Elizabeth May has a blog

Okay, I know this isn’t exactly earth-shattering news, but Green Party leadership candidate Elizabeth May has a blog.

She sounds pretty balanced. Her current top post does go into a bit of a blame rant, but that could be construed as laying blame at the feet of the guilty. The most noteworthy posting contains some ideas on what she would do if elected:

We would invite the best minds in the country, whether from universities or independent think tanks, or from non-government organizations, whether they are from the Green Party or not, to put forward and discuss the very most innovative and effective policies to achieve a better Canada. The purpose of these conferences is three fold:

  • To keep the Green Party in the news with a higher profile before the next election;
  • To develop excellent policies and ideas, “grist for the mill” for the Green Party platform development process; and
  • To position the Green Party as the party of real content and substance, in contrast to the main parties where policies are increasingly devised by opinion polling and focus groups.

Those are all good things. But they don’t answer my two central concerns: would she like to see the Green Party as a one issue party, and her alleged my-way-or-the-highway leadership style.

11 Responses to “Elizabeth May has a blog”

  1. Posted by darrell
    2006.May.25 @ 11:33

    I gotta be honest, I wouldn’t vote for her or the Green Party if she was their candidate. I’m not a Bush supporter but the attacks aimed at him turned me off her. Attacks such as accusing him and Jeb Bush of “stealing” the election, referring to his terms as President as a “devastating reign” (both words I have issues with), and her label of him and the Australian PM as “partners in crime” automatically make me think that she would not be someone I’d want leading this country or representing us on an international level. Whether we agree with President Bush or not I would prefer the Canadian Prime Minister to be somewhat more diplomatic in their criticisms of foreign elected leaders. But in the limited number of posts on her blog she’s already used labels such as criminal and thief as well as using the term “reign” to seemingly imply that Bush has positioned himself as some sort of Monarch in the US.

    Stuff like that makes me think she’s not suited to play on a level that the Prime Minister of Canada must play. But that’s just my opinion.

    Respond to this comment
  • Posted by e
    2006.May.25 @ 18:15

    You’re right. I agree with EM’s perspective, but there’s a right and a wrong way to express an opinion.

    The Green Party should be working to get elected, first with individual MPs, and finally as the ruling party. As such, it doesn’t pay to start alienating people we may have to be negotiating with in future.

    If we ignore her sneering at Bush, and just focus on her blurb about the Tar Sands, I have to say that her answer takes the wrong approach. The purpose of a politician isn’t to blame others, it’s to make the best of the current situation and ensure past mistakes don’t happen again.

    Respond to this comment
  • Pingback from Blogosphere Roundup at The Elizabeth May Campaign Blog
  • Posted by Geoffrey May
    2006.May.29 @ 10:54

    I am elizabeth’s brother , and came here through a link on her blog .So much for full disclosure.
    I agree with evrything she says about Bush , and I find it odd that telling the truth is “bush bashing” .Is critisism of Hitler, “hitler bashing”, no , its the truth of the historical record.The sooner we speak the truth the better, funny it turns some off .

    Respond to this comment
  • Posted by darrell
    2006.May.29 @ 13:15

    Here we go bringing up Hitler in a discussion of Bush again. *sigh* It’s getting old people. She is not speaking any “truths” or even giving valid criticisms of his work. To me she appears to be using insults (see “criminal”, “stealing the election”, and “devastating reign”) to forward her political agenda. And yes, using attacks like this will turn people off even those who might not support Bush. Odd how that works, you’re more likely to listen when someone isn’t shouting insults in your face.

    So please provide some rational discussion on why I should want her as my Prime Minister other than her ability to criticize and insult others or move on.

    Respond to this comment
  • Pingback from Pie Palace · Talking like a politician
  • Posted by e
    2006.May.30 @ 11:30

    I’ve responded to Geoffrey’s comments in another posting. Please take a look at Talking Like A Politician.

    Respond to this comment
  • Posted by Daryl
    2006.Jun.03 @ 17:06

    I thought the comment about Bush bashing was interesting. Perhaps ill-advised by Ms. May to say (especially if she is seriously considreed being our foremost statesperson), but evidence certainly seems to be mounting now that the President is on his way out and it suddenly isn’t “unpatriotic” os “seditious” anymore to not support a “war time” Present, that if not outright stolen, an extreme amount of dirty tricks were used in securing the election.

    Rolling Stone has a disturbingly well researched article this month (Was the 2004 election stolen ?) about whether more than 350k Democratic votes were schotched which would have easily swung the election for Kerry.

    Pretty scary actually. I’m not sure whether these sorts of dirty tricks go down on both sides and they are just better documented and more transparent these days or this really is a widespread, concerted campaign at vote fraud across the board, but it is frightening from a democratic perspective.

    Let’s hope we’re safer here in Canada with the conduct of our parties.

    Respond to this comment
  • Posted by Daryl
    2006.Jun.03 @ 17:10

    Hmmm… besides my radically poor spelling in the above comment, I also missed out on a disclosure statement : I’m helping out the May campaign on the technology and web side of things.

    Respond to this comment
  • Posted by Daryl
    2006.Jun.03 @ 17:36

    And I also have to agree with the other poster. Comparisons of Bush to Hitler are just hyperbole and rhetoric and don’t add to the discussion. Your comments get dismissed as amongst the “tin foil hat” crowd.

    Facts on the current US administration’s manipulation of intelligence data to take invade Iraq, the moral issues surrounding such issues as the “War on Terror”, refusing to condemn torture as a means of interrogation, corporate cronyism (yes, I’m looking at you Halliburton and Enron !), and illegal domestic wiretapping all add up to a very scary list that taken together before you even count such things as the Clean Air act and other legislative atrocities are sufficient to question hi administration.

    Just IMHO.

    Respond to this comment
  • Posted by darrell
    2006.Jun.06 @ 11:14

    Thank you for the link to that Rolling Stone article, very interesting stuff. But I’ll move on from discussing Bush’s possible wrong doings or his administration. I don’t feel his acts or his administration should be a focus when we are looking for a Prime Minister and my initial post was not to support him but to point out how I felt about the image Ms. May seems to be putting out with her blog entries.

    I still feel she got off on the wrong foot in some of her discussions but I appreciate her taking the time to address my concerns in her blog and follow up on her proposed solutions.

    Respond to this comment

    • Reply

    You can use these HTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    If your website is claim enabled, it will be notified that you have posted here.