--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belinda light
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the stakes for Conservatives now that the Liberals have dropped precipitously in the polls, the free ride Belinda Stronach has thus far enjoyed should end. Far from being the victim of sexism as was alleged when she first entered the Tory leadership race, Stronach has benefited from kid-glove treatment; even acerbic Winnipeg talk-show host Charles Adler admitted that if he treated her like other potential pols, he'd be accused of beating up on Bambi. Exactly. But Stronach is a 37-year-old professional who wants to be prime minister, so it's overdue to subject her to serious critiques.
In Sunday's Conservative leadership debates, Stronach again argued that her political inexperience actually makes her fit to be prime minister. "I am not a professional politician. This makes me the only candidate who can still see things from a citizen's perspective," said the $12-million salaried daughter of entrepreneur Frank Stronach.
Well, given that she didn't start from scratch like her father, one doubts Belinda can relate to the hockey dad at Tim Hortons. Moreover, if the rest of us applied the Stronach argument to say, applying for a job at Magna International, not on the basis of our experience at running such an enterprise, but precisely because we have none, we could all expect to be promoted to the executive suite in short order.
Aside from the silliness of the claim that zero political experience makes one more qualified to run the gauntlet of prime ministerial politics, that Stronach is in the race is mostly positive. She has added new members to the Conservative party, though given her Quebec strategy, one hopes her new members are in fact alive and paying their own membership dues.
But as for her second attempt to distinguish herself from Tony Clement and Stephen Harper, as in when she argued Sunday that the leadership race should be about "who has the ideas," well, that standard will also undercut Stronach.
Stronach's campaign has thus far been mostly about sizzle, not steak, and that's entirely by design. When in Vancouver last month, did her campaign send her to that city's toughest talk-show hosts? Nope. Her handlers dumped her off at a high-ratings rock station where the music jocks were not likely to probe Stronach's views on say, monetary policy, judicial activism, or defence and security policy in an age of terror.
Moreover, when it comes to her thoughts on critical matters and on ones which have no practical barriers to implementation unlike Senate reform, Stronach's answers are evasive.
When asked whether Canadian troops should have fought in Iraq, she told Toronto media last month that "I would have been supportive of the (American) decision, but there are many ways to be supportive."
When pressed, Stronach responded that "I am not an expert on the military." Few people are, but it's not too much to ask a prospective leader to give some sober thought to her own (and Canada's) position on how to combat terror, our response to dictators, and an alliance (or not) with the Americans in a recent war.
Stronach's Sunday debate answer was similarly evasive.
Similarly, when Vancouver Province columnist Jim McNulty recently asked Stronach about the prospect of off-shore drilling on the West Coast, Stronach responded with another squish answer: "I think business and the environmentalists need to sit down together and find a solution where we focus on wealth and job creation, but not at the expense of the environment . . ."
She went on to respond with similar have-it-both-ways answers on fish farming and private medical clinics.
To be fair, any political candidate running for almost anything has a ready stash of bromides, cliches, pat answers and preprogrammed responses, and that includes Harper and Clement. But the infrequency of such flippancy in a candidate is directly related first, to his depth of thought on issues and second, to his political experience. The more they have of those two, the less likely the audience is likely to be treated to a pastiche of consultant-speak.
Mark Milke is the author of Tax Me I'm Canadian. ====
Belinda light
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the stakes for Conservatives now that the Liberals have dropped precipitously in the polls, the free ride Belinda Stronach has thus far enjoyed should end. Far from being the victim of sexism as was alleged when she first entered the Tory leadership race, Stronach has benefited from kid-glove treatment; even acerbic Winnipeg talk-show host Charles Adler admitted that if he treated her like other potential pols, he'd be accused of beating up on Bambi. Exactly. But Stronach is a 37-year-old professional who wants to be prime minister, so it's overdue to subject her to serious critiques.
In Sunday's Conservative leadership debates, Stronach again argued that her political inexperience actually makes her fit to be prime minister. "I am not a professional politician. This makes me the only candidate who can still see things from a citizen's perspective," said the $12-million salaried daughter of entrepreneur Frank Stronach.
Well, given that she didn't start from scratch like her father, one doubts Belinda can relate to the hockey dad at Tim Hortons. Moreover, if the rest of us applied the Stronach argument to say, applying for a job at Magna International, not on the basis of our experience at running such an enterprise, but precisely because we have none, we could all expect to be promoted to the executive suite in short order.
Aside from the silliness of the claim that zero political experience makes one more qualified to run the gauntlet of prime ministerial politics, that Stronach is in the race is mostly positive. She has added new members to the Conservative party, though given her Quebec strategy, one hopes her new members are in fact alive and paying their own membership dues.
But as for her second attempt to distinguish herself from Tony Clement and Stephen Harper, as in when she argued Sunday that the leadership race should be about "who has the ideas," well, that standard will also undercut Stronach.
Stronach's campaign has thus far been mostly about sizzle, not steak, and that's entirely by design. When in Vancouver last month, did her campaign send her to that city's toughest talk-show hosts? Nope. Her handlers dumped her off at a high-ratings rock station where the music jocks were not likely to probe Stronach's views on say, monetary policy, judicial activism, or defence and security policy in an age of terror.
Moreover, when it comes to her thoughts on critical matters and on ones which have no practical barriers to implementation unlike Senate reform, Stronach's answers are evasive.
When asked whether Canadian troops should have fought in Iraq, she told Toronto media last month that "I would have been supportive of the (American) decision, but there are many ways to be supportive."
When pressed, Stronach responded that "I am not an expert on the military." Few people are, but it's not too much to ask a prospective leader to give some sober thought to her own (and Canada's) position on how to combat terror, our response to dictators, and an alliance (or not) with the Americans in a recent war.
Stronach's Sunday debate answer was similarly evasive.
Similarly, when Vancouver Province columnist Jim McNulty recently asked Stronach about the prospect of off-shore drilling on the West Coast, Stronach responded with another squish answer: "I think business and the environmentalists need to sit down together and find a solution where we focus on wealth and job creation, but not at the expense of the environment . . ."
She went on to respond with similar have-it-both-ways answers on fish farming and private medical clinics.
To be fair, any political candidate running for almost anything has a ready stash of bromides, cliches, pat answers and preprogrammed responses, and that includes Harper and Clement. But the infrequency of such flippancy in a candidate is directly related first, to his depth of thought on issues and second, to his political experience. The more they have of those two, the less likely the audience is likely to be treated to a pastiche of consultant-speak.
Mark Milke is the author of Tax Me I'm Canadian. ====
Comment