CPC Leadership Discussion 2020-21

[dapaterson]

She is of Chinese origin/descent.  That is the reason he made the link and the insinuation. 

Can’t wait to see how this plays out in the leadership campaign...

Peter and Erin will say nothing; they need Sloan's supporters for the run-off rounds.

 

[FJAG]

It is disappointing that the "leaders" in the party aren't commenting. It's somewhat heartening to see that some of the rank & file are:

Conservatives blast MP who asked whether top pandemic doctor 'works for China' as Scheer steers clear

:cheers:

 

[YZT580]

FJAG, would you comment?  Given that they most likely or if they don't they should agree that a serious investigation of our actions and in-actions are required, how do you introduce said discussion in this environment without sounding as if you are attacking the CMO.  All you would be doing is opening yourself up to a scathing attack by Justin.  The statement is out there and neither of the front runners are muddied up.

 

[PuckChaser]

Scheer is screwed regardless. He doesn't say anything, he's condoning "racism". If he says something, he's jumping on the train of victim culture where people cannot be called out if they're an ethnic minority because of some sort of loose definition of racism. If this was a pandemic discovered in Russia, its true infectiousness and mortality/morbidity hidden by the Russian Government, would Sloan be called racist if he accused her of working for the Russian government? At no point did Sloan refer to Dr Teresa Tam with anything other than her name.

Remius: You're looking for controversy. So is the media who made the headline and story. You're putting words and insinuations in his mouth that Derek Sloan did not say. His statement was nothing other than accusations that are all over the media, that the WHO covered for China, and that Dr. Tam is either incompetent because she didn't dig deeper past the WHO statements, or was actively working with the WHO and the CCP to contain bad press for China.

The fact that we still have people in this country in positions of power who trust anything coming from the state media/government sources of the CCP in China blows my mind. Every time they parrot something China says, they're being used in a giant information operations game to further the CCP's interests.

 

[Remius]

Scheer is screwed regardless. He doesn't say anything, he's condoning "racism". If he says something, he's jumping on the train of victim culture where people cannot be called out if they're an ethnic minority because of some sort of loose definition of racism. If this was a pandemic discovered in Russia, its true infectiousness and mortality/morbidity hidden by the Russian Government, would Sloan be called racist if he accused her of working for the Russian government? At no point did Sloan refer to Dr Teresa Tam with anything other than her name.

Remius: You're looking for controversy. So is the media who made the headline and story. You're putting words and insinuations in his mouth that Derek Sloan did not say. His statement was nothing other than accusations that are all over the media, that the WHO covered for China, and that Dr. Tam is either incompetent because she didn't dig deeper past the WHO statements, or was actively working with the WHO and the CCP to contain bad press for China.

The fact that we still have people in this country in positions of power who trust anything coming from the state media/government sources of the CCP in China blows my mind. Every time they parrot something China says, they're being used in a giant information operations game to further the CCP's interests.

I'm going to quote Michele Rempel from the link above:

"Alberta MP Michelle Rempel said on Twitter that she couldn't believe she had to publicly explain why Sloan's remarks were "profoundly wrong."

So no, I'm not looking for controversy, Sloan did that himself and I am surprised you are acting as an apologist for this guy.  Like Ms. Rempel said, I am surprised this needs to even be explained.

 

[FJAG]

YZT580

I actually don't think Sloan's comments were racist. That's the Liberals and NDP piling on because Sloan is criticising China and Tam, who by heritage, is Chinese.

In my view Sloan is trying to play a poor man's Trump's Nativism/Populism. What he's doing is accusing Tam of being a closet communist because she has dared to say things that the WHO and the UN has said. In his view the WHO and, by strong inference, Tam is a tool of the Chinese Communist Party.

I too have concerns about China. However, when one is dealing with a powerhouse economic entity which continues to be a principle source of many essential (and not so essential) cheap products in this country (just like the US) and a major purchaser of many of our raw materials, one has to walk a narrow line.

I too have concerns about the WHO but my prior experience with the Red Cross has taught me one thing: when you are an agency dealing with numerous international entities who can cause serious harm, you have to be highly diplomatic and gain their trust and cooperation if you wish to achieve anything. The WHO, like the Red Cross, constantly works in that kind of environment. Every once in a while you screw things up or get blind-sided. That doesn't mean that as an entity you have lost all value. It's how you react afterwards that establishes your worth.

I agree that at the Canadian and international government level, there needs to be a broad ranging investigation of this whole Covid-19 situation: everything from how it originated, to how it spread, to how we maintain stockpiles, to how we repatriate vital manufacturing industries, to how decisions that effect everyone's lives are made. At the moment we're up to our butt-holes in alligators and it will take a little time before we can get on with draining the swamp.

Sloan's commentaries, which are an ad hominem attack against a major medical official within our system, are of little positive value and do not advance the dialog. They're a shrill shrieking from the sidelines by someone whose personal belief system I find nauseating.

Currently he's playing to the social conservatives and trying to be their fair-haired boy.

How would "I" deal with these issues "without sounding like I'm attacking the CMO". Bloody simply by raising the legitimate questions about China and even the WHO, without bringing Tam into the discussion.

As far as Sloan is concerned, he's a candidate for leadership, albeit a weak one, and every other candidate has an opportunity to point out where Sloan is wrong and hopefully has staff advisors to show him how to do that while keeping and gaining support within the party. If you're afraid to PO the party's social conservatists in this campaign then you are not cut out to be the leader. First of all Sloan will be barking out a lot more social conservative drivel in the future; and second, they will be an issue in the next election unless you can take control now. Scheer couldn't do it and see what it got him at the polls and in the party.

:worms:

 

[YZT580]

300 mil points were well deserved.  Thanks for the clear, concise analysis. 

 

[dapaterson]

Scheer couldn't do it and see what it got him at the polls and in the party.

It got him the party leadership, and hundreds of thousands of dollars from party faithful to pay unknown bills (but what looks a lot to the outside observer like an out of court settlement for something...)

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Sloan's commentaries, which are an ad hominem attack against a major medical official within our system, are of little positive value and do not advance the dialog. They're a shrill shrieking from the sidelines by someone whose personal belief system I find nauseating.

...

How would "I" deal with these issues "without sounding like I'm attacking the CMO". Bloody simply by raising the legitimate questions about China and even the WHO, without bringing Tam into the discussion.

I think this is the problem here, by making a personal attack Sloan both weakened his argument and walked right into the "racism" accusations which further cloud the issue and blunt his argument. This was just poorly planned and executed and not a demonstration of great leadership or decision-making in my opinion.

I share your view, raise the questions and attack the issue not specific people involved.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Unfortunately one of the major issues of importance in respect to China and Canada, is the sheer scale of Chinese political subterfuge and espionage in our government, economy and politics that our own intelligence agencies warned about prior to being muzzled. As a result, people like Sloan go off half cocked.

I have no doubt there is quietly a thick file building on the WHO matter at both Drake and Olgilvie buildings and that probably contains nothing of interest to report on Tam. 

 

[RangerRay]

Nothing wrong with criticizing Dr. Tam, the WHO, or the Chinese. But Sloan went WAY overboard in questioning Dr. Tam’s loyalty. It is an anti-Semitic trope applied to a person of Chinese ethnicity. Sloan should know better.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=RangerRay] But Sloan went WAY overboard in questioning Dr. Tam’s loyalty]
[/quote]
Why?

Jeffrey Delisle was an officer in the CAF and he sold out to the Russians.

Dr Tam is a highly educated doctor who appears to have blindly followed the WHO's lead and direction. The WHO saying what China wants them to say is hardly a secret.

Was it over board just because of her race?

 

[RangerRay]

Why?

Jeffrey Delisle was an officer in the CAF and he sold out to the Russians.

Dr Tam is a highly educated doctor who appears to have blindly followed the WHO's lead and direction. The WHO saying what China wants them to say is hardly a secret.

Was it over board just because of her race?

If Sloan has evidence that Dr. Tam was disloyal, he had damn well provide evidence. Delisle was prosecuted and convicted in court. Dr. Tam made some questionable decisions based on questionable data provided by the WHO and China. Like I said, there is lots to criticize her on.  But questioning the loyalty of someone who happens to be of Chinese descent, without a shred of evidence, was more than a dog whistle.

For centuries, anti-Semites of all stripes questioned the loyalty of Jews based on the flimsiest of evidence, if there even was any.  To see a leadership candidate for a party I usually support say this kind of crap makes me sick.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

If Sloan has evidence that Dr. Tam was disloyal, he had damn well provide evidence. Delisle was prosecuted and convicted in court. Dr. Tam made some questionable decisions based on questionable data provided by the WHO and China. Like I said, there is lots to criticize her on.  But questioning the loyalty of someone who happens to be of Chinese descent, without a shred of evidence, was more than a dog whistle.

For centuries, anti-Semites of all stripes questioned the loyalty of Jews based on the flimsiest of evidence, if there even was any.  To see a leadership candidate for a party I usually support say this kind of crap makes me sick.

I agree that Mr. Sloan went way overboard and that this was an ad hominem attack of questionable prudence and effectiveness. I would expect someone who wants to be leader of the CPC/PM of Canada to exercise better judgement and tactics at the very least.

I am not convinced that this was a racist attack or that it can be equated to antisemitism tropes of the past, I just don't know enough about Sloan to know what his thought process was ... but from what I do know, it seems to me that this was more poor judgement. If Dr. Tam were not of Asian ancestry, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelash, but it still would have been a poor tactic. I think that attacking facts/arguments/actions is going to be more effective than attacking the person ten times out of ten.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Taking this from the gun control debate over here, since I want to segue into a more general CPC leadership discussion ...

Leslyn Lewis seems like the only Conservative contender to want to make waves about the gun ban.

Leslyn Lewis was a complete unknown to me before this CPC and that's really my main concern is that she's not well known, whereas (for better or worse) Peter MacKay and Erin O'Toole at least have some name recognition. And she hasn't exactly made much of a splash so far, as far as I can tell ... just going by what very little media coverage of the CPC leadership race I've seen, you'd think it was just a three-way race between MacKay, O'Toole, and Sloan.

As mentioned previously I've not been impressed with Sloan. Ms Lewis though, going by her emails that I receive as a CPC member, has been saying stuff I like and she seems to strike a good tone. I really like her "four pillars" of her platform, they are certainly "my kind of conservatism": 1. Upholding family as the cornerstone of society, 2. Protecting our fundamental freedoms of expression, conscience, & religion , 3. Compassion for the vulnerable, and 4. Fiscal Responsibility

I hadn't seen anything to suggest she'd make waves on the firearms front, but this just further pushes me towards voting for her.

I was unimpressed with MacKay and O'Toole's lukewarm responses and when I emailed both of their campaigns for clarification on certain points they have never taken the time to respond.

 

[MilEME09]

1. Upholding family as the cornerstone of society, 2. Protecting our fundamental freedoms of expression, conscience, & religion , 3. Compassion for the vulnerable, and 4. Fiscal Responsibility

Wasn't Ms. Lewis one of the candidates giving a stellar passing grade from anti-abortion groups? we all know any CPC candidate will get attacked by the liberals as somehow being the anti-abortion, anti-LBGTQ2+ party no matter what, and unless you have a strong counter to prevent that, you will loose votes,especially in the GTA. I do think some fresh blood, younger blood, will really help the CPC, they need to appeal to younger voters, but more importantly give people a reason to get out and vote for them.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Few good quotes.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/leslyn-lewis-pride-parade-1.5492123

"I didn't march in the parade before I became a politician," said the Toronto lawyer, who became eligible to run for the leadership late last month. "And I would feel that it's very disingenuous for me to use a particular vulnerable group to advance my political career."

In fact, Lewis told CBC News she decided to run for the leadership after watching the way Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer was treated during the last election — and what she called the Liberals' "obsession" with Scheer's refusal to attend Pride parades.

Obsession sounds right on the money.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Wasn't Ms. Lewis one of the candidates giving a stellar passing grade from anti-abortion groups? we all know any CPC candidate will get attacked by the liberals as somehow being the anti-abortion, anti-LBGTQ2+ party no matter what, and unless you have a strong counter to prevent that, you will loose votes,especially in the GTA. I do think some fresh blood, younger blood, will really help the CPC, they need to appeal to younger voters, but more importantly give people a reason to get out and vote for them.

I'm not sure about her getting a stellar grade from anti-abortion groups because I don't follow those groups.

So what's the strong counter, though? We can only select pro-abortion leaders? In my view (and I may well be wrong -- if I had the answers I would probably be a politician not a commentator from the internet peanut gallery) the way forward is to be open and up-front rather than obfuscating like Scheer. Scheer totally playing into the media's hand's with his prevarication on the subject. What I would have done is said straight up "yes, I believe that killing unborn children is wrong BUT I also recognize that Canadians as a whole do not hold this, as evidence by jury nullifications in the 1980s that led to our current lack of laws on this topic. Furthermore, unlike the Honourable Prime Minister, I will not impose my personal views upon Canada. I will not make sharing my personal views a prerequisite to receiving government funding or grants. I will not impose new laws on this topic."

That said, you may be right and only pro-abortion politicians are electable nowadays. One of the big reasons I have not attempted to run as a candidate is that I realize my religious views are "out of step with mainstream society" and therefore I would not be electable. Diversity doesn't really exist if you hold the "wrong" views (even if you're a quasi libertarian who would not impose your views on others).

 

[mariomike]

Ms Lewis though, going by her emails that I receive as a CPC member, has been saying stuff I like and she seems to strike a good tone. I really like her "four pillars" of her platform, they are certainly "my kind of conservatism": 1. Upholding family as the cornerstone of society, 2. Protecting our fundamental freedoms of expression, conscience, & religion , 3. Compassion for the vulnerable, and 4. Fiscal Responsibility

She got a Green  light from Campaign Life.

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/view/mp/province//id/12371/name/leslyn-lewis

"GREEN light means the person supports CLC principles and is rated as SUPPORTABLE"

They gave Peter MacKay and Erin O'Toolea Red lights,

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/view/mp/province//id/181/name/peter-mackay

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting+records/view/mp/province//id/11259/name/erin-o-toole

"RED light means the person is NOT SUPPORTABLE"

 

[MilEME09]

I'm not sure about her getting a stellar grade from anti-abortion groups because I don't follow those groups.

So what's the strong counter, though? We can only select pro-abortion leaders? In my view (and I may well be wrong -- if I had the answers I would probably be a politician not a commentator from the internet peanut gallery) the way forward is to be open and up-front rather than obfuscating like Scheer. Scheer totally playing into the media's hand's with his prevarication on the subject. What I would have done is said straight up "yes, I believe that killing unborn children is wrong BUT I also recognize that Canadians as a whole do not hold this, as evidence by jury nullifications in the 1980s that led to our current lack of laws on this topic. Furthermore, unlike the Honourable Prime Minister, I will not impose my personal views upon Canada. I will not make sharing my personal views a prerequisite to receiving government funding or grants. I will not impose new laws on this topic."

That said, you may be right and only pro-abortion politicians are electable nowadays. One of the big reasons I have not attempted to run as a candidate is that I realize my religious views are "out of step with mainstream society" and therefore I would not be electable. Diversity doesn't really exist if you hold the "wrong" views (even if you're a quasi libertarian who would not impose your views on others).

The counter needs to be that we live in a diverse society of opposing views and that regardless of the candidates person views, the CPC as a party has voted to not open either of those debates back up. Freedom of expression is a core canadian value, we need to play to that, and that by attacking ones personal values it is attack on our constitution and way of life.