Tuesday, September 06, 2005

The Final Four

While Trudeau was once again in a dogfight, he has advanced to the final four, along with the other top seeds. The results of the quarter-finals are:


(1) Mackenzie King (513) 61.88%
(9) John Diefenbaker (316) 38.12%

(2) John A. Macdonald (606) 72.49%
(7) Brian Mulroney (230) 27.51%

(3) Pierre Trudeau (430) 50.83%
(11) Lester B. Pearson (416) 49.17%

(4) Wilfrid Laurier (617) 74.61%
(5) Jean Chretien (210) 25.39%

This will set up what promises to be two very interesting semi-finals with Trudeau vs. Macdonald and King vs Laurier. I'll post the poll tomorrow.

14 Comments:

  • It's surprising that Trudeau made it to this next round, but I am pleased he did.
    I predict, however, that Macdonald will win and end up facing Laurier in the final. I will of course vote for Trudeau anyways because, while I certainly believe that Macdonald had a great vision in his belief in Confederation, I think that Trudeau was the greater Prime Minister for his advancement of the individual rights, freedoms and responsibilities of every Canadian.
    I think that Laurier will beat out King for much the same reason. Laurier made people proud to be Canadian and not just British or French.

    "My countrymen, are not only those in whose veins runs the blood of France. My countrymen are all those people, no matter what their race or language, whom the fortunes of war, the twists and turns of fate, or their own choice, have brought among us."
    -Laurier

    By Blogger Bruce Lyth, at 8:05 PM  

  • I'm torn on the King vs. Laurier matchup. Particularly since I once attended a university named after Laurier...

    By Blogger Toronto Tory, at 8:26 PM  

  • The fact that the corrupt little thug from Shawinigan even made the list is evidence enough that:

    "Some people can be fooled all of the time"

    By Anonymous James Halifax, at 9:25 PM  

  • I think Will Furgeson is on to something when he talks about how longevity does not equal good leadership. King is mostly just famous for the stuff he didn't do - he didn't piss of the French too much, he didn't screw up the war too much, nobody go that mad at him. Laurier should win for sure.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:25 PM  

  • "The fact that the corrupt little thug from Shawinigan even made the list is evidence enough that:

    "Some people can be fooled all of the time""

    -Most richly ironic post...ever.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:27 PM  

  • Hmm... I have to say I'm deeply surprised that the Trude won. I mean, you'd figure that if he almost got beaten by the likes of Joe Clark, he'd stand no chance against a heavyweight like Pearson. Well, either way, I doubt he'll beat Macdonald... but I'm still voting for him. Hey, Macdonald pursued policies harmful to the west too (tariffs and all). At least Trudeau has the Charter going for him.

    By Blogger Clear Grit, at 2:28 AM  

  • King vs. Laurier is an easy call, particularly for someone with classical liberal leanings. Laurier was a great man, and went down on an issue worth going down over -- free trade. King -- he had longevity, sure, and he didn't bust up the country, but that extra little something just isn't there.

    I'm not sure about Macdonald vs. Trudeau. The thing is, if you remember Sir John A.'s true record, the corruption in his government, and the principles he had... But I'll probably still pick him anyway. Major impact and all that.

    By Blogger The Tiger, at 7:43 AM  

  • King vs Lauier.
    Well lets see here, Lauier screwed the west (MB/SK/AB) by not making it one big province to counter the influence of the east. Kings policy of conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription (which was only for the liberal party benefit) contributed to the needless death of untrained volunteers in western Europe in WW II. Can I vote for neither?

    By Anonymous D Mitchell, at 3:21 PM  

  • d mitchell:

    If Laurier "screwed" the West, why was he so popular out there? On the contrary, he was hailed as the first PM to pay any heed or attention to the west and his own National Policy as well reciprocity were very popular.

    As a student of history, I would be very interested in learning exactly how "conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription" cost a single life, expecially if, as you imply, it was a meaningless statement only for the Liberal Party?

    TB

    By Blogger Cerberus, at 11:19 AM  

  • Cerbus
    By not allowing the NW to become one large province or even two (Buffalo which would be Alberta and the western half of Sask, and Manitoba which would contain the eastern half of Sask) he preserved the dominance of the Great Lakes/St Lawerence regions. He may have listened to western concerns but he made sure that the CPR kept its manopoly, and MacDonald's National Policy remained in place to stifle any attempt to get cheaper goods from the US.

    As for King, by keeping the zombies in Canada and not sending them to Europe he condemned the understrength troops there to a greater chance of being killed. The Zombies were completly trained up and could have been slotted into the infantry where they were desperatley needed. But then it is the LPC tradition to screw the military isn't it?

    By Anonymous Don Mitchell, at 3:16 PM  

  • So Don, why was Laurier so popular out West then?

    And how exactly would a single large province have in any way affected Central Canadian dominance of politics? Would the One Big Province have resulted in a larger population base and therefore more seats? Would it have magically created more agricultural fields? Talk about your revisionist history. Laurier was supremely popular in the West because he adopted policies they wanted.

    TB

    By Blogger Cerberus, at 5:36 PM  

  • The main reason why the west in general and the prairies in particular is that split up like we are we do not speak with one voice. Showing a common front can produce results, but with the LPC policy of divide and conquer they just love when there are divergent views from a region. If the west would speak with one voice instead of 3 then maybe (but not very likely) the centre would listen more.

    By the way where are your smart ass comments about King and the zombies?

    By Anonymous D Mitchell, at 6:33 PM  

  • One large province might have a larger voice but, then again, I think the Maritimes have been more effective getting 4 voices than one big one. They have 4 out of 10 provinces which helps in anything where each province gets equal say.

    And the only real "super-province" idea being floated was of making Alberta and Saskatchewan into one province. I've never read of Manitoba or BC being considered as part of this province.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 9:18 PM  

  • CG, I can't believe that you haven't read Canadian Geographic. Here is a link to the story regarding the boundries of the Prairies.

    http://www.cangeo.ca/magazine/jf05/alacarte.asp

    Option A had the boundry between Manitoba and Buffalo the meridian of Longitude that ran between Saskatoon and Regina.

    By Anonymous Don Mitchell, at 9:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home