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 21:33:47 GMT

In article <schuck.726433074@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus) writes:
>
>>In article <schuck.726354901@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>
>>>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?). 
>
>Thats all well and good if it's successful and unambiguous,
>but don't forget the effect the Desert Storm victory had on George
>Bush's reelection -- nothing!

I don't think the point is whether or not Kim Campbell will win the
next election, but whether the Conservatives are setting her up as
their next leader.  As I noted later in my last reply, the Republicans
came across as ideologues with "family values," etc.  when people were
asking for a "problem solving" approach.  Left and right wing is
starting to become a mute point (which is what is killing the NDP).
The Republicans lost because they didn't understand this and wouldn't
deal with the problems as the people saw them, they just created their
own to attack.  



>
>>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?
>
>The leadership candidates don't have to say anything if she screws up,
>and if doesn't, all they say is that it had nothing to do with her,
>and was all the US's success.
>

What difference does that make as long as she supported it?  Any
Conservative candidate that would say "it was all the US's success"
and belittled Canada's role would not get very far in the Conservative Party.


>Since when has Defence Minister been stepping stone to *anything* in
>Canadian politics?

Since the United Nation's has taken on a new "interventionist" role.
By looking to the past for examples to compare to a very different
present state of affairs is not valid.

>
>>>
>>>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). 
>
>Fresh new ideas? Name one. Ministers are not *allowed* to have 'fresh
>new ideas. Outsiders like Clinton and Gore can.
>
>Kim Campbell is just like any other Mulroney minister, she has no
>policies of her own because you aren't allowed to have any.
>

The original question at hand was whether Campbell is being promoted
(in both senses of the word) or demoted.

I believe now that you are expressing your own opinion of Campbell
instead of the image that is being attempted to be portrayed of her.  What
Campbell has going for her is her age, that she is from Western Canada
(Which will probably become the major battle ground for the major
parties in the next election) and she "appears" new
compared to the other major candidate (Chretien, is he an outsider?).  

Campbell comes from a new generation in the demographic sense and she
is not an ideologue, nor can she be held accountable for all Mulroney
has done.  She was Justice Minister before and defence Minister now,
and you quite correctly say because of her position she was unable to
say anything original.  But as a candidate and as leader she could,
and don't be surprised if it's a lot like what Bill Clinton was saying.
That's if Mulroney actually steps down.

Peter Hanus