You don’t mind if I call you Andrew, do you? It’s better than what I sometimes used to call you, which was Blandy Andy.
I stopped calling you that because you figured out a way to make the bland thing work, like Brampton Bill Davis did. You embraced your inner ordinariness.
You starting hanging out in hockey rinks and you commenced rubbing Timbits all over your torso — which, unlike Prime Minister Blackface, you have never exposed to a grateful nation. You became the Canadian Everyman, and you made it work for you.
The pocketbook stuff, too. That was good. You and campaign manager Hamish Marshall concluded, rightly, that voters regard everyone in politics as unindicted co-conspirators, so you stopped hollering all the time that Justin is a crook. You just kept talking about how hard it is for regular folks to get by, and left the scandal-mongering to the media. That was smart.
And the polls bore fruit, sort of. Ipsos says you’re ahead, and you have been for the entirety of the campaign. Nanos says you’re tied with Trudeau for best choice for prime minister, which is way better than you’ve been in the past.
But. But, Andrew, seriously?
[…]
See Also:
(1) Trudeau’s yearbook tells a bigger story
(2) Facebook ‘fact check’ censors Sun column critiquing Liberals
(3) This election is only worsening the feds’ fiscal future
(4) None of our leaders are talking about the one key issue that affects every person’s wallet
(5) Liberals try to convince us the Stephen Harper years were rife with plagues and hellfire
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/key-moments-french-language-debate-1.5306941
“At a post-debate press conference, Scheer said like many Quebecers, he is Catholic. (The church is opposed to abortion and assisted death on religious grounds.) But the Conservative leader said he will govern for all Canadians and it would be status quo on abortion and same-sex marriage rights.”
Andrew Scheer’s defense of his position on social issues is weak, IMO. He obviously hasn’t read this column which appeared at National Newswatch last month.
I also find the 4 federal leaders’ position on Quebec’s Bill 21 baffling, if not downright hypocritical and/or contradictory. They claim to support the right to express one’s religiosity by wearing religious signs yet they deny practitioners of a religion like Catholicism the right to follow their conscience and the tenets of that religion, opposing abortion and not embracing same-sex marriage or assisted dying.
If individuals who are apparently devout practitioners of a religion — like women wearing veils or men wearing some form of headgear — should be allowed to wear those symbols openly, as argued by critics of Bill 21, why shouldn’t practitioners of a religion like Catholicism be allowed to adhere to the tenets of THEIR religion, tenets which they do not plan to impose on others?