share in U.S. history IIRC. So JFK would likely had an easy win as well.

Too bad the Cons don't replace Harper with their equivalent of today's "Goldwater". With Trudeau basically a flake, would make Mulcair's majority gov't win ohhhh so much easier.


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

If you go and read what is being posted on the Huff Post regarding these columns by Bob Rae, everyone who is posting there is praising Rae as a great statesment and two posters who represented themeselves as indigenous people praised him as someone who was capable of ensuring their interests are addressed. I say we have to nail the Libs on their history. Do you think people will ever really care Trudeau us a flake. Given the overwhelming numbers of seniors who said they would vote for him (Trudeaumania Seniors), how much is it going to matter that Trudeau is a flake. I think we need to stress the real difference. Thoughts?


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Centrist wrote:

 

But the Republican challenger was Goldwater - whom even Republicans considered both nutty, dangerous, and waaaaay out there. That's why LBJ had the largest landslide in terms of popular vote share in U.S. history IIRC. So JFK would likely had an easy win as well.

You are assuming that the GOP would still have nominated Goldwater iof JFK had been running for re-election. The fact is after JFK was assassinated LBJ was such an overwhelming sentimental favourite to carry on his legacy that it was clear that no Republican had a chance - the GOP could afford to put up Goldwater as a sacrificial lamb. They would have nominated someone far more formidable against Kennedy.

 

Sorry for the threadrift


North Star
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2012

mark_alfred wrote:

Trudeau is a puppet for some backroom operators.  In fact (here's my conspiracy brain coming out), I think one of them is possibly Harper himself.  The whole Brazeau thing looked like it was staged by Conservatives to elevate Trudeau so that Rae would back down.  Rae, after all, could have been a problem since he's open to cooperation w/ the NDP and is not a complete puppet of business.  There'll be some attacks lobbed Trudeau's way, but nothing with the same vehemence that we saw with previous Lib leaders.  It'll all be for show to keep the NDP sidelined and to keep the focus on right-wing issues.  Trudeau is likely getting payola from Harper's cronies for the job of playing a luring decoy to potential NDPers.

Well I think Rae proved he could certainly be pushed around by business during his stint as Premier.

I think elites will be happy flock to Trudeau because Harper has certainly aroused a good amount of opposition. There was that column in the National Post of all places saying the Cons should act less like jerks. Trudeau would go along way is disarming the anti-Harper social movements at least for a little while, but that is all that is needed before more trade deals get signed and pipelines built. If Harper wins again in 2015 those movements will still be going, however business can rest assured that Trudeau and the Libs will not gut the Harper legacy. Plus the Liberals would be able to screw with elements of the welfare state that the Cons would never be able to get away with. Remember folks when Liberals cut things "there is no alternative."


Centrist
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2004

Stockholm wrote:

Centrist wrote:

 

But the Republican challenger was Goldwater - whom even Republicans considered both nutty, dangerous, and waaaaay out there. That's why LBJ had the largest landslide in terms of popular vote share in U.S. history IIRC. So JFK would likely had an easy win as well.

You are assuming that the GOP would still have nominated Goldwater iof JFK had been running for re-election. The fact is after JFK was assassinated LBJ was such an overwhelming sentimental favourite to carry on his legacy that it was clear that no Republican had a chance - the GOP could afford to put up Goldwater as a sacrificial lamb. They would have nominated someone far more formidable against Kennedy.

 

Sorry for the threadrift

 

I understand what you are saying. But I doubt that was the case based upon the Rockefeller "matter" at the time. Had Rockefeller not had same come up, he would have been the Republican nominee IMHO. And also very formidable IMHO v. Goldwater. Different social attitudes at the time. Here's the obvious low-down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964#The_primaries 

 

And yeah. Don't mean the thread drift either.


mark_alfred
Online
Joined: Jan 3 2004

North Star wrote:

Plus the Liberals would be able to screw with elements of the welfare state that the Cons would never be able to get away with. Remember folks when Liberals cut things "there is no alternative."

Agreed.  Things were as bad with Chretien/Martin as they've been with Harper.  I also agree that Rae was spineless at times.  However, the overlords of business don't even want to put up with an invertebrate.  They want a puppet, pure and simple.  Harper, like Pinocchio, has shown too much of a tendency of trying to be human.  So I believe the big bosses are moving to Trudeau as the choice to forward their agenda.  Harper's head will be on a platter, disposed of like so much smelly refuse that no longer adequately serves the big bosses' needs.  Trudeau will be their puppet.  The only thing possibly in their way now is Mulcair, the passionate sincere man from Outremont.


Centrist
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2004

mark_alfred wrote:

Agreed.  Things were as bad with Chretien/Martin as they've been with Harper.  I also agree that Rae was spineless at times.  However, the overlords of business don't even want to put up with an invertebrate.  They want a puppet, pure and simple.  

Remember though, once in government, political parties tend to have their "moments". In that vein, I will never forgive or forget then NDP BC Premier Mike Harcourt's  province-wide televised address, during 1993, when he lashed out at social assistince recipients as "welfare cheats, deadbeats and varmints". Sad, frankly, and will always stick in my head.


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
The 90's was not the best era for the NDP admittedly, we picked some duds for leaders. I think were doing better now to different degrees, although at times Darrell can be a bit of a throwback sadly.

sherpa-finn
Offline
Joined: Jun 20 2012

I suspect that on the conservative discussion site they have a thread entitled "Justin Trudeau = Mulcair with less facial hair"


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

Yeah, I'd like to think that the NDP getting beaten so badly in the 90s was our way of avoiding the "New Labor" strategy.


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002

Sherpa, you forgot the spoilt rich twit's very particular take on Movember.


mark_alfred
Online
Joined: Jan 3 2004

sherpa-finn wrote:

I suspect that on the conservative discussion site they have a thread entitled "Justin Trudeau = Mulcair with less facial hair"

This is a later edit, because my first one linked to a darned April Fool's joke that I took seriously.  Anyway, I have searched the online rightwing site of freedominion.ca to see what their opinions are of Mulcair and Trudeau, and from what I saw, they view Mulcair as the devil, whereas they're not happy with Trudeau, but (generally) feel far less hostile to him.  For instance, here's a link to a couple of posters discussing the expected attack ads against Trudeau.  Their feeling is that Trudeau will win both the leadership and become prime minister.  Their debate is whether the right should form a new party.  They disagree on whether a new party should (or will) be formed, but they agree that Trudeau will govern from the right.

You'd be hard pressed to find anything similar when they speak of Mulcair.  I have found no posts that express anything besides disdain for Mulcair on this site.  They do not view Trudeau and Mulcair as being similar.

Left-wingers (even those with a puritanical streak) should get solidly behind Mulcair and the NDP, and not be distracted by the Liberals.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

Stockholm wrote:

Centrist wrote:

 

But the Republican challenger was Goldwater - whom even Republicans considered both nutty, dangerous, and waaaaay out there. That's why LBJ had the largest landslide in terms of popular vote share in U.S. history IIRC. So JFK would likely had an easy win as well.

You are assuming that the GOP would still have nominated Goldwater iof JFK had been running for re-election. The fact is after JFK was assassinated LBJ was such an overwhelming sentimental favourite to carry on his legacy that it was clear that no Republican had a chance - the GOP could afford to put up Goldwater as a sacrificial lamb. They would have nominated someone far more formidable against Kennedy.

 

Sorry for the threadrift


A Kennedy-Nixon rematch, maybe?


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

Centrist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

The fact that JFK was assassinated has a lot to do with that...if he had lived he would probably been narrowly re-elected in '64 and gone down in history as a very mediocre forgettable president.

But the Republican challenger was Goldwater - whom even Republicans considered both nutty, dangerous, and waaaaay out there. That's why LBJ had the largest landslide in terms of popular vote share in U.S. history IIRC. So JFK would likely had an easy win as well.

Too bad the Cons don't replace Harper with their equivalent of today's "Goldwater". With Trudeau basically a flake, would make Mulcair's majority gov't win ohhhh so much easier.

Parties that are in power don't pick Goldwater types as their leaders or candidates...they go with the safest, blandest people possible-unless they're already sure they're gonna lose, they they might pick a crazyhead just to put the blame for the loss on the party's "out crowd". 


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002

What has a puritanical streak got to do with anything?

Oh, I'll vote NDP, especially since it means I'm voting for MP Alexandre Boulerice, but I'm not about to join it under Mulcair, who is certainly not taking the party in a more progressive direction, and to top it off is a hardarse Zionist...


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

The 'irresistible.'

I'll say one thing for Justin Trudeau,  He's done enough already to help make sense of Anti-Oedipus.

As D&G wrote:
sexuality is everywhere: the way a bureaucrat fondles his records, a judge administers justice, a businessman causes money to circulate; the way the bourgeoisie fucks the proletariat; and so on.


NeedToVote101
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2012

I love how people are so hard on Mulcair....  yet we all have to remember a few things:

A) Many people loved Jack Layton....can't compare apples and oranges here (no pun intended) Mulcair is no Layton.

B) Layton expanded the party in Quebec.... their next hill to conquer would have been the West... as proven by the NDP's efforts to create the Lethbridge, AB declaration.  The West, outside of Manitoba is very hard to conquer for the NDP right now.  Look, Mulcair attempted to cosy up to Alberta, but failed after saying only one wrong thing. If you looked at the polls before the Duth disease, the NDP was actually hovering in the low to mid 20s in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Because of the relentless attacks by Redford and Wall, the NDP support there has collapsed. The task is not easy my friends, you try it out!

C) Now Mulcair has the "rejuvenated" Liberal party being led by a "handsome - irresistble" man at his heels. Now he has to put up with two people attacking him. When he should be worrying about opposing the government, he will now have to worry about defending the NDP's policies as if the NDP were in government. Layton never really had to worry about that. Oddly enough, this is isn't how it supposed to work, but Trudeau will try to cut Mulcair and the NDP down before he'll go after Harper. Trudeau and the Liberals know the only way to governance is through the "Orange gate".

So please people, spare me the "I can't stand Mulcair" but I'll vote for the NDP anyways "bullshit" because like it or not, Mulcair goes down, so does the NDP.  Most soft NDP support will bleed to the Liberals if we don't rally around and work with the current NDP leader. Just look at what happened to the Ignaieff Liberals, thousands left supporting the Liberals because they disliked the Ignatieff. The same will happen to the NDP if we are not careful!


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

I'm not sure there's any net negative for the dutch disease comments. We have 3 seats between Alberta/Manitoba/Saskatchewan, if I remember correctly. I sincerely doubt the NDP will do any worse over there. 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

PS: Last time I checked British Columbia was also part of the west and the NDP has been consistently doing well there.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments