Peter Kent: the next Foreign Affairs minister?

178 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lord Palmerston

I'm sure those questions about Kent's CCD affiliation will never come up in the MSM.

BetterRed

quote:


Originally posted by adma:
[b]Well, I'd assume she lost significant non-Jewish share, too.

Consider, especially, the swing in neighbouring Vaughan (Maurizio B.'s seat)--the Liberals down from 59.7 to 49.2, the Tories up from 26.1 to 34.3; for the Grits to be reduced to a plurality and a 15-point margin in Vaughan surely counts as a shock result of sorts...[/b]


Thats very true, and what elese needs mentioning is that the Dipper candidate has obtained 9.62% - nearly enough to reach deposit.
And tahts in one of the most affluent ridings in the country.

The Thornhill result was a bit depressing - below 7%. I wonder why that is
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

1948

Hmmm.

Now kent is Minister of State (Americas). I wonder what he thinks about the racist postings made on the CCD's website about the man who will likely by the next US President? Has he distanced himself from this garbage?

See [url=http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/30574.shtml]this delightful screed that asks whether "We can elect a President with not one, not two, but THREE Islamic names?"[/url] or [url=http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/32627.shtml]this post entitled "How can you possibly feel safe with Obama's personal history?"[/url]

aka Mycroft

quote:


Originally posted by 1948:
[b]Hmmm.

Now kent is Minister of State (Americas). I wonder what he thinks about the racist postings made on the CCD's website about the man who will likely by the next US President? Has he distanced himself from this garbage?

See [url=http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/30574.shtml]this delightful screed that asks whether "We can elect a President with not one, not two, but THREE Islamic names?"[/url] or [url=http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/32627.shtml]this post entitled "How can you possibly feel safe with Obama's personal history?"[/url][/b]


I wonder what this means for Canada-Cuba relations (or Canada-Venezuela, Canada-Bolivia or even Canada-Brazil)?

Stockholm

I suspect it will mean absolutely nothing for any of those.

Making Kent Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas) strikes me as a non-job that is probably just a fancy title with no actual responsibility. Would you have preferred him to be Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Middle East)??

aka Mycroft

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]I suspect it will mean absolutely nothing for any of those.

Making Kent Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas) strikes me as a non-job that is probably just a fancy title with no actual responsibility. Would you have preferred him to be Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Middle East)??[/b]


No, not at all. Just wondering what, if anything, this means for Canadian policy in the region.

Mr.Canada

Many on the right view OCAP as an urban terror group. Does that make it so?

Of course not. Try to look at all the viewpoints before making a decision. Get your news from left and right wing news sources. The truth is usually in the middle.

Peter Kent would make an excellent minister.

aka Mycroft

quote:


Originally posted by Mr.Canada:
[b]Many on the right view OCAP as an urban terror group. Does that make it so? Of course not.[/b]

Are you proposing John Clarke as Minister of Community and Social Services then or Solicitor-General?

quote:

[b]Try to look at all the viewpoints before making a decision. Get your news from left and right wing news sources. The truth is usually in the middle.

Peter Kent would make an excellent minister.[/b]


Perhaps - but not of anything related to foreign affairs, culture (he hates the CBC) or transport (he hates streetcar right of ways).

No one is saying CCD are terrorists but they certainly have hard right views on international affairs of the Richard Perle - Donald Rumsfeld - Paul Wolfowitz variety and their views on Muslims are extreme. While it is a relief that he's neither foreign minister nor minister for the mideast I believe his appointment as Minister of State (Americas) is a further indication that the Harper government is of one mind with the US State Department when it comes to its orientation towards left wing governments in Latin America on the one hand and right wing regimes such as Colombia on the other.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

1948

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]I suspect it will mean absolutely nothing for any of those.

Making Kent Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas) strikes me as a non-job that is probably just a fancy title with no actual responsibility. Would you have preferred him to be Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Middle East)??[/b]


Uh... Wha?

Yes, Stockholm, it's true that he's not the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Nor is he the Prime Minitser.

But he is in the Cabinet, sits on the [url=http://www.pm.gc.ca/grfx/docs/Cab_committee-comite.pdf]Foreign Affairs Committee[/url], and has a specific mandate to deal with "the Americas" so his views on Foreign Affairs and the incoming US President should probably draw our attention.

ETA: I'd say the views found posted on Obama are outside the mainstream (at least the Canadian mainstream) and Kent has some explaining to do. If these views don't represent the CCD's views then why did the CCD allow them to be posted? If they do then it's legitimate to ask if he shares them? If he doesn't why didn't he raise it? If he didn't know why wasn't he paying attention?

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: 1948 ]

ghoris

Kent's title is not a new one - there was a Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa) in the Chretien government.

Special bonus points to anyone who can name any of the three household names who served in this coveted, high-profile posting in the Chretien years.

1948

David Kilgour.
Denis Paradis.

Stockholm

quote:


Harper government is of one mind with the US State Department when it comes to its orientation towards left wing governments in Latin America on the one hand and right wing regimes such as Colombia on the other.

The "State Department" and the Bush administration are two very different things. Historically, the people who work in the State Department tend to be vastly more liberal-minded than are the foreign policy advisors to Republican presidents.

The Harper government MIGHT be of one mind with Georhe W. Bush and Condeleeza Rice when it comes to policy towards Latin America - but in a few short weeks - American foreign policy will be set by Barack Obama and his raft of appointees etc... Somehow I find it very hard to imagine that Canada is suddenly going to take a hardline neo-con policy towards Latin America at precisely the same time as the US is moving in the opposite direction.

ghoris

quote:


Originally posted by 1948:
[b]David Kilgour.
Denis Paradis.[/b]

Ding! Ding! Ding! [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Can anyone name the third?

penumbra

holy shit.

that campaign video looks more like something you'd expect to be shown after his death.

Max Bialystock

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
The Harper government MIGHT be of one mind with Georhe W. Bush and Condeleeza Rice when it comes to policy towards Latin America - but in a few short weeks - American foreign policy will be set by Barack Obama and his raft of appointees etc... Somehow I find it very hard to imagine that Canada is suddenly going to take a hardline neo-con policy towards Latin America at precisely the same time as the US is moving in the opposite direction.

Why do you assume Latin America policy is going to change under Obama?

Max Bialystock

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
Would you have preferred him to be Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Middle East)??

No but I bet voters in Thornhill would have preferred that (since that was the only reason he won there in the first place)?

Stockholm

we have no way of knowing that.

BTW: You must be very disappointed that Obama won an estimated 79% of the Jewish vote yesterday. i know you were hoping they would vote for McCain.

Michelle

Quit trolling, Stockholm.

Max Bialystock

I'll take the bait.

quote:

Originally posted by Stockholm:
we have no way of knowing that.

Given that

1) Harper is seen as the most pro-Israel PM ever
and is a big hero among so-called Jewish leaders
and
2) The Conservatives went from an 11,000 vote loss to a 5,000 margin of victory in that riding

it certainly played a role.

quote:

BTW: You must be very disappointed that Obama won an estimated 79% of the Jewish vote yesterday. i know you were hoping they would vote for McCain.[/QB]

No I was hoping they (and American non-Jews) voted for Nader or McKinney...but it didn't happen.

Anyway given the Democrats are so rightwing and pro-Israel, there's no need for a switch among so-called pro-Israel voters. Not the case in Canada though where they are now clearly Tory. What do you make of that?

Stockholm

I would argue that the Liberals in Canada are every bit as pro-Israel as the Tories 9with the NDP not far behind), so there is no reason for anyone to switch their vote on that issue in Canada either.

Thornhill is one of the wealthiest ridings in Canada and it was no different from other "905" ridings in recording a major swing away from the Liberals and their weak leaders and their extremely unpopular carbon tax.

It probably didn't hurt that the Liberal incumbent in Thornhill was a low profile non-entity while Peter Kent was a big name.

Lord Palmerston

I think there is a difference in terms of a perception - Harper is a great hero to rightwing Zionists who think Israel can do no wrong and they were ecstatic about his support for Israel's attack on Lebanon. I'm certain that won him support in some quarters of the Jewish community. Peter Kent also was as noted earlier, "touched by the hand of Asper." I don't think Max is correct to sugge