Wednesday, April 20, 2005

What to Expect From Paul Martin Address to Canadians

Tomorrow, Prime Minister Paul Martin will deliver a speech directly to Canadians. The speech will be a prelude to an election that we know is only weeks away. Whereas the liberal party has always had everything it says echoed by the liberal mainstream media, this time Paul Martin will talk to us directly. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

The liberals have no positive agenda for the country and they have rallied behind such losing left-wing causes as legalizing drug use, legalizing prostitution and changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. That is why the liberal strategy in this coming election will be a classic smear campaign of the Conservatives. The liberals also intend to portray their leader, Paul Martin, as a virtuous saint that had absolutely nothing to do with the biggest corruption scandal in this nation’s history.

Look for Paul Martin’s speech to include comments about how Jean Chrétien’s camp of liberals was to blame. He will talk about how it is necessary for Canadians not to judge the whole liberal party on account of a few rogue party members that did not have the country’s best interest at heart. He will distance himself personally from this scandal. He will allow the public to condemn the people he deems a few rogue members of the party, but he will ask Canadians not to condemn him until after Justice Gomery releases his full report sometime in December.

However, Canadians do not need to have their minds made up by a judge. Canadians have seen the evidence and will continue to see more damning evidence between now and the middle of May, when the Gomery commission is expected to wrap up. The job of the Gomery commission is to look into this scandal and make recommendations for criminal charges. The moral standards that Canadians use to hold their political leaders to account are much higher than that of the criminal justice system. For this, Canadians can make up our own minds.

Paul Martin will also talk about national unity. He will portray the Conservative party as a regional western party that is more of a separatist party than the Bloc Quebecois. Out of this speech you will hear slander and lies that will expose the true desperation of the liberal party of Canada. Paul Martin will make a pathetic attempt to portray the liberal party as the only Federalist Party capable of saving the nation.

Paul Martin will do this in spite of the fact that what the liberals did in Quebec probably means Quebec is gone already. It is possible that this scandal, the biggest in our nation’s history, has already convinced the majority of Quebecers that enough is enough. It may well be that the damage these liberals have done is irreversible. Even a majority Conservative government with a strong mandate to de-centralize the power of this overwhelming federal government may not be enough to save it in time. Canadians should take this to heart.

The speech will also be one designed to invoke fear in the hearts of Canadians. There will be talk of how the country will be screwed if liberals cannot continue governing. He will say things like: “If our government falls you won’t get same-sex marriage. The government will not raise your children for you in a socialized daycare program. The Maritime Provinces will not get money promised to them. The cities will not get the cash they need to operate.” The list will go on and on.

He will paint the picture of a nation grinding to a complete halt if the liberals are not allowed to continue running it. The liberals have been in power so long, they cannot imagine themselves no longer running it. Canadians will get a sense of his desperation at this point of the speech. Government power has changed hands many times in our nation’s history and life went on for Canadians. People will see this lie for what it is.

This speech will have the look and feel of a campaign throne speech. Everything you can expect from the liberal party in this coming election will be included. Readers are encouraged to return and visit this article to post your comments on how close these predictions ring true.

See you tomorrow at The Blue Maple Leaf.


At 9:43 p.m., Blogger GREGM said...

If he does blame Chretien, I believe there's a good chance that someone from 'da little guy's' posse will produce something damning enough to bury Martin.

Chretien made a career out of being vindictive and efficient in destroying his enemies. Nailing Martin to the wall should be his crowning glory.

For this reason, I believe Martin won't hang Chretien out tomorrow. Martin's a lot of things, but he ain't stupid.

Aside from that, I believe that Martin will do all of the things you mentioned. And to a degree, it will work. I'm firmly convinced that most people in this country are morons.

And there's another sizeable group who just aren't very good citizens. People care more about getting their ageing grandparents into the country so they can leech free healthcare... than they care about their country.

Between the morons and the leeches, Martin has a great shot at pulling the BS over peoples' eyes and getting re-elected... especially when he's got the CBC spinning furiously to get him off the hook.

Crazy hyperbole has been a favourite tactic of the Liberals in freaking out the idiots. I think it's high time the right employs that winning strategy.

For example, when a moron tells you "better the devil you know"... you should say... "What if the devil you know was Paul Bernardo and he was babysitting your little girl?"

... "The devil you know" is a phrase uttered by idiots.

When a Paul Martin comes on TV tomorrow night and says he's the person to clean up the mess (that was created while he was holding the purse strings)... someone should come up to the microphone and say, "That's like saying Paul Bernardo should be in charge of the investigation into what happened to his victims."

Stuff like that. It's too bad we have to resort to tactics like that, but I just listened to 20 morons tell the reporter from CFRB that we shouldn't have an election because it's a waste of money. Paul Martin's crap is already starting to fly with the idiots.

Someone needs to point out to the morons that Paul Martin didn't give a crap about wasting money last June when he called an election... in a slimy attempt to get a majority before all of the Gomery slime oozed out. There was no need for an election last summer, either. But the morons don't remember that now.

The Liberals won three majority elections with the benefit of money that they didn't have. They used stolen tax dollars to pay staff at ad agencies whose full-time jobs entailed working on Liberal party business. They used stolen money to pay for Liberal election signs. The Liberals were broke heading into the 2000 election. Who can say that the result wouldn't have been different if the Liberals didn't have access to these ill-gotten resources? I can't.

Do you want to hear something that isn't hyperbole? Simply put, a coup has taken place in this country. Elections have been stolen. And no one has taken to the streets.

Tomorrow night, Paul Martin will take to the air to tell you that he's the only one who can repair the damage that he and his henchmen caused. If Quebec leaves because of this scandal, then so be it. Why are they mad? They're the ones who got all of our money.

Anyway, watch for the Liberals to pull into a tie with the Cons. after Martin's speech tomorrow night. He'll promise to do all of the things that he hasn't done in the last 12 years (and 12 months as PM) and the idiots will lap it up.

I have no doubt that the morons will re-affirm their support for the Liberals once Martin promises them the sun and the moon. Maybe he'll just come out and promise everyone an envelope full of cash...

At 10:05 p.m., Blogger Michael said...

I will bet you $100 that the person who called CFRB to say that they don't want an election, because it would cost too much money was someone working for the CBC. They made the same comment over at and the comment came from an IP address within the CBC's network domain.

At 11:23 p.m., Blogger GREGM said...

I wouldn't doubt it. But these sounded like 'on the street' interviews. Maybe John Moore ('RB's resident liberal) was screening interviewees.
Someone just sent me an advance copy of Martin's speech...

"Clearly, it's very clear that no one has produced any clear proof that I had anything to do with the things that 'some people' did with respect to the sponsorship situation....

And let me be perfectly clear... Stephen Harper's hidden agenda is clearly to close every hospital... to close the doors on all immigration... and to clearly line up all gays against the wall and shoot them until they're clearly dead....

Clearly, if I am allowed to lead my team which also has not been clearly convicted of anything, we will clearly deliver on our promise to clearly spell out a clear policy on daycare for Canada's children, which we have clearly been working on for 12 years. That necessary initiative has been clearly stalled by Stephen Harper's scary hidden agenda.... blah blah blah....

In conclusion, it's clear that if any other party than the Liberal Party of Canada is in power, the country will clearly fall apart...."

At 9:14 p.m., Anonymous WilliamT said...

Tonight, on CBC's The National, friction built up between Harper and Mansbridge during an interview. Mansbridge seemed to get agitated with the Conservative Party leader, feeling he wasn't getting the answers he wanted, often cutting him off before he could even respond in full.

Will Harper ever get a fair shake from the CBC?

Let's not forget that in July 2001, after Stephen Harper had won the Canadian Alliance's leadership over Stockwell Day at the party's leadership convention, Mansbridge asked Harper if the CBC could get a word with him on officially becoming the party's new leader.

"Peter, I'm surprised the CBC wants to hear anything our party has to say," was Harper's reply, as he put the headset on before taking a seat next to Mansbridge.

Mansbridge's rebuttal to Harper's accusation was quite interesting. In it, he said, "Now, now, Stephen, let's not go there," and he did so not only with a sly tone in his voice, but with a smirk on his face as well.

What did Mansbridge's reaction indicate to viewers? For me, it indicated a de facto admission of guilt. If a mother enters a room and notices, let's say, a broken vase on the floor, and, when asked who's responsible, her child, in a sly voice with a smile, replies with, "Noooooo" then that child is acknowledging his own guilt -- and that's precisely what Mansbridge did in his response.

Stephen Harper is a savvy politician. In spite of the past, and the obvious friction between the two men, Harper conducted himself with class tonight. He knows exactly what Mansbridge has a stake -- a 7-figure salary -- and what the CBC's agenda is.

If Harper has any hidden agenda -- as the CBC often suggests he does, delivering that message to Canadians in its news and commentary, using politicians and pundits as its proxy -- then I hope it is to move towards ending the public broadcaster's funding once and for all, if he indeed gets a majority government.

There is no place in a democracy for government-funded news media. When a network is funded in large part by the 4 million Canadians who voted for Harper in the last election, and then turns around and uses that money in pathetic, transparent attempts to keep the corrupt Liberals in power, then it's not only the Liberals that have to go, but the CBC as well.

William Tracey,

p.s. Sorry if these posts appear in the wrong place. I'm having trouble navigating this site.

At 2:48 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

CBC Newsworld is going to run one of its very objective, non-bias documentaries Sunday evening, called, "The Rise of the Politics of Fear".

Along with the promotional ad running on CBC Newsworld, promoting this documetary, is the flashing image of U.S. president George W. Bush.

Since this a CBC-produced documentary -- produced by and made for Canadian viewers -- will it also feature the Martin Liberals' entire 2004 election campaign strategy? Somehow I doubt it.

At 1:55 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Support Layton and Martin - support corruption - support bankrupcy - support criminals. support higher taxes - support more government programs -

At 4:30 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marriage is not a right; it’s a value, an institution, in spite of what our activist Supreme Court says. Same-sex marriage is not about equality.

If “one man to one women” is unconstitutional, then certainly the number “two” is as well.

The mantra from those who support same-sex marriage is, “Look, if two people love each other, why not just let them be.” Well, I pose

The last poll I saw showed a virtual 3-way split, with approximately 1/3 supporting same-sex marriage, 1/3 supporting something less, such as civil unions, and 1/3 being opposed to any change whatsoever.

The CBC, for example, spun the poll, suggesting that only 1/3 oppose same-sex marriage. This characterization was highly deceptive, since it left the impression with the viewer that 2/3 are in support of the Liberal legislation – now law – as it stands.

As for the issue of what constitutes a democracy, I believe it isn’t merely who gets the most votes wins. Democracy – to me at least – is when the elected representative has gotten at least 50 + 1% of the total votes cast.

By raising the bar – which is what you are doing by having the threshold at 50 + 1% -- you are instilling more accountability in the system by setting a higher standard at which a candidate needs in order to win; as well, they have a true mandate in such a system.

The U.S. system is far superior to the British parliamentary democracy. There is simply no comparison. There are more checks and balances and more overall accountability. If Adscam happened in the U.S., the party responsible, and the president if he were involved, would be held accountable and would be dealt with accordingly, unlike in Canada.

- Marilyn Fawlty


Post a Comment

<< Home