| Subject: Moors (intentionally) misleads |
Author:
Michael Watkins
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:42:08 03/11/03 Tue
Author Host/IP: a3hu7fzy193i.bc.hsia.telus.net/207.6.231.45
Greg Moors seems to think that if he keeps repeating a statement over and over, people will start believing him, even if what he says is not factual. In this Greg Moors demonstrates that he underestimates the intelligence of members of the party.
The Curry/Alberts article gives insight into a certain Mr. Vic Toews -- its an article about his views after all, not Jim Prentice's.
And calling Mr. Prentice's policy proposal on education "socialist" is laughable. Investing in our children is something all levels of government already do and we as a society have a moral obligation to provide for. Extending the availability of post secondary education to more students is key to improving quality of life for all and enhances national competitiveness for the long term good of our country.
It would appear that Orchard education policy can be summed up as "we are not in favour of extending post-secondary educational opportunity to more students".
Clearly the only socialist policy statements we've heard from candidates is from Mr. Orchard, who would somehow nationalize ship, car and tractor production. Can you not picture the Lada and Yugo-like vehicles rolling off the lines? Perhaps he'd like to confer with former BC Premier Glen Clark on this. Looney tunes at best. Fortress Canada at worst.
Perhaps Mr. Orchard would prefer we not invest in our children so that a large force of ship, car and tractor factory assembly line workers can be groomed? Are worker dormitories not close behind in his vision?
Thinking people understand that a well educated Canada makes for a highly competitive Canada -- one able to fully participate in the global economy. And competitiveness is one important plank in the foundation of a strong and sovereign Canada.
Finally - deserving special mention since Moors took time to single this out - when Jim Prentice stepped down from the Calgary by-election to allow Stephen Harper to take a seat in the house, Jim Prentice showed real leadership.
Mr. Moors should not belittle or call into question the motives of someone who shoulders the heavy burden of running as a Progressive Conservative candidate for Member of Parliament.
Jim was poised to win that seat against the CA candidate and clearly it was a difficult decision for him to make. Yet in the best parliamentary tradition and showing great maturity, Jim stepped aside.
Lesser people might have have pulled a "David Orchard" and stayed on the ballot, like Mr. Orchard did during the last leadership race even though Orchard had no chance of winning against Joe Clark. David Orchard stayed on the ballot merely so he could walk around for the next five years stating that he came in second to Joe Clark.
That is not leadership.
Except from March 10 Daily Digest:
GREG MOORS
Joe,
Thank you for highlighting the Curry/Alberts article from Saturday's
National post. It certainly gave some interesting insight into Mr. Prentice
and his intentions if he were to win the leadership race.
This man was the self-proclaimed police of party principles two months ago
when he suggested Mr. Orchard was not a Progressive Conservative. Then, a
week ago at the debate he was a socialist touting four years of government
funded post secondary education. This week, he's back to being a
neo-conservative and ignoring the party's will on the 301 resolution.
I don't know if Mr. Prentice is unintentionally morphing into a new
personality each week, or if he truly underestimates the intelligence of
members of this party, but but either way his continually shifting ground
must raise questions.
In his defence, he is not the only candidate beholden to the CA. One only
has to look at other campaign teams, such Brison's with former CA bigshot
Ken Kalopsis, and FORWARD THINKING GROUP Chairs Fortier and Byers front and
centre. They may be keeping a low profile on the merger front during the
campaign but one has to ask why else these people would be invested in
these campaigns if not to pursue a merger agenda once the deal is done.
An interesting read from the past is the FORWARD THINKING GROUP's press
release when Jim Prentice stepped aside to give Stephen Harper an
uncontested election last year. Have these leopards changed their spots?
Greg Moors
Toronto-Danforth
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 