Andrew, I barely know anything about you and you’re already pissing me off.
You’re annoying me because of a headline that appeared on a number of Canadian news outlets last night. In that news report you’re quoted as saying that had you been in charge of the recent NAFTA renegotiations that the outcome would have been much better for Canadians than the Liberals managed.
You failed to offer any detail on what you would have done differently but you made the assertion regardless. Kind of a Canadian Trumpism where you make a claim that your ideological opponent is incompetent but fail to demonstrate your own competence.
But here’s the thing Andrew.
You were elected as a member of parliament to serve the Canadian people. I think the obligation to serve applies regardless of whether you’re in power or in opposition. If you were truly in possession of a strategy that could better deal with the Americans then you should have shared that strategy. The sharing could have presented itself in parliamentary debate and would have been on the public record and you would have received the appropriate credit.
But you didn’t do that. Instead you choose to sit on your negotiating masterplan and in doing so you abrogated your responsibility to the people that elected you.
Or, you’re bullshitting and that’s not going to make my trust meter tingle any more than intentionally withholding information that may have benefited me and millions of your fellow Canadians. It’s kind of a dick move actually. Makes a fella think that you might be a fan of other sketchy tactics like tasteless attack ads.
I was thinking about attack ads. I was wondering if the conservatives might go after marijuana legislation if they’re going to engage in a going low ad strategy. Because if that happens it would be brilliant if a couple of Liberal candidates got together and filmed a rebuttal. In that rebuttal the speakers could point out the ugliness of the attack ad and then borrow half a line from Michelle Obama. Looking into the camera the speaker would reach for a pipe and lighter and solemnly utter, “when they go low, we get high.”
Maybe not though. It’s probably too soon.
But my A.D.D. ad moment eventually led me to wonder about what makes Andy tick.
So, I did some research to try and get some insight into the man that would be king. Andrew is from Regina or at least that’s the riding that he represents. He was born and raised in Eastern Ontario and moved to Regina to finish university. I guess he liked it there because he stayed.
So far so good but the next item in Andy’s biography worries me a bit. When Andrew was 25 years old, he won his first seat with the conservatives by a an 860 vote margin. Near the end of that campaign Andy accused his opponent of being soft on child pornography. That accusation caused a reporter for the National Post to declare him the ultimate political animal.
I have a couple of issues with political animals. First of all I’m thinking his child porn accusation is bullshit designed to inflame. I find it hard to believe that any politician is going to declare themselves as soft on child porn. Unless, the candidate is male and they’re talking about their dick. If this is dick talk then being hard is a bad thing when you’re talking about child porn.
Secondly, my impression of political animals makes me think of America. It makes me think of candidates who will say and do anything to win. It makes me envision an ever lowered bar of integrity and the disappearance of civil discourse in favor of finger pointing and unsubstantiated accusations. It makes me think that your primary goal is to serve Andrew Scheer’s ambitions.
I try to stay optimistic that there is some intangible built into the Canadian psyche that will prevent us from degenerating to the level of our neighbor but you’re worrying me a bit here Andrew.
Maybe the worry is misplaced. Maybe Andrew is a man of solid and thoughtfully acquired convictions and he just got caught up in a pre-campaign moment of enthusiasm. Shit like that happens.
I decided I needed to look a little deeper to try and better understand the man. So a look at his voting record was in order. Also I managed to locate some quotes he’s made during his career regarding the social and economic choices we debate as Canadians.
Now I’m not sure what to think.
It appears that Mr. Scheer has a number of opinions that I find disagreeable. However, he indicates that while he may personally disagree with Canadian law and policy on some issues that he nonetheless would not move to change those laws or policies.
Except marijuana legalization. He reserves the option to rescind the legislation while allowing that after legalization the conservative party needs to be realistic and understand that lots of people will work in the industry.
Interesting. I’m not sure what being realistic means here. Does it mean that people that work in the industry will vote against him if he threatens to rescind the legislation or does it mean that the weed industry is a tax windfall on a scale with alcohol?
He didn’t elaborate.
But weed is just one issue. Let’s have a look at some other political stances Mr. Scheer embraces.
Andrew voted against legalizing same sex marriages. However he stated that as long as there is no consensus on the issue that as Prime Minister he will not reopen the subject to debate. I have no idea what no consensus means. It sounds like he’ll support the current law as long as that will get him elected but would prefer to remove the law, as long as that would keep him elected. Again, I’m really not sure.
There is an Andrew quote regarding same sex marriage that bothers me though. The quote could use some clarification in my opinion but if I understand his words correctly then I think Andrew believes his faith should supersede the laws of the Dominion of Canada.
Here’s the quote, and you can decide for yourself. The quote is from a Neil McDonald article for the CBC in May of 2017. Scheer’s remarks were in defence of some guy from Calgary who happens to be a Catholic bishop. I think his last name is Henry. Henry the bishop had just stated Jean Chretien was going to hell for supporting same sex marriage legislation.
“to think that a Catholic bishop must answer to a civil authority over matters of faith is abominable. It is abhorrent to me, to other Catholics and to every member of every faith community.”[109
Andrew has a few faith based perspectives. Each and every one of them bother me. He is pro-life but again follows the same pattern as his same sex position. Namely, he’s against it but will respect the law. This tactic is actually politically savvy I think. Basically the man is trying to provide some appeal to everyone. I might even vote for him if I believe he’ll balance the goddamn budget and leave women to make their own reproductive choices. But, I struggle when a person can describe themselves as a feminist who believes in recognition of the fundamental equality between men and women and then vote against pro choice legislation. And what the hell does fundamentally equal mean?
It appears that Mr. Scheer is a bit of a paradox that will require more investigation. I don’t know how the same person can advocate for the end of the Canadian Wheat board and yet vigorously support the supply management system for dairy and poultry.
I also need to wrap my head around why he voted against the Paris accord in 2016 and the next year voted to ratify the same accord. Seems odd but I’m guessing the vote was politically expedient for that moment.
But the faith based shit is pretty annoying. I would prefer that the Canadian government not send thoughts and prayers and Andy seems fond of making sure people know he’s praying for them. I think people in dire circumstances would prefer bottled water, expedited refugee claims, medical care and food. Making sure everyone know you’re a Christian man seems like another political calculation. His faith base laps it up convinced he’s their boy and they vote for him. Secular Canadians treat thoughts and prayers as harmless and don’t really give much of a shit until you start fucking around with civil and personal freedoms that the faithful would rather were unavailable.
Another A.D.D. moment.
I think freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
So, I’m not sure what to make of Andrew Scheer. He has a few minor voting scandals in his past, an outright lie about a privy council briefing, some denials about illegal voting incentives and a claim that Julie Payette offended millions of Canadians with her remarks about creationism.
Yup…..millions.
He also made the claim that Trudeau wanted to legalize heroin and repeated the claim until forced to admit that the Trudeau discussion around heroin was about decriminalization and not legalization. The heroin debate also included the concept of safe needle repositories and if those sites reduced disease and were of any real value. It shouldn’t be a surprise then to learn Andy opposes safe injection sites because the government is assisting in the ingestion of illicit drugs.
One last item and a summary. Andrew introduced a bill that called for tax deductions for families that have children in private learning institutions. Andrew has five children of his own. He’s a good Catholic remember? And yes, his children attend a private faith based school.
I’m still trying to sort out the detail surrounding Andrew’s support of scrapping the carbon tax. I just get this sense that his opinion will evolve as he determines what will be the most popular position to assume. Somehow it seems that Andrew has mastered being for and against most issues at the same time.
It’s a special kind of skill I guess.
I guess I can only wait and see what happens as the campaigns ramp up. Right now the style I expect from Andrew should be some Trump mixed with Ford and a smattering of Jesus here and there. I expect hard on crime and an adjustment around immigration to privately sponsored and if possible, Christian. I expect attack ads and bullshit accusations with little or no evidence.
I don’t expect civility or reason and I hope I’m wrong.
We’ll see.