HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:57:54 GMT

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!

>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.

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

>>
>>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.




Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:52:31 GMT

Yesterday, I heard a rumour that Jean Chretien would step down because of
his health within the next little while. Is there any credence to that? If
he steps down and MUlroney steps down, the elction is wide open. Audrey does
not have a chance - Bob Rae killed it for her.
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 09:22:29 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: can
Organization: Thibault & Friends

Gentlefolk,

        I know this is probably just a waste of time, but somebody
        needs to tell the people in this thread that most of us don't
        look past the first or second screen of quoting before hitting
        the 'n' key. You may be having an interesting discussion,
        but you may as well save us all bandwidth and take it to
        private email.

        There are thousands of people reading this group; think of
        yourselves as on a stage in front of the biggest auditorium
        you have ever seen. We're all paying close attention to
        everything you say.

        It's your turn to say something that will not only make your
        point, but impress the bejeezus out of an international
        audience hanging on your every word. Don't blow it.

        Cheers,

                Marc

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Reform Health Care Now!
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:47:31 GMT

-- 
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bspencer@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian SPENCER)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:54:55 GMT

In article <schuck.726259754@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>What do you think of the Cabinet Shuffle?
>
>I think it was a thinly veiled attack on Kim Campbell, because of all
>the media attention showered on her lately.
>
>I think Brian has someone else in mind for his successor, 
>and shuffling Campbell off to defence will keep her out of the limelight.
>
>
Not likely with Canadian troops in Somalia

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The next federal election
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:48:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.035022.17815@thinkage.on.ca> dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>A Mulroney or a Chretien minority is what is desirable...it forces
>>the hands of the major parties to replace their leaders sooner than
>>later...a Chretien majority freezes all the current crud in place.
>
>I don't think McLaughlin's fate is terribly dependent upon the degree of
>success of any other particular party -- becoming the official opposition
>would probably constitute a major success for the NDP.
>Mulroney will be gone soon enough whatever happens (so everyone seems to
>think).

I sort of think McLaughlin's fate has already been determined...

>A broadly based Liberal minority (i.e., with good representation from all
>parts of the country) would probably keep Chretien around for the next
>election (especially if the economy recovers in 93 and 94).
>

If Chretien cannot win a majority, I don't think the Liberals will keep
him for very long, especially if he leads the minority governmnet...
which is why I advocate an anything but Liberal strategy.

>The Liberals currently have good numbers outside Quebec (for a 4 way race),
>and if Quebec jumps on the winner's bandwagon as usual the Liberals could end
>up with a major landslide.  This would cause a major housecleaning amongst
>all the other parties.
>

However it fails to houseclean the party that becomes the government...
and we get stuck with a dinosaur for five years.

>In conclusion, I don't think things are nearly so cleanly cut as you imply.
>
>For me, the next election is going to require an awful lot of homework.

Things are pretty cleanly cut...we seem headed to a Liberal majority,
and I am trying to convince you why that is a terrible result, and why
we should strategically vote to deny that possibility.

The Canadian political system won't be renewed if we go and install
the Chretien and his handlers as the next government...

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:17:47 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: A vote for Reform is a vote for the Tories

Subject line speaks for itself. People voting Reform as a protest could end up
with a Tory/Reform majority government if the Tories are able to recover even
modestly in the polls.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:49:48 GMT

The statement was made that the Tories were too despised to get re-elected.

I beg to disagree. It is Mulroney who is too hated to get re-elected. If the
Tories had bad economic policy why would Wilson, Mazankowski, and Clarke
have great reputations in other countries? Quite frankly, we are in danger
of throwing out the "baby with the bathwater" as the policies were good but
the leader has been shown to be wanting.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The next federal election
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:20:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.060248.22447@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.043803.4113@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>Mulroney will be leaving soon one way or another, whether he wins or
>>loses...even in the scenario of a slim Mulroney majority, which is
>>considered an impossible scenario, he would only likely stay on for
>>a couple of years.
>
>You keep stating this.  Do you have any evidence, or is this just
>speculation on your part?
>

Mulroney is NOT planning on a 4th term, and thus there is no way he
would so restrict the timetable for a successor by staying more than
two years, if the impossible happened.  Mulroney was planning for
a third term, and thus he stayed to the bitter end this time...if reelected,
he would undoubtedly soon begin positioning himself for a new job
somewhere.

>Certainly, I do find it hard to understand why Mulroney would quit after
>a victory, when he refuses to quit now, facing almost certain defeat.
>(Well, I can see a reason - his ego, which refuses to accept defeat.
>But it is precisely his ego that I find so dangerous in the man!  And
>would his ego really allow him to abandon power?)
>

I did not say he would quit, I said he would probably govern for half
a term, two more years...but that is preferable to giving Chretien
five more years...and has the side benefit of a new leader for
both the Tories and the Liberals, and an election fought on issues,
and not the say-nothing-do-nothing-Chretien.  Chretien will fail
miserably as PM...he is still living in the sixties...2 more years
of Mulroney is a lesser poison than a disastrous Chretien majority.

A Mulroney or a Chretien minority is what is desirable...it forces
the hands of the major parties to replace their leaders sooner than
later...a Chretien majority freezes all the current crud in place.

We need a sequence of two elections over the next three years to
renew our political system.

>Mulroney must go.  To me, that is the one certainty in the cloudy
>political scene today.  (Just as the time came when Trudeau had to go -
>and I was a supporter of Trudeau.)
>

Don't be so focussed on the past that you don't consider the future.

Chretien has zero credibility in Quebec and Bourassa has cancer.

Consider the full range of options...if you can't bear voting Tory,
consider the other alternatives rather than the Liberals...

...our problems are too serious to vote just to throw somebody out
without consideration of who we are putting in.


Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:52:30 GMT

Kim Campbell would be a disaster as a leader - she does not have a value
system which would make her positive towards family or give her true
Christian sense as to what is right or wrong. Therefore if she is being
shuffled out (which I don't think is true) it would be quite positive for
the future of Canada.
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A vote for Reform is a vote for the Tories
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:31:32 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:

> 
> So what. The NDP are communists. The Liberals are big government spenders.
> 


Anyone who can't distinguish moderate social democrats from communists
isn't likely to inspire confidence in anything else he says, either.


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A vote for Reform is a vote for the Tories
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 17:23:18 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:

> In article <0m78wB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> 
> I brilliantly write:
> >> So what. The NDP are communists. The Liberals are big government spenders.
> 
> >Anyone who can't distinguish moderate social democrats from communists
> >isn't likely to inspire confidence in anything else he says, either.
> 
> Anybody who can't take a little hyberbole and who's idealogy is offended
> so easily lacks confidence in himself.
> 


Exaggeration is one thing. Blatant misrepresentation is another. You 
stand condemned out of your own mouth as a liar.


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:11:07 GMT

In article <schuck.726278884@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>In article <schuck.726259754@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>>What do you think of the Cabinet Shuffle?
>>>
>>>I think it was a thinly veiled attack on Kim Campbell, because of all
>>>the media attention showered on her lately.
>>>
>>>I think Brian has someone else in mind for his successor, 
>>>and shuffling Campbell off to defence will keep her out of the limelight.
>>>
>
>>This is actually a positioning by Mulroney of Campbell for the
>>leadership.  She'd done almost everything that she could do at
>>as Justice Minister, and the things left to do are somewhat
>>controversial in the PC party.  Defense, on the other hand, has
>>the biggest budget of any department, which gives her experience,
>>managing a huge department...it has enormous amounts of pork,
>>which Campbell can distribute, and it involves a lot of foreign
>>and domestic travel, speaking and getting to know and letting
>>them know her, whole new groups of people.  Plus, it gets her
>>feet wet in foreign policy, and with Somalia, Bosnia, etc., it
>>will have a higher profile than usual.
>
>>Technically, Defense may be slightly less prestigious than Justice,
>>but even if Mulroney doesn't quit, Campbell will gain much by
>>being Defense Minister.  
>
>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 (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?).

Besides, Campbell comes accross as the "new generation" problem
solving candidate, the Conservatives are well advised to follow Bill
Clinton's path for the Canadian election.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:59:57 GMT

In article <schuck.726453463@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>>Brian Mulroney is "too detested to get re-elected."  If he steps down,
>>the whole ball game changes rather a lot.
>
>I disagree. I think it's going to be just like John Turner and
>Trudeau. Trudeau left way too late for Turner to put a stamp of his
>own on the PM's office and differentiate himself from the equally 
>detested Trudeau.

Immediately after the leadership race Turner was ahead of Mulroney in
the polls, Turner got killed with patronage appointments he made for
Trudeau.  It is not likely that the Conservatives would pull off a
similar blunder given how recent in the past this one was.

>
>An election has to be held by October, and by the time a leadership
>convention is held it will be toooo late.

This is missing the main point that the best things that the
Conservatives got going for them are Jean Chretien and Audrey
MacLaughlin.  Get rid of Mulroney and it's an entirely different
ballgame.  Chretien is "old wares" while the NDP is not viewed as a
valid alternative by most Canadians after the Rae experience.

It's way too early to predict the outcome of an election in
the fall, anything can happen, and something unpredictable probably
will.  To rule out the Conservatives at this stage is quite
presumptuous.  Particularly when the Liberals are fighting amongst
themselves regarding riding appointments in Toronto.  

You are also assuming that because the Mulroney gov't is detested now
(though only half as much as a year ago) that it still will be in the
Fall.  While it is beyond my power to say absolutely that they will or
won't be, an economic upswing could make a lot of difference.  This is
a matter of waiting and seeing.

>
>>There's a theory out there that the only person in Canada capable of
>>getting a MAJORITY government is BM the current PM.  I don't know
>>about that - but I do have this suspicion that none of the major
>>competitors are capable of doing better than a minority government.
>
>If the vote is splite up by the BQ in Quebec and Reform in Alberta,
>the Liberals will only need 38 - 40 % for a majority government.
>
>A 5 way race will make it easier for the Liberals to win. 

That's assuming the Liberals will take most of Ontario.  With Mulroney
gone it becomes a whole other ball game here.




Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:08:04 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>In article <schuck.726259754@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>What do you think of the Cabinet Shuffle?
>>
>>I think it was a thinly veiled attack on Kim Campbell, because of all
>>the media attention showered on her lately.
>>
>>I think Brian has someone else in mind for his successor, 
>>and shuffling Campbell off to defence will keep her out of the limelight.
>>

>This is actually a positioning by Mulroney of Campbell for the
>leadership.  She'd done almost everything that she could do at
>as Justice Minister, and the things left to do are somewhat
>controversial in the PC party.  Defense, on the other hand, has
>the biggest budget of any department, which gives her experience,
>managing a huge department...it has enormous amounts of pork,
>which Campbell can distribute, and it involves a lot of foreign
>and domestic travel, speaking and getting to know and letting
>them know her, whole new groups of people.  Plus, it gets her
>feet wet in foreign policy, and with Somalia, Bosnia, etc., it
>will have a higher profile than usual.

>Technically, Defense may be slightly less prestigious than Justice,
>but even if Mulroney doesn't quit, Campbell will gain much by
>being Defense Minister.  

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.




Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 03:15:08 GMT

In article <93009.1804012893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.213854.16918@julian.uwo.ca>, larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN
>LAROCQUE) says:
>>So what. The NDP are communists. The Liberals are big government spenders.
>
>The NDP are communists? Either you know nothing of the NDP or you don't have
>a clue what communism is!

There has been a recent disagreement on the net as to just what a
"liberal" is.  There are certain contexts in which the term "liberal"
is virtually equivalent to "socialist".  In other contexts, nearly the
exact OPPOSITE is true.

Which means that it is NOT enough to merely say "liberal" - you have
to specify which kind.

On the other hand, socialism and communism have most certainly been
strongly associated over the years, with socialism being considered
(if I remember my "Leninist rhetoric" correctly) the stage in
political development which comes after feudalism and capitalism, and
comes before the state "withers away", that represents the entrance of
"true communism."

I would not personally go so far as to call the NDP a "communist"
party.  In light of the "great popularity" of communism in the world
today, I don't think the NDP would be happy with being called
communists either.

However, based on the policy statement recently posted by Michael Hui,
it is certainly quite clear that the NDP wishes to think of itself as
a proponent of socialism.  They seem to be more of a "unionist" party
than a "socialist" party in general practice, but this may just be an
artifact of the fact that businesspeople, who represent the most
powerful block of non-unionists, tend to stand against both socialism
and unionism.  It makes it very easy for "true socialists" to get
absorbed into the union movement.  The only place with much power that
they can get access to IS the unions.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.theory