Harper better outside Canada

[pegger]

Trex - I'm not wanting to argue with you on your points. I'm going to quote dumpthemonarrchy - because I think he sums up my points:

... Canada has a low profile internationally. Other countries are passing us in influence and we can't do much about it as their economies grow. But it is odd that Canadians think we have more influence than we actually do. Those high UN rankings just confirm what everyone already knows about the country. Life is good for us, but when Canadian politicians speak, not too many people outside the country are listening.

As to your opinion on Harper's international success, I just disagree that it's anything to be proud of. I agree he is doing better International than Nationally, but how hard is that, really?

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Canada is kind of like the hospitality business, no news is good news. We've had no empire, colonies, big time slavery of millions on plantations. When have we ever been big time news?

Charles de Gaulle once said I think or should have said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." But finally with Blackberry and the Cirque de Soleil we're getting some Canadian brands out there.

Tories like Harper, despite being a quiet nerdy systems guy, just wishes things could be more American in Canada. Most Canadian politicians just can't communicate or connect well with crowds. Think of Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark, and Gordon Campbell-all great in small rooms, not your living room. Yet it's common for American politicians like Obama and Sarah Palin. Tony Blair seems able to do it.

The Economist sometimes has news about Canada only in its North American edition. The cover with the moose wearing sunglasses last year saying Canada was cool was not in their international editions.

 

[Colpy]

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." Oscar Wilde

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Thanks for the correction Colpy.

However, they say Oscar was Wilde, but Thornton was Wilder.

Elvis Presley's manager, Colonel Parker definitely said, "Doesn't matter what they say about you, as long as they spell the name right." Cuz you can't sell records or anything else unless they know your name. And throughout history people have become well known through terrible acts.

 

[Trex]

Canada is kind of like the hospitality business, no news is good news. We've had no empire, colonies, big time slavery of millions on plantations. When have we ever been big time news?

Charles de Gaulle once said I think or should have said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." But finally with Blackberry and the Cirque de Soleil we're getting some Canadian brands out there.

Tories like Harper, despite being a quiet nerdy systems guy, just wishes things could be more American in Canada. Most Canadian politicians just can't communicate or connect well with crowds. Think of Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark, and Gordon Campbell-all great in small rooms, not your living room. Yet it's common for American politicians like Obama and Sarah Palin. Tony Blair seems able to do it.

The Economist sometimes has news about Canada only in its North American edition. The cover with the moose wearing sunglasses last year saying Canada was cool was not in their international editions.

So your saying that because we did not start wars or contribute to slavery we are not newsworthy as a nation?
Whatever.

My initial point was that I personelly thought Harper was doing a fairly crappy job of being the PM from an internal perspective. I would say his handling of the recession was OK but thats about it.
My point was that he was doing a far better job Internationally than he is at home.
I still feel there is some truth to that.

Both you and pegger seem to think Canada should be kept off the international stage and remain on the sidelines for the forseeable future.
I dont see any advantage in that.

Trying to negate my argument by blindly contradicting everything I say seems, if
may say it, odd.
Why dont you make put forth your own arguments instead of erroneous contradicting mine.
I never said Harper was flooding the international news, I merely said Canada does periodically exist in international media.

This statement of yours:
quote
The Economist sometimes has news about Canada only in its North American edition. The cover with the moose wearing sunglasses last year saying Canada was cool was not in their international editions.quote.

Is completely and utterly false.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and simply made it up.

Every single edition (with the exception of special intelligence unit briefings) of the Economist contains a section called "The America's".
This section contains what The Economist feels is relevent news of the week happening in the America's.
Obviously Canada makes it into this catagory with regularity.
Some weeks they may even have two articles on Canada in "The America's" subsection.
And I am indeed talking about international editions.
I buy the thing in Heathrow departures all the time.
The link that I gave in an earlier post from The Economist critizing Canadas judiciary did come from their international edition.

Hope this clears up some confusion about the international media for you.

Trex

 

[pegger]

My initial point was that I personelly thought Harper was doing a fairly crappy job of being the PM from an internal perspective. I would say his handling of the recession was OK but thats about it.
My point was that he was doing a far better job Internationally than he is at home.
I still feel there is some truth to that.

Both you and pegger seem to think Canada should be kept off the international stage and remain on the sidelines for the forseeable future.
I dont see any advantage in that.

Trex - My disagreement with you is on how well Harper is doing Internationally. I don't feel that he is "putting Canada back on the stage" or that we have been that ineffectual in international affairs as you seem to suggest. Nor do I believe we should be sitting on the sidelines. However, I don't feel that a measure of a nation is how involved they are in telling other nations what to do.

Also, you need to recognize that historically, demographically, and militarily Canada is a small player in the world in general. Even economically, while in the top 20, heck, in the top 8, we just aren't that major of a force. I also feel that given this, we should pretend to be something we are not. We are NOT a super power, nor are we a military force to be reconned with. We ARE a humanitarian aid force though. Also, we ARE (or at least WERE) recognized as peace makers, negotiators and facilitators. We CAN and SHOULD be LEADERS in those areas.

My main point, is being in the limelight, for the sake of being in the limelight isn't good enough. Yeah, Harper is going around, spouting off about how great things are in Canada over the past 6 months, but to what end? What are our foreign policy objectives? What do we want to do internationally? What is our goal? I hear NOTHING on this from Harper. It appears to be his goal is to suck up to the US right now, by kissing Obama's a$$.

Can, and should we be involved internationally? Sure. But do you honestly think that reducing our presence in Africa is the best way to do it? Or to boost our militarism in the Middle East?

All Harper has done Internationally is attend some photo ops. To me, that just isn't good enough to give him any amount of praise.

 

[pegger]

It's stuff like this that make me question Harper's claim to growing Canada's international stature...

globeandmail.com: Adam Radwanski - Spread the news: Canada's gone