January 29, 2006


'Hick' vote a watershed moment (SALIM MANSUR, 1/28/06, Toronto Sun)

It is as if the "sophisticates" in the cities, ever suspicious of the country "hicks" (the elitists' label, not mine) remained dismissive of Conservatives.

The "sophisticates" worried about such issues as revisiting same-sex marriage, the Kyoto protocol on climate change and the undermining of Canada's "values" -- as shaped and protected by Liberals in Ottawa.

They worried less about the odour of Liberal corruption that made the political atmosphere unbearable, and they were more readily persuaded by fearmongering on the part of a government that had lost its moral compass.

But the "hicks," having toiled and fought for their country, and being less reliant on what passes for wisdom as noise made by the "sophisticates," went ahead to vote for change.

The hicks lanced the boil. It was painful, but healing.

And as the accumulated filth of our political system gets drained -- a necessary exercise that must be done with some regularity -- health will likely be restored by the vigour of a new party bearing fresh ideas and energy.

Elections in a democracy can be therapeutic. The benefits of the therapy administered by the "hicks" this week are palpable.

One lancing isn't going to suffice to get rid of all the malignant wisdom of the sophisticates.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 29, 2006 12:38 PM

Total speculation:

It's been reported that the recent (as in last couple of decades) immigrant vote went overwhelmingly Liberal, which is why they retained the urban areas. I wonder how much their willingness to retain the Liberals in the face of corruption is because they came from cultures in which such systematic corruption is considered normal, unremarkable and expected. They may even have considered the Libs to be "clean" by Old Country standards. So Lib multi-culti policies prevented the total meltdown which would have occurred if the immigrants had been assimilated.

Note also how the "hicks" of Quebec dumped the Bloc for the Conservatives, while it was in the non-Montreal urban areas that the Libs lost to the Bloc, supposedly over corruption, resulting in the Bloc results not looking too bad on the surface. I wonder how much the forced Frenchification they practice in Quebec had anything to do with all that. And I wonder which switch will be reversed in the next election.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at January 29, 2006 2:21 PM

It's been reported that the recent (as in last couple of decades) immigrant vote went overwhelmingly Liberal, which is why they retained the urban areas.

But Raoul, how can this be? OJ is always telling us that any and all immigration, legal or illegal, is a good thing for conservativism and the US. I ask both of you: on this issue, is Canada really any different?

Posted by: PapayaSF at January 29, 2006 3:22 PM

Assimilation is the key.

Posted by: Gideon at January 29, 2006 3:47 PM

It's more important that they're personally conservative and religious than that they vote Republican. Were you Latino would you vote for a party that is as anti-Latino as you guys are?

Posted by: oj at January 29, 2006 3:47 PM

So as long as they are personally conservative and religious, it's OK if they vote to make the country as socialist as possible? I fail to see how that works out well in the long run.

And why swallow the Democrat line that Republicans are anti-Latino? They're anti-illegal immigration, which is not the same thing. At all.

Posted by: PapayaSF at January 29, 2006 8:48 PM

Of course it's the same thing.

Posted by: oj at January 29, 2006 8:51 PM

No it's not.

and it ain't just the pubbies, it's going to be a big issue.

Posted by: Sandy P at January 29, 2006 10:37 PM


It would only be a big issue if the economy crashed and then they wouldn't come anyway.

Posted by: oj at January 29, 2006 11:16 PM