Trudeau says annexation threats are real; so what is Smith really doing?
In case you've forgotten, Danielle Smith is a shoddy deal maker.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a group of business representatives gathered for a meeting on Canada-U.S. relations Friday morning that Donald Trump’s annexation threats are real.
“Mr. Trump has it in mind that one of the easiest ways of (getting Canadian resources) is absorbing our country. And it is a real thing,” the Prime Minster said.
The problem with Danielle Smith bouncing around Republican circles has always been that she’s malleable. Her thoughts are best described as the last person who told them to her.
We have plenty instances, like her repetitive “saving children’s reproductive choices” by not allowing them gender-affirming care (something that isn’t actually a problem but it is a very popular conspiracy theory).
We’ve seen it when she suggested that “if anyone is (spreading chemtrails over Alberta), it’s the U.S. Department of Defense.”
And we’ve seen it consistently since she began using Trump’s threats to Canada as a wedge with a government she doesn’t like — Canada’s.
“Don’t poke the bear,” she says.
“Don’t retaliate.”
Those don’t sound like words that are standing up for Canadians in her province.
But what would Danielle Smith do?
We’ve seen it, and heard it, before
Danielle Smith has a way of communicating with people. She’s generally seen as confident, and engaging, and she has the ability to project confidence no matter what she’s saying.
Confidence, however, does not equal competence.
And we’ve seen that play out spectacularly.
“I look at it a bit differently, I look at it that we won. To me, this is declaring victory and uniting under one person.” ~ Danielle Smith, December 19, 2014
That was recently former Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith’s response to the question from Evan Solomon on CBC The House.
He pulled no punches.
“You have been accused of betraying your former party, of political opportunism, of betraying your principles, of betraying 442,000 people who voted for the Wildrose Party in the last election. How do you justify doing what no one’s ever seen before — the leader of the official opposition capitulating, walking across the floor to join government?”
A lot of those accusations sound familiar.
Danielle saw it differently. Winning. Victory.
“Come join us,” she says later in the nine minute interview.
Just completely at ease with the fact that she’d screwed over her party, and everyone who voted for her.
It was good for Danielle, so how could it not be good for everyone else?
Back then, she said she just couldn’t find it in herself to oppose someone, then-Premier Jim Prentice, when they agreed on so much.
He “has a set of policies, values, and principles that are almost in perfect alignment” with what she believed her party wanted from their government. And it’s what she wanted, too.
It was good for Danielle.
She’s long since deleted her fangirling over Trump’s win and excitement over attending his inauguration.
Apparently someone in her orbit realized it would be difficult for her to pretend to be concerned about his threats to the country while those were still around.
“You have to have a leader of the official opposition who sincerely wants to defeat the guys on the other side,” she said.
But she didn’t.
“It became impossible for me to wish this guy to fail. I want him to succeed and I want to be able to help him succeed.”
It’s what Danielle wanted.
And everyone else?
“Some people are confused. Some are angry, but I’m getting support as well,” she said.
“I’ve done a lot of work on behalf of my constituents, and I think they’ll realize that this is me actually carrying forward my policies and principles in a new way.”
Danielle discovered that she wasn’t quite getting enough support for her bad judgement and her poor decisions too late.
When she failed to win the candidate nomination for the Progressive Conservatives, who had called the next election a year early, she found that betrayal was still too fresh for her to talk her way out of.
We’re not having an election, though.
The only people who can actually stand up for Albertans and ensure Danielle Smith isn’t off making a great deal for herself at our expense is the UCP caucus.
When she did it to the Wildrose, they were able to recover.
Could Alberta?
Addendum: Talking with CBC News Network’s Andrew Nichols
Women of ABpoli is a reader-powered publication. Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to keep this content available for everyone.
Always take his evil jokes seriously 😳
Parsing populist politicians polemics perplexes… yes, I went looking for alliteration.
The problem is that everything is a pose. It’s about reaching our feelings. When they have a healthy dose of narcissism, like Danielle Smith and Donald Trump, do they really mean what they say? Are they playing chess, when I’m playing checkers? Or… are they caught up in their own personality flaws unable to see that their actions create far more consequences than the simple, linear ones that initiated their partisan, populist, political polemics?