Conference kaosws::canada

    She looks different than the rest. She looks smart. From what I
    understand, she can make tough decisions. My sister works in her
    national defense office and she's impressed with her abilities.
    
    Let's face it. do you really want Jean Chretien? or do you want
    somebody who is new?
    
    She's our next Prime Minister and will win the next election.
    
    Glenn

    <<< Note 670.1 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Sick in a balanced sort of way" >>>

  >  She looks different than the rest. She looks smart. From what I
 :-)     SHE WEARS A SKIRT!              WHAT A BABE
  >    understand, she can make tough decisions. My sister works in her
 :-) DOESN'T GET TONGUE TIED AT MCDONALDS DRIVERTHRU!
  >   national defense office and she's impressed with her abilities.
 :-)  SISTER IS A @SSKISS, SUCKING UP TO BOSS!   
  >  Let's face it. do you really want Jean Chretien? or do you want
 :-)  HE OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T WANT ANOTHER QUEBECOR IN CHARGE OF COUNTRY!
  >   somebody who is new?
 :-)   NOT OLD GUARD BUT 'RIGHT-GUARD'!
  >  She's our next Prime Minister and will win the next election.
 :-(                PRIME MINISTRESS        DEFAULT WIN  HOE-DOWN
    
  >  Glenn
   (SARNIA NATIVE WANNABEE)

     The poles showing the PC could win the next election with a NEW leader
    should tell the opposition (small "O") that they should replace their
    leadership as well. The thought of 4 or 5 more years of the Tories
    is depressing. Especially if it is because the other parties were too
    stupid to see that anyone associated with governing this country over the
    last few years is mistrusted and disliked.
    
    Having said that, the little I have seen of her (Mike Duffy's show on
    Sunday) she is an excellent public speaker.
    
    							Derek.

    re. "From what I understand, she can make tough decisions"
    
    Could you elaborate on this subject by providing a list of the tough 
    decisions taken by Ms Campbell, that is in the area of her public
    office responsabilities (not at the McDonald drive-through)? 
    In case you cannot, could you elaborate on where your understanding 
    come from ? (like if you know for sure, but it is "confidential" and if
    you tell, you have to kill us immediatly).
    
    louis
    from Sarnia, the "show me" office.

    
>   Let's face it. do you really want Jean Chretien? or do you want
>   somebody who is new?

    I want someone who can do the job.  "Newness" is not a quality for me.
    
    One thing we do know about her is that she supports the expenditure of
    5 billion dollars for the new helicopters... 800 million dollars worth
    of which will be spent on administration.
    
    Can you tell me what is "new" about extravagant expenditures.  Seems
    like an old concept to me, and part of the reason we are in this
    financial mess to begin with.
    
    Normand                                                         

    The most significant thing about the helicopters is that they will be
    built in Quebec -
    
    One of the early questions about Ms. Campbell was how she will deal with 
    the helicopter issue - if she supports the purchase, she continues to 
    support Muroney's previous decision, upsets those that want to see 
    expenditures reduced, but gets support within Quebec, If she goes against 
    the deal, she breaks with Mulroney, gets some support for reducing
    expenditures, but looses support in Quebec.
    
    I recall a news report that she decided to support the deal so that she
    maintains good relations with the Conservative establishment and picks
    up support in Quebec.  I believe she got Benoit Bouchard to support her
    because of her stand on this issue.
    
    Garry
    

    Speaking of "tough decisions", I don't know whether you consider
    supporting the helicopter deal a tough decision (seems to me it was
    tough politically)...  Here are some areas where she is being attacked,
    according to the latest MacLeans magazine...
    
    -not entrenching freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual
     orientation in the charter
    
    -not pushing through a new free access to abortion piece of legislation
     after the old piece was shot down
    
    Pieter
    

	RE: -2

	Good point about Quebec Gary. We all know that that elections are won 
	and lost via support form Quebec.

	Ben
	

    I was not making a "point about Quebec"  I was making a point about the
    helicopter deal and Kim Campbell.... :^)
     

	Gary,

	You made a point about Quebec when you said that Kim Campbell would
	gain support in that province if she supported the helicopter deal. I
	simply took that one step further to say one wins an election by
	winning in Quebec.

	Ben

    Don't care what sex, nationality, culture or race the next PM is.  Just
    want one that is capable not indebt to everyone and their relatives.
    
    What's that commercial, 'where's the beef'?  The media has given us
    lots of Campbell 'bun' lately.  
    
    Todays Ottawa Citizen, article on Paul Dick, ex-wife appointed
    Citizenship Judge.  She worked as a clerical temp out of any agency. 
    Now she's a judge. Now Dick can reduce his support payments.    
    
    Who does Kim Campbell owe political plums to?  Who is selling Kim
    Campbell, the PC's or the media?  How does the public vent their wrath
    if they buy into Campbell mania? 
    
    There has to be a PC out there that owes me a favour....Judge, maybe
    Senator or how about Director.
    
    Bill

>    Todays Ottawa Citizen, article on Paul Dick, ex-wife appointed
>    Citizenship Judge.  

A Citizenship Court judge is a distinctly different thing from a legal
judge ... please don't confuse the two and while it looks like a real
influential type job believe me, it isn't ... To call them judges is a
real stretch in terms of what they do!  Believe me, I've been in front
of one several times!

Stuart

    re. .7
    
    So far she has not taken any stand on the issues mentionned (sexual
    orientation discrimination, access to abortion).

    I wonder what her opinion of the <insert running gag> is.
    
    
    
    I think I'm getting gun shy....   8-P

    re. Paul Dick's wife, the new citizenship judge:
    
    The power of the position she was given is not relevent.  How she got
    the position is relevent, and no, I don't know how or why she was 
    appointed. 
    
    The news report did say that while she was married to Dick, she made
    lots of contacts on "the hill", is a good friend of Ms. Mulroney and
    that the job pays 66K/year, or double what she was making as a
    receptionist.
    
    Does anyone believe the average receptionship could instantly become a
    citizenship judge?
    
    Regards,
    
    Garry
    

    I wasn't trying to tangent the issue ... just that it's not really a
    judicial post ... more of a ceremonial name attached to the job of an
    adjudicator ... lest anyone think that it was a true judicial job.
    Anybody with any common sense could do it.
    
    That said, from what I've seen, Citizenship Court judges are quite
    regularly filled as "patronage" type positions.  So this is not really
    news.
    
    Stuart

    The entire point of the comment is towards patronage.  To get to the
    position Kim Campbell is in she carries heavy 'patronage' debts. 
    
    Qualifications for plum high paying jobs in the government are related to
    who you know not not what you know.  
    
    As far as Paul Dick, he gets a direct benefit from his ex-wife being
    appointed by MUlrooney to a whatever 'judge' and as a Cabinet Minister 
    it can be looked on as a conflict.  
    
    At present, Kim Campbell is a creation of the media.  The media can
    give and the media can take away, whatever sells newspapers or gets
    viewers.
    
    I hope we will learn that Ms Campbell is a person of substance and
    ability.  That alone may be a shoe-in against her opposition (or lack
    there off).
    
    If Campbell and the PC's get re-elected, unless there is a dramatic change
    in candidates, they will be swept back in on her coat-tails and the same 
    inept gang will be back for another 4 to 5 years.    
    
    As far as Jean Charest, what do we know about him?        
    
    Bill   

Bill;

  "Inept gang"???  Is that synonymous with gang b__g. I'm tired of 
being on the receiving end!  Time for a real change.

                          Go Rino's Go!!!
    

    Loretta, who's the Rino's running....Kit Clampett?
    
    Can't tell the players without a program! 
    
    
    Bill

    Le parti rhinoceros was the only bright spot of the federal elections. 
    It was hiliarious when they had enough candidates to qualify for "free"
    air time.  The speeches were very very funny.
    
    Jean
    

    "So, Kim, is it helicopters or daycare?".  No answer.
    
    In a nutshell, this resumes last night's CBC Prime Time News interview
    with Kim Campbell.
    
    In her speech she sayed she feared being "all substance and no
    charisma".  I can safely say that her fears are unfounded.  She doesn't
    have substance, either.
    
    I can't believe that she is this late out of the starting gate and she
    doesn't have any policy issues to discuss except that she wants a more
    consultative and democratic government.
    
    Sheila Copps says Kim Campbell is "Mulroney in a skirt".
    
    Guess we'll have to wait to find out where she stands on issues.  I
    suspect this will be "Gold Rush" time for some of Ottawa's better polling
    companies.
    
    Normand              

    Hey Normand, you spoiled my day!!!!
    
    I was going to put a note in here about Kim getting destroyed by Pam
    and Peter, but you got the jump on me.  She sure looked and sounded
    pathetic - I don't think she answered one question directly (OK - she
    said she was ready to be PM and the lonliness tha goes with it...).
    
    And what is it with her head and eyes - can't she talk without her head
    bouncing around and batting her eyes.  It really was distracting.
    
    Garry
    

    I agree with the general consensus this morning.  Kim Campbell's
    perforance was **poor**.  She danced around questions, and did it
    in an articulate manner, with a fast rate of speech - classic
    "slick politician", eh?
    
    Anyway, she tried to rationalize her lack of answers several times by
    saying things like "it will come out during the campain", "you can't
    have a dialogue about complex issues in a press conference", etc.  So
    let's give her a little bit more rope, OK?  
    
    My opinion: she **is** smart, and articulate.  She is not warm and
    low-key.  She is high-powered and brittle.  This will show up during
    her campain when she basically gets testy with the press, when she
    says "too much", and almost runs afoul of her handlers.  And believe
    me, she has handlers: Norman Spector, political handler extraordinaire!
    
    Pieter
    

    
    Where does she stand on the issues??
    Smart and articulate?
    
    What has that got to do with who is the next P.M. ?  Should read...
    
    Who has the most money.
    Who has the best publicist.
    Who will look the best standing beside Bill Clinton.
    
    
    

    
    So, are you all in a state of shock ?
    
    W

    Not really ...  
    
    But as the saying goes ... the party wants to take a gamble with
    Campbell.
    
    the real question is can it be any worse than with our old PM ?
    
    I doubt it that much.
    
    Stuart

    Shocked!?!  Heck no!!!  It's a great day for the Liberals - can't wait
    for the next general election and the end of KIm's "summer job"!
    
    Lockyer

    As Sheila Copps put it (so well!):  Canada is ready for a woman as
    Prime Minister, just not THAT woman!...

    At the very least, we won't have to pay for her husban's plane fare and
    hotels and... when she visits foreign countries (she is divorced).
    
    Jean