[Newsbot]

Title: Few witness Harper's visit to Winnipeg
Category: Political
Posted By: Curtman
Date: 2010-11-10 12:52:28
Canadian

[Curtman]

$1:

He also said all the Liberal senators on the legal affairs committee last week voted against his drug bill setting mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug crimes.
"They didn't get the message that there is an election on," said Nicholson

Well done. If we can convince Liberal MP's to vote against it, we can be done with it forever!

[Khar]

I think that the article comments were a better read than the article itself, to be honest. This very much felt like a Liberal candidate taking a soapbox in the hopes of making a big deal out of nothing to help in a heated race for an empty seat.

As the article said, Harper promised not to campaign. So he studiously avoided any scenario where he would end up campaigning in Winnipeg. Now he's a horrible PMO because, instead of taking the time to do his job and help run the country, he's expected to drop everything because he visited a campaign office to give a pep talk or something and take the time for everything to be set up for what would likely be a short period of questions and answers? If he did that every time he traveled, I fear we'd not see a lot of Harper in parliament! He was in the city for an event anyways, a twenty minute talk at an office is not going out of his way -- setting up for a question and answer session with the PMO and the public, however, takes time and money. Which I have no doubt would have been followed by the same Liberal representative raising cries of costs, and campaigning, without any mention of engaging the public anywhere in his complaints at all. Semantics and wordplay, blargh.

All in all, quite silly. Not impressed with the demeanor presented by Lamoureux at all, as it smacks of such a pointlessly partisan attitude. He should really tone it down and focus on the issues at hand which people actually care about than trying to create issues where there need not be any, especially ones which are not real, tangible, long running, important issues, of which this isn't and won't be.

[Curtman]

Khar Khar:

I think that the article comments were a better read than the article itself, to be honest. This very much felt like a Liberal candidate taking a soapbox in the hopes of making a big deal out of nothing to help in a heated race for an empty seat.

As the article said, Harper promised not to campaign. So he studiously avoided any scenario where he would end up campaigning in Winnipeg. Now he's a horrible PMO because, instead of taking the time to do his job and help run the country, he's expected to drop everything because he visited a campaign office to give a pep talk or something and take the time for everything to be set up for what would likely be a short period of questions and answers? If he did that every time he traveled, I fear we'd not see a lot of Harper in parliament! He was in the city for an event anyways, a twenty minute talk at an office is not going out of his way -- setting up for a question and answer session with the PMO and the public, however, takes time and money. Which I have no doubt would have been followed by the same Liberal representative raising cries of costs, and campaigning, without any mention of engaging the public anywhere in his complaints at all. Semantics and wordplay, blargh.

All in all, quite silly. Not impressed with the demeanor presented by Lamoureux at all, as it smacks of such a pointlessly partisan attitude. He should really tone it down and focus on the issues at hand which people actually care about than trying to create issues where there need not be any, especially ones which are not real, tangible, long running, important issues, of which this isn't and won't be.

I think he was pointing out that both Liberal and NDP leaders have spent time here campaigning in our by-election, and that Harper couldn't be bothered because they don't have a chance in heck there. That part didn't really appeal to me either. I thought the conversation about crime in North Winnipeg was much more interesting.

$1:

Lamoureux said Harper clearly wasn't interested in taking any tough questions from riding residents about why his party killed its own justice legislation last winter, proroguing Parliament and sending at least half a dozen crime bills back to the starting gate.

Talk to North End Winnipeggers about crime, and they'll listen.

[Khar]

$1:

I think he was pointing out that both Liberal and NDP leaders have spent time here campaigning in our by-election, and that Harper couldn't be bothered because they don't have a chance in heck there. That part didn't really appeal to me either. I thought the conversation about crime in North Winnipeg was much more interesting.

Indeed. We have to keep in mind that Harper had already announced he had no plans to campaign, so bringing it up then would have been more prudent. Acting in shock and awe that he's doing what he said he would, with the particularly heavy rhetoric used, when the Prime Minister passes through town for an economic meeting, smacks more of partisan interest rather than actual urging to discuss the issue at heart. No surprise it's not settling well with either of us.

If it had been an article about no upper party power support, or no discussion on the issues, or such things, I probably would have been more inclined, even if not entirely comfortable with it, but it would have provided a forum of sorts for comments from party officials in a more effective manner. But the method which this was brought up and presented by the representative rubbed me in all the wrong ways.

Since I don't know what the other parties have done for crime in the area, I can't really comment on that either, which is why I didn't bring it up in the first post. The article only mentions that another party finds Liberal agendas about crime something which only comes around via elections, via Nicholson. In other words, the only party not doing any criticizing or being criticized by a member of another party here (heavily, anyways) is the NDP.

Still, I feel that the way which Lamoureux brought this around was really the irking point for me.

[Curtman]

I should post the other link about the visit too, it definitely helps with the context.

Prime minister consults with business owners on economy

$1:

IT was a whirlwind prime ministerial tour of Winnipeg that included a closed-door business meeting and a quickie campaign stop Stephen Harper's office kept secret.
Within a few minutes of stepping off his plane Monday night, Harper was whisked to a campaign event for Winnipeg North byelection Conservative candidate Julie Javier. That unannounced campaign appearance only became public when a video recording was posted on YouTube a short time later. The byelection is Nov. 29.

Kevin Lamoureux should have mentioned the crime issue, as well as the "unannounced" meeting with business owners. If he wants to hear from them, its probably better that they know he's coming.