One of these three has balls: Tommy Boy, Junior, or Hillary. And the winner is - Hillary!
Even though her duel at the ballot box isn't until November of next year, Democratic presidential frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, has wasted no time in serving notice that the fight against climate change will be front and center in her campaign.
In fact, Hillary's is the first ever presidential campaign to make combating climate change a core issue.
Our boys, Mulcair and Trudeau, get to strut their stuff this year and, like the wee geldings they are, climate change seems to be something they're not too keen to talk about. Oh Canada, indeed.
That's campaign bullshit.
Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau have any sort of vision for Canada other than Trust me.
I'm not sure which way to take your comment, Dana.
She's staked out her position and Hillary knows full well that she'll be fighting not only the fossil fuelers but every billionaire in the US (perhaps excluding Tom Steyer and Bloomberg).
No she won't. Seriously, if she's saying that in public at this early date, anyone who thinks for five seconds must be aware that she has certainly taken very careful, pro-active measures to ensure it doesn't impact her fundraising from billionaires. I'm sure she's had meetings with anyone relevant to reassure them that whatever kind of environmental "change you can believe in" she might peddle to the public, she won't actually rock any profitable boats.
Much as Obama clearly, before his initial election, had reassured his backers that under no circumstances should they be "believing" that any "change" would be coming should he be elected.
Really, Mound, this seems amazingly naive. Mrs. Clinton is an establishment candidate from head to toe; she's just a candidate whose image revolves around talking tough.
The only political candidates I believe any more, from anywhere, are the crazy ones who spew the outrageous.
All the rest are focus grouped and triangulated so far up their own asses you can see their noses when they open their mouths.
It's cognitively dissonant to say the whole system is broken and then to plump for one of the breakers.
I'm not going to get into whether you or PLG are correct here, I haven't been paying as much attention to the American side as of late thanks to the need to stay focused on dealing with the domestic threat from Harper for the next election. All I will say is if there is any politician with balls in the US it is clearly Hilliary given all she has fought against and become despite that right wing conspiracy against her husband and her (which she clearly was not being paranoid about as later evidence most clearly showed). I mean this is a First Lady who went into a State she had only lived in for a month, launched a campaign for the Senate seat against a very popular GOP figure, and was beating him (Good old Guilianni) before he left for "medical reasons", and won that seat in 2000. She ran and won it the second time by a landslide. She just missed becoming the Dem nominee in 2008, and was able to work with the winner in his first term as his Sec of State. You can say many things about Hilliary, but that she lacks balls, courage, and conviction, nope. Disagree with her if you like, but never disparage her courage given all she has had to fight against to get where she is in the world of American politics.
I think your assessment is on the mark, Scotian. However this post was really intended to use Hillary as a foil for taking the measure of our supposed opposition leaders.
Okay, they can say it too and it'll be almost as meaningless.
Tom has a far better record on Climate change then Hillary or Trudeau. Under Tom's leadership Quebec was the only place at the time that went down in carbon levels when he was Minister of the Enviroment, he increased Enviromental Inspections, and Changed the Constitution of Quebec in favour of the Enviroment.
Tom has voice his support for a massive national cap and trade program in the face of Tory ads. Tom has fought hard against Climate Change and the enviroment as a whole.
I no offense but I'll take Tom Mulcair's concrete record over simple opinion any day of the week.
Of course you will Gyor, you are a confirmed NDP partisan, you've made that bluntly clear on multiple occasions. Which is why I give your opinions all the weight I give to any hard core partisans of any party/leader. I don't mind you cheer-leading your side, I just mind it when you try to do so AND try to act like you are being reasonable and objective while doing so. Whenever any partisan does that it tends to raise my hackles, always has, for many decades now, and it doesn't matter the focus of the partisanship for me.
BTW, I find this use of first names so freely by certain political types in how they refer to their party leaders and politicians they do not personally have a relationship with more than a little uncomfortable. This Tom this and Tom that while calling the others by their last names, it seems like you are portraying your own personal relationship with him, this is another trait I notice political partisans of all flavours exhibit, it is actually one of the markers I look for to see whether I should consider that person a partisan or not.
Fair enough, and a valid one. I understand to an extent the caution on the Lib side because of what happened with Dion and the "Green Shift" approach. I do not think this Liberal team intends on giving Harper any more easy wedges than it must, at least before the election campaign proper is under weigh because of what they saw happen when they went policy heavy early and on this very issue.
I agree times have changed somewhat, but I doubt that would stop the inhabitants of Bullshit Mountain from doing all they could to repeat that formula. I am hoping there is a policy to come as we get closer to the election, and one that is thought out, but I agree your critique at this stage is a fair critique. As for the Mulcair boosterism from some, the problem is that "Tom" has never actually done much of anything on his own initiative in this area, he worked for a Premier when I last checked when he is given all this credit for his work as Minister. I've give him some fair credit because he was a Minister doing real work unlike our CPC ones generally, but that is still work done at the direction of a superior, not because it represents only his own policy views, and I find the blurring of the two to make him seem like he has the best cred a bit suspect.
To be honest the only party leader I have any real faith in on this issue is your favourite, as I have said under other circumstances I would be likely joing you for supporting the Greens under May this time out, but as I have also noted I have an "at all costs" POV about Harper which takes precedence over my normal political practices. She is the only true leader on this issue in my books, and our closest to Clinton for courage on it too.
Hi Mound, Hillary can say it, I am not so sure she will practice it.
Pamela, better a candidate that makes it an issue, campaigns on it, than several who won't. Do you think the others are any more likely to act? I don't. I think Mulcair and Trudeau are willing to throw coastal British Columbians to the dogs rather than risk losing their already highly doubtful support in Alberta. Look how both of them folded so disgracefully over Gaza (albeit Mulcair eventually discovered which way the winds were blowing).
Two to 4 C global warming will be of net benefit* to Canada. Inconvenient truth, eh?
*as long as other nations will not go bonkers fighting over water and land
A..non. Be sure to tell everyone along the Atlantic, Pacific or Arctic coastline how much better off they'll be. But, when you do, be prepared to hightail it to safety.
You seem to have fallen into the trap of imagining 2C or 4C. That's only this century. The emissions that drove that warming will continue into the next century accompanied by whatever natural feedback loops are triggered such as the loss of the tundra and permafrost.
Sorry, Chum, but if you think 4C is going to be a net benefit to Canada, you're in a fog.
The only fight Hillary is going to bring to climate change is amongst her legions of lobbyists to run the cap and trade program. My money is on Goldman Sachs.
Post a Comment