d_rawk Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Discussion piece. From today's National Post May's delusions of grandeurThe morning after Tuesday's election, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May told CBC News that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should step down as Conservative leader because he will never be able to lead his party to a majority. Meanwhile, Ms. May opined, she is playing a valuable role in federal politics -- because she is raising fresh issues, and because several people approached her during the campaign and said they had never voted before, but intended to do so this time around because of her and her party.The remark epitomized the delusional lens through which Ms. May views herself. The only leader in the televised debates unable to win her own seat -- who heads a party that has never even come close to electing a single MP -- was suggesting that a man who's twice been elected prime minister should step aside because he's a failure. That's rich.We are all complicit in Ms. May's narcissistic fantasy: Editors and reporters at many national news outlets have given fawning deference to her every utterance. This election was a reality check: Ms. May is, at best, the leader of a fringe protest party. And it is time she was treated that way.There have been parallels drawn between the Reform party under Preston Manning and Ms. May's Greens. It's true that Mr. Manning and then-Bloc Quebecois leader Lucien Bouchard were both invited to participate in the 1993 leaders' debates when neither had any seats in the Commons. But in the election that followed, both parties proved their legitimacy, Reform by electing 52 members and the Bloc by becoming official opposition with 54. Ms. May was given a similar chance this time -- and she failed. The better comparison for her party would be to Mel Hurtig's National party, which also popped up in the 1993 campaign. Like the Greens, the Nationals had an articulate leader admired by the media. Its followers were disproportionately well-heeled and well-educated and possessed of out-sized opinions of their own worth. But the National party proved themselves irrelevant -- except to drain votes from other opposition parties --just as the Greens have done now.Yes, the Greens raised their popular vote by nearly 300,000 this time, but that was only after they had been largely financed by taxpayers during the past two years. Since the last election, the Greens have collected more than $2-million in allowances from Elections Canada. Yet they still won no seats. Many of their 300,000 new voters came from the disorganized Liberals, and will drift back to the Grits once they turf Stephane Dion.In the campaign's final days, Ms. May shamelessly shilled for the Liberals, pleading with voters to cast ballots for Mr. Dion's party if that would stop the Conservatives from being re-elected. She turned her party into a false front for a competitor, in other words. It was a disgraceful move, one that made fools of all those (such as this editorial board) who argued she should be admitted to the televised debates.Whenever the next election is, Ms. May may be comfortably excluded from the debates. Moreover, her party is an advertisement for changing the funding criteria contained in our campaign-finance laws:No party that cannot win a single riding should receive a dime from Ottawa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 wow, someone pissed in the national post's cornflakes this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted October 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 wow, someone pissed in the national post's cornflakes this morning. Heh, I think they just have 'cranky' as their default setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaggyBalls Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 Yet about 10% of all Canadians voted Green.If we had Proportionate representation we would see a much fairer Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted October 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 Yeah, there is much in the article that I disagree with - and some that I agree with. In the spirit of previous 'discussion pieces', I wanted to restrain myself and not lead the conversation by the nose.Yet about 10% of all Canadians voted Green.If we had Proportionate representation we would see a much fairer Government. Can't argue with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaggyBalls Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 You probably could. You just don't want to.Which I am thankful for. I haven't noticed you really really arguing with me. Just being nice or am I smarter than I give myself credit for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted October 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 Maybe I've just developed a reputation as being argumentative? Occasionally I don't quite get what you are saying (you can run miles and miles with an analogy or a metaphor), but when I understand what you are saying, I just rarely find myself in disagreement. It's probably been 4 or 5 years since we've been out for breakfast. We should do that sometime, if you are back in Ontario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaggyBalls Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 that's sweet, D! I'd for sure go on a date with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts