Clear Full Forecast

The Written Word - September 18th

By Rafe Mair

Thursday, September 18, 2008 03:45 AM

Former Speaker of the American House of Representatives once said, “All politics is local”. This is a widely quoted aphorism but I wonder how accurate it is?
 
Perhaps it just doesn’t say enough and implies too much. Maybe the real story is that voters make their judgments based on the party leader and for he/she to get votes he/she must be sensitive to local issues.
 
The sad part is that the media can kill a politician on non issues over matters the public wouldn’t pay any attention to if the media hadn’t rubbed its nose in it.
 
Bloc Quebec leader Gilles Duceppe, a few years ago, went into a meat processing plant and as was the rule, put a hair net on. The media splashed pictures of this rather absurd spectacle across the country and Duceppe was nearly ruined.
 
Stockwell Day went to a press conference on a beach in his wet suit and that picture flashed across the nation and contributed mightily to Day’s loss of leadership.
 
Back in the 70s, Robert Stanfield, “the best Prime Minister Canada never had”, came to BC and tucked his trousers into his cowboy boots and was greatly mocked for it. Stanfield barely lost the election to Pierre Trudeau who, for some reason, could do the most outrageous capers and the media and the public lapped it up.
 
I concede O’Neill’s point only to the extent that while all politics is local, and national candidates must know that, the real test in Canadian politics is which leader do you prefer?
 
Always bearing in mind Mair’s Axiom II that in politics you don’t need to be a 10, you can be a 3 if everyone else is a 2, so far because Harper looks more prime ministerial – perhaps 4 in a sea of 2s and because of that, he will win.
 

Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

I certainly hope you are wrong. I give the Canadian public much more credit for knowing the issues that concern them rather than what a person looks like.

Conservatives have made a few errors, however, they have done so with the best of intentions. Supporting the troops is a big one for me. I wish the Liberals had never agreed to send troops to Afganistan but once we did, you must give them total support.

I like the fact that they have tried to attach crime. They have not joined in the call to ban guns. ( How foolish, it's already illegal to carry a handgun without a permit. Do you think these gang members care. )

Yes, they have cut funding to some projects but overall, funding has gone up. What they did was to take a hard look at what was working and what was not. I call it taking care of my dollar.
Don
It is illegal to carry a handgun in Canada unless you are part of law enforcement.
No such thing as a permit to carry here for regular Joe's.
In fact if you want to own one you must be a member of a gun club, etc, etc, etc.
Rafe, you're hilarious. During the liberal leadership race Rafe was a huge supporter of Dion for the leadership, as the leader for Canada... and now Rafe is saying the guy he picked (Dion) is a 2, along with the others, and Harper is a 4, and therefor Harper and the conservatives will win? I'm left wondering when did Rafe become a conservative convert from a Dion liberal?

The guy (Dion) that Rafe picked to lead the liberals is now so bad that not only is Rafe bailing on Dion, but Rafe is blaming it on the media... of which he is a part. I think that is all legit reasoning, but its kind of weak for a political commentators point of view.

That said I still think Gilles Duceppe is the best leader of the bunch, and that Jack Layton is the most blessed with luck of timing on his side. I think Harper is very smart about semantics, but ignorant of perspectives. The combination gives a perception of a good leader, but in reality a leader blinded by ideological rigidity that has a hidden cost.

IMO Canadians do not elect based on media abuse of images otherwise Chretien never would have been PM. I do however agree that Canadian media can be ideological in their coverage with a disingenuous slant designed to create reality... rather than report on it.