danbaril

February 7, 2007

Finally, a little respect for the man who on March 28, 2006, the Globe and Mail's John Ibbitson acknowledged that Garth Turner "...is the future of Canadian politics."

Now in fairness to John, I've taken that quote only slightly out of context and would encourage readers of this space to consult the original column entitled "Why Garth Turner is the future of politics"

Coming Soon:

February 5, 2007 ... "Dithering dictators vs. the constituents' tongue"

Earlier today in a live discussion, here, Mr. Ibbitson further commented to a question posed of him about the Turner move to the Liberals by saying "Garth Turner is a character, which means that normal political rules don't apply."

Can you smell it? I can. The word "normal."

Another comment a little later goes on to reply "...no, I don't find Garth Turner dangerous. I find him amusing."

I think it's inaccurate, if not even a little unfair, to say "normal" political rules don't apply to Garth Turner. Unconventional and unorthodox maybe, but not abnormal. And while we are at it, I think Garth Turner's efforts go a little beyond the amusing, the comical, or the entertaining. Although I admit, they are that too.

I further admit it's semantics and I am splitting hairs over a quickly typed response given in a live online discussion as opposed to one of John's usual and well thought-out columns. I am taking full advantage of the opportunity, I finally admit, for a reason. To argue a point. Garth Turner has earned and deserves respect.

For more years than I care to recall, it's been politics as usual in Canada. The electorate is cynical, people think politics and politicians don't matter, and especially today's youth who are so disconnected with what goes on politically, it's no wonder some of the clowns and theatrics we see daily in Question Period are a sad-sad representation of our national government.

So don't belittle, ridicule, and choose to see motives that aren't there. I say this not in my capacity as a Garth Turner friend and confidant, but more so as a private citizen who's actually taken more than 5 minutes to listen and investigate for myself, and who has learned to ignore those who like to crap all over people simply for the sake of crapping all over other people and without justifiable reason.

The guy is only trying his best, and accomplishing far more than most trying to make Canada a better place. I observe some of the comments on blogs, comments sections, radio shows, and I can't help but conclude how very ignorant (in the dictionary sense of the term) some people are. Thankfully those people are in the minority on polling day.

The decision Garth reached was an agonizing one. I know. I watched and helped him make it. The hours, days, weeks, and months spent considering every possible option that was best for not just his constituents, but all Canadians, was grueling. Hours and hours of consulting with Canadians and constituents. More town hall meetings in four months than most politicians hold in 4 years. So to those who suggest Garth is a hypocrite, might I suggest you don't know the man and you certainly don't know what you are talking about. I repeat, Garth did not cross the floor. The floor crossed him!

I ask people to keep in mind one thing. Timing. In the days leading up to October 19, 2006, Garth was anticipatorily critical, and as it turns out rightly so, of the pending Harper-Ambrose Clean Air Act. In political terms, he begged and pleaded for the Conservatives' promised homegrown environment plan to be something more than just a bunch more hot air. Knowing it was, hot air that is, Harper moved to have Turner turfed the day previous, October 18, knowing the environment plan was so weak that Garth, along with the rest of the political and scientific community would outcry its irresponsible deficiencies. The alleged breach of caucus secrecy was pure PMO spin and meant to divert attention.

Garth is a "maverick." That is a title I've never liked but that I have come to accept for its positive meanings. He calls a spade a spade. Of that there is no doubt and that has a lot to do with why I support him. Beyond that he has vision. The "future of Canadian politics" label given him by John Ibbitson is a good one.

With hopefully not divulging too much of a recent private conversation I asked "so if you could be Minister of anything what would it be?" He would not answer the question at first saying "you know better than anybody it's not about that" to which I said, "I know, but humour me for a minute, if you could have any Ministry what would it be?" After a brief pause "Minister of the future" he said in that familiar tone he uses when it's hard to tell the difference between sarcasm and dead seriousness.

That answer has stuck with me the past few days and I told him as much when I also told him he had my support in joining Stéphane Dion.

In the meantime, I hope Stephen Harper calls those by-elections Garth has challenged him to call. But I'll also bet the figurative family farm without bluffing (see Feb 5) that won't happen. Stephen Harper is not about to prove, beyond any remaining shadow of a doubt that his decision to oust Garth Turner was an ill-conceived strategy and a big-big mistake.

But what of my other friend/client, Elizabeth May, about whom this space has also devoted a good chunk of effort these past few months. Similar to my Garth Turner, what next? blog of October 20, I have today delivered to Elizabeth my best paid and well considered advice. In fairness to Elizabeth, and not unlike caucus secrets, that advice shall remain confidential until Elizabeth and I have a chance to discuss and review.

Suffice it to say, it wasn't normal, I mean orthodox, advice. But then again, not often is the advice I give orthodox.

Garth Turner; R-E-S-P-E-C-T, and MAYbe a sneak peak ahead