Agree on most counts, especially about Poilievre pivoting too late. Had he gradually evolved from attack dog convoy-supporting sloganeer to the guy we saw in the debates it would have made for a difficult choice for the undecided. But it was too little, too late.
As for Carney, I agree that his mistakes weren't fatal. His best quality was his calm demeanor in light of his relative inexperience politically. He could easily have gotten rattled but didn't.
I disagree with minimizing the question of Poilievre’s security clearance. It is still unclear why he won't either get it or at least provide a better explanation than what he's been giving. The argument trotted out that he had one while in Cabinet so no big deal doesn't wash. That was ages ago now so what has happened in the intervening years that has him so gun-shy? It is an important question and a relatively simple process to get one and yet he refuses with no logical explanation. Voters are left with little choice but to think something smells here. In such a close election, wouldn't you want to put that issue to bed quickly? We're supposed to vote for a candidate for Prime Minister who refuses to get a security clearance in a time of crisis for our country? That could have been (could be?) the difference between winning or losing the election.
Finally, while you didn't mention it, the Rebel News fiasco was definitely a debate failure even though it technically wasn't part of the debate. And Poilievre’s loose association with that group is not a good look. I have written to the Commission as well as all four parties to voice my dismay at this situation and will be interested to see what replies I get.
Having said all that, I think your analysis hits most of the right notes.
The security clearance question has been asked and answered. It's OK if you don't like the answer.
Q. What have the other leaders done with the information in the NSICOP report that Poilievre hasn't done without it?
A. Nothing. With full access to the Foreign Interference information, Carney still stood by an MP who suggested a Canadian citizen be kidnapped and sold to Chinese agents. No advantage there. But, none of them can talk about it. Maybe that's why Carney refused to act on Chiang.
Q. What has Poilievre been doing since he was last a cabinet minister?
A. According to his most vocal critics, he's done nothing but be an opposition politician in the public eye 24/7. Hard to imagine how he'd have sold his soull to the devil while we all watched. Regardless, he remains a member of the King's Privy Council (which makes him privy to privileged information) and hasn't been removed.
We will agree to disagree on the security clearance issue.
I agree totally that the Liberals dropped the ball on Chiang, but he is gone now. Also, since you went there, how about all the Conservative candidates who have dropped out due to various serious issues, stances, actions etc? Mark, neither of us benefits from ''what about arguments'' so let's not do this anymore.
Obviously, we all know what he's been doing publicly. How do you know what he's been doing privately? I actually believe there's nothing more to it than he backed himself into a corner and then figures it will make him look weak if he suddenly changes course. If he's done nothing and it is just his foolish pride that stops him, Canadians deserve a better response from a potential Prime Minister. By the way, there's a certain someone down south who sold his soul to the devil while we all watched and look at the havoc he is wreaking. Why do you think most Canadians want Poilievre to come clean on this issue (as per polling)? It should be so easy for him to address it.
Nonetheless, I still enjoyed your original post and the ensuing debate we've had.
Agree on most counts, especially about Poilievre pivoting too late. Had he gradually evolved from attack dog convoy-supporting sloganeer to the guy we saw in the debates it would have made for a difficult choice for the undecided. But it was too little, too late.
As for Carney, I agree that his mistakes weren't fatal. His best quality was his calm demeanor in light of his relative inexperience politically. He could easily have gotten rattled but didn't.
I disagree with minimizing the question of Poilievre’s security clearance. It is still unclear why he won't either get it or at least provide a better explanation than what he's been giving. The argument trotted out that he had one while in Cabinet so no big deal doesn't wash. That was ages ago now so what has happened in the intervening years that has him so gun-shy? It is an important question and a relatively simple process to get one and yet he refuses with no logical explanation. Voters are left with little choice but to think something smells here. In such a close election, wouldn't you want to put that issue to bed quickly? We're supposed to vote for a candidate for Prime Minister who refuses to get a security clearance in a time of crisis for our country? That could have been (could be?) the difference between winning or losing the election.
Finally, while you didn't mention it, the Rebel News fiasco was definitely a debate failure even though it technically wasn't part of the debate. And Poilievre’s loose association with that group is not a good look. I have written to the Commission as well as all four parties to voice my dismay at this situation and will be interested to see what replies I get.
Having said all that, I think your analysis hits most of the right notes.
Thanks.
The security clearance question has been asked and answered. It's OK if you don't like the answer.
Q. What have the other leaders done with the information in the NSICOP report that Poilievre hasn't done without it?
A. Nothing. With full access to the Foreign Interference information, Carney still stood by an MP who suggested a Canadian citizen be kidnapped and sold to Chinese agents. No advantage there. But, none of them can talk about it. Maybe that's why Carney refused to act on Chiang.
Q. What has Poilievre been doing since he was last a cabinet minister?
A. According to his most vocal critics, he's done nothing but be an opposition politician in the public eye 24/7. Hard to imagine how he'd have sold his soull to the devil while we all watched. Regardless, he remains a member of the King's Privy Council (which makes him privy to privileged information) and hasn't been removed.
We will agree to disagree on the security clearance issue.
I agree totally that the Liberals dropped the ball on Chiang, but he is gone now. Also, since you went there, how about all the Conservative candidates who have dropped out due to various serious issues, stances, actions etc? Mark, neither of us benefits from ''what about arguments'' so let's not do this anymore.
Obviously, we all know what he's been doing publicly. How do you know what he's been doing privately? I actually believe there's nothing more to it than he backed himself into a corner and then figures it will make him look weak if he suddenly changes course. If he's done nothing and it is just his foolish pride that stops him, Canadians deserve a better response from a potential Prime Minister. By the way, there's a certain someone down south who sold his soul to the devil while we all watched and look at the havoc he is wreaking. Why do you think most Canadians want Poilievre to come clean on this issue (as per polling)? It should be so easy for him to address it.
Nonetheless, I still enjoyed your original post and the ensuing debate we've had.
Look forward to your next post.