From: hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:28:44 GMT

In article <schuck.726354901@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:

>hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus) writes:
>>In article <schuck.726278884@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>>I disagree. Remember what it did for Perrin Beatty.
>>>Nothing but trouble. 
>>>Big squabble over submarines. Overruns on ship contracts.
>>>The Peace groups always want less money spent. 
>>>The big bucks end up going to US defence corporations like for the F-18.
>>>If you agree with the US , then you are nothing but a US toadie, and
>>>if you disagree, the Yanks dump on you.
>>>
>>>Defence Minister is a stepping stone to obscurity.
>>>
>>>Justice Minister, on the other hand , brought Trudeau into the limelight.
>>>
>>>Bye bye Kim.
>>>
>>>
>
>>Well, I guess just to get my 2 cents in, I in turn disagree.  Her
>>Defence post is the combination of Defence + Vet Affairs (which
>>can be played up as a promotion); Mulroney has been suggesting that
>>Canada, the US, France, [some other country I forget], and the
>>Organization of American States use military intervention in Haiti
>>which would put Campbell in the spotlight
>
>Military intervention in Haiti? 
>
>What a wonderful opportunity to really step in a pile of shit.
>Not the kind of spotlight a leadership candidate wants.
>Junior partner in a military intervention where success depends on the
>senior partners and 100's of chances to screw up.

What this would do is, hopefully for Campbell, make her come across as
strong, helping people depose a dictatorship and return a democratic
form of government (if we listened to the NDP fear-mongering in the
case of Kuwait where would we be now?).  Besides, this would still
rely on getting the Americans involved, not likely when they (and we) are still
in Somalia.
As for it hurting her as a leadership candidate, what Conservative do
you honestly will speak out loudly against such an action?  And even
if one does, do you suspect that he would sway enough other
Conservatives to really hurt Campbell?


>
>> (not to mention that
>>Mulroney is apparently the top candidate to fill the position at the
>>head of the OAS); and making Campbell Defence Minister (and the
>>*first* female one) will make her appear strong (as compared to guess
>>what other leader?).
>
>Mulroney as head of the OAS? Don't they have enough trouble?
>

That's another debate all together.  The point here is that *if*
Mulroney is going to step down and go for the OAS position, he will
want to bring up what was discussed above quite a bit.  This will put
Campbell in the spotlight.

>>Besides, Campbell comes across as the "new generation" problem
>>solving candidate, the Conservatives are well advised to follow Bill
>>Clinton's path for the Canadian election.
>
>What problems has Kim Campbell solved? 
>
The point here is Campbell's image as compared to the other leaders.
She is not a conservative "ideologue" (which killed the Republicans,
kept talking about "family values" instead of the issues).  She comes
across as a new generation candidate replacing the "old guard," unlike
Chretien.  That is, she comes across as having fresh new ideas, what
she has done in the past is not entirely relevant (though her handling
of "rape shield" appeared to really only upset the far-left, which
will hardly hurt her). 

It appears to me that by you discussing her is just reiteration
that she *has* been thrust
into the spotlight.  And given that *if* Mulroney is going to step
down in all likelihood it will be done by the end of the month it
appears that
the Conservatives are succeeding quite well at getting people's
attention focussed on Campbell.

Peter Hanus


Newsgroups: can.politics