Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Sydney Sharpe and Don Braid's new book on the Reform Party
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: ca,usa
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:06:35 GMT

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.205104.21087@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr5.011849.18558@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes...
>>>>Sheila Copps was totally out to lunch when she compared Manning to David
>>>>Duke.
>> [ ... ]
>>Ms Copps was simply stooping to demagoguery in making this comparison. She
>>doesn't like Manning's vision, but she is too lazy or slimey to debate
>>this vision. Indeed, as I said in an earlier post, a number of her fellow
>>Liberals distanced themselves from her remarks. That should also tell an
>>objective person something.
>> [ ... ]
>>                                                              Most
>>accusations amount to as much substance as Copps' ravings.
>
>Jim, just why do you consider Copps statements so significant that you
>keep coming back to them again and again?  Even though Manning makes
>me nervous, I do realize that she was just running off at the mouth
>that time, and don't give much weight to that sort of rhetoric.

I am sorry if I have been harping on this too much. But, it does annoy me
that a person of *national prominence* could make such a serious accusation
and then proceed to not substantiate it. Perhaps you do realize that what
she said should be taken with a large grain of salt, Rheal, but many others
don't, as evidenced by repetition of her line in this and the can.*
newsgroups. Perhaps I am being naive, but I consider it below-the-belt
politics to paint someone as a racist for partisan benefit. And without any
evidence, I must assume Copps' statements were the result of partisan
politics.

>This is why I like this thread - there's been too many unsupported
>statements about Manning and the Reform Party from both sides, so any
>serious discussion of the man, the party, and the effect they are
>likely to have is essential.

Agreed.

>I just wish we'd all given Mulroney this much scrutiny...  (In fact,
>Manning may in part be paying the price for the cynicism Mulroney has
>bred in so many of us.  Then again, he's also benefitting from the
>disgust with the current government...)

Agreed.

>Just for the record, I strongly disagree with many Reform policies, yet
>I welcome their presence on the political scene - the more voices are
>heard, the better.  (And the harder it is for someone to get a majority
>government with 40% of the vote, and thus rule unopposed for 4-5 years,
>the better also.  Let's all hear it for proportional representation!)
>Unfortunately, though, whatever may be said now, we won't know till
>it's too late just what Reform and Manning would do if they get power.
>They might reveal a hidden agenda, just as some of their critics
>allege, or fail to meet the expectations of their supporters...

Agreed. It is indeed possible that the RP have a hidden agenda. [NB the PCs
were accused of the same thing in 84] That is partly why I have stated in
the past that I would *not* want them to form a government after the next
election. The other reason is that a government of first time
Parliamentarians would be suicide for the country, regardless of political
stripe. What I would like is for the RP to elect about 20-30 MPs and then I
would be able to watch them perform and evaluate them. It is my hope that
this small group of RP MPs would act as the fiscal conscience of Canada in
the same manner that the NDP has acted as this country's social
conscience.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdivax1.mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17347 rec.sport.hockey:9205