狗屁保守党竞选，哪位老大帮忙总结一下?
- 主题发起人 eclipse
- 开始时间
- 注册
- 2011-12-21
- 消息
- 22,670
- 荣誉分数
- 6,774
- 声望点数
- 373
我昨晚看辩论会也是这感觉。。 四个候选人，一个希拉里型，俩川朴型。。也就马龙尼还平稳点。
- 注册
- 2004-12-11
- 消息
- 18,909
- 荣誉分数
- 4,302
- 声望点数
- 373
http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/co...thin-on-alternative-ideas-and-thats-a-problem
The second Ontario Progressive Conservative Party debate, Wednesday night in Ottawa, was a bit more entertaining than the first one. Tanya Granic Allen came out swinging (mostly at Caroline Mulroney), and Doug Ford took some surprising shots at Christine Elliott. The spirit of Patrick Brown loomed large, as the candidates discussed a variety of issues related to the strange saga of the former leader. Althia Raj – the debate’s moderator – added a playful, humorous tone to the evening.
But for all its relative entertainment value, this was a debate that should not have happened, unless of course the intention was to demonstrate beyond any doubt that informed policy is for suckers. Granted, any party not called “Liberal” could probably run a monkey with a hammer right now and it likely would have a decent shot at toppling Premier Kathleen Wynne in June. But what happens when that monkey is given the task of leading a province with an economy larger than most sovereign nations?
Sure, the hammer can smash a lot of things, and the monkey could certainly cause lots of mischief. But does anyone believe that this monkey is going to provide a good alternative to the disastrous Wynne government? Is it too much to ask that those vying to replace the current premier should at least have some semblance of a plan, some idea about how to address the vastly complex challenges currently facing the province? The Ottawa debate showed, in painful detail, that at least three of the four PC leadership candidates clearly favour the “smash with hammer” approach.
The hold-out is Elliott, who seems to understand that there is more in a toolbox than a hammer. There is no question that her command of policy and the political process far surpasses that of her rivals. If this contest is about finding someone who is abundantly qualified to bring order and experience to the roller-coaster race this has been, then Elliott is the clear winner.
RELATED
That’s not to say that she will necessarily be a strong candidate against Wynne. If you’re convinced – as I am – that the key to Ontario’s heart is through Tim Hortons and the Toronto Maple Leafs, then Ford is probably the best option.
Despite often (and unfairly) being compared to Donald Trump, Ford is neither a radical nor an insurgent. More importantly, he offers the only compelling narrative of the bunch – the fed-up, sensible, average Ontarian. He doesn’t care too much about policy; he just figures things should work like they’re supposed to work. He can’t really explain any of his frustrations in detail, but he has a natural ability to empathize with and to elicit empathy from those who share these frustrations. My sense is that the Wynne camp is terrified of Doug Ford.
Granic Allen has been the real surprise of this race so far, and she was in top form for the debate. If you believe that governments need to immediately start ripping wind turbines out of the ground, then you’ve found your star in Granic Allen.
Mulroney walks a challenging line in this race. It is obvious that she has a bright political future, but getting a sense of her values or worldview has been hard, and I shudder to picture her in a policy debate against an opponent as ideologically committed and as politically experienced as Wynne.
PC party members who watched the debate in hopes of finding a vision behind which to rally were likely disappointed. After 15 years of Liberal government, this province desperately needs a new approach to both policy and politics, a practical plan for Ontario that can combine conservative principles with a pragmatic model of governance.
At this point, most Ontarians would take anybody over Wynne. But beware the monkey with a hammer.
The second Ontario Progressive Conservative Party debate, Wednesday night in Ottawa, was a bit more entertaining than the first one. Tanya Granic Allen came out swinging (mostly at Caroline Mulroney), and Doug Ford took some surprising shots at Christine Elliott. The spirit of Patrick Brown loomed large, as the candidates discussed a variety of issues related to the strange saga of the former leader. Althia Raj – the debate’s moderator – added a playful, humorous tone to the evening.
But for all its relative entertainment value, this was a debate that should not have happened, unless of course the intention was to demonstrate beyond any doubt that informed policy is for suckers. Granted, any party not called “Liberal” could probably run a monkey with a hammer right now and it likely would have a decent shot at toppling Premier Kathleen Wynne in June. But what happens when that monkey is given the task of leading a province with an economy larger than most sovereign nations?
Sure, the hammer can smash a lot of things, and the monkey could certainly cause lots of mischief. But does anyone believe that this monkey is going to provide a good alternative to the disastrous Wynne government? Is it too much to ask that those vying to replace the current premier should at least have some semblance of a plan, some idea about how to address the vastly complex challenges currently facing the province? The Ottawa debate showed, in painful detail, that at least three of the four PC leadership candidates clearly favour the “smash with hammer” approach.
The hold-out is Elliott, who seems to understand that there is more in a toolbox than a hammer. There is no question that her command of policy and the political process far surpasses that of her rivals. If this contest is about finding someone who is abundantly qualified to bring order and experience to the roller-coaster race this has been, then Elliott is the clear winner.
RELATED
That’s not to say that she will necessarily be a strong candidate against Wynne. If you’re convinced – as I am – that the key to Ontario’s heart is through Tim Hortons and the Toronto Maple Leafs, then Ford is probably the best option.
Despite often (and unfairly) being compared to Donald Trump, Ford is neither a radical nor an insurgent. More importantly, he offers the only compelling narrative of the bunch – the fed-up, sensible, average Ontarian. He doesn’t care too much about policy; he just figures things should work like they’re supposed to work. He can’t really explain any of his frustrations in detail, but he has a natural ability to empathize with and to elicit empathy from those who share these frustrations. My sense is that the Wynne camp is terrified of Doug Ford.
Granic Allen has been the real surprise of this race so far, and she was in top form for the debate. If you believe that governments need to immediately start ripping wind turbines out of the ground, then you’ve found your star in Granic Allen.
Mulroney walks a challenging line in this race. It is obvious that she has a bright political future, but getting a sense of her values or worldview has been hard, and I shudder to picture her in a policy debate against an opponent as ideologically committed and as politically experienced as Wynne.
PC party members who watched the debate in hopes of finding a vision behind which to rally were likely disappointed. After 15 years of Liberal government, this province desperately needs a new approach to both policy and politics, a practical plan for Ontario that can combine conservative principles with a pragmatic model of governance.
At this point, most Ontarians would take anybody over Wynne. But beware the monkey with a hammer.
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,533
- 荣誉分数
- 37,872
- 声望点数
- 1,393
别过后哭就好。
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,533
- 荣誉分数
- 37,872
- 声望点数
- 1,393
抬头看。
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,533
- 荣誉分数
- 37,872
- 声望点数
- 1,393
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,533
- 荣誉分数
- 37,872
- 声望点数
- 1,393
