Larry Smith, Quote Machine


Without further ado, here are three recent statements from erstwhile Senator Larry Smith, who is running for the Conservatives in Lac-St-Louis.

You have to understand that I’ve worked very hard over my career and to do what I’m doing now I’m making a major, major concession in my lifestyle to even be a senator. […] In simple terms, he added, “the money I was earning in my last profession to where I would be in this profession is what I would call a dramatic, catastrophic pay cut. And I have a family — I have obligations.

-Smith on Power & Politics, Dec 22, 2010. (Senators earn $132,300 a year.)

[Gilles] Duceppe has protected the rights of francophones for years, but people want more than a protector. They want a man who develops opportunities for Quebecers, particularly those between 25 and 40.For that generation, the important thing is the world, not the protection of francophone Quebecers.

-Smith in a Le Devoir interview, March 29

If you look across the country, where the Conservatives have had strong representation, a lot of projects have taken place. But it’s normal that you are going to focus on the areas with the people that do support you. That’s part of political life.

-Smith to the Globe’s Les Perreaux, April 7

Filed under:

Larry Smith, Quote Machine

  1. He's filling in for Bernier, I take it?

    • Speaking of which, did Harper send Maxime to Mexico for the duration of the campaign? I haven't heard a thing from him yet.

      • Maybe they've put him on the 'cutting waste' file.

  2. Ohhh he's a natural! LOL

  3. Your baby is a chunky little cutie, Martin!

    EDIT: And don't take it the wrong way; all babies should have rolls!

  4. Football hero. Concussed.

  5. Larry Smith and the CPC: taking the worst of Mulroney and Chretien, going one step further.

  6. Number one is a total boner – but he was probably being extremely truthful from his personal point of view.

    Number two is actually quite an interesting statement and has a fair bit of truth in it.

    Number three is sadly par for the course for people who indulge in old style politics.

    The sad thing is, given his career and achievements, he does qualify to be a good Senator who could contribute quite a lot. I think all Senators should be independent anyway.

    • If the candidate won't be removed for number three, it is absolutely incumbent for Harper to describe what punishment he will inflict on ridings who don't vote for him. this needs to be done explicity before stimulus money is distributed – as the areas of the country which are the economic engine won't be voting for him.

      Is he willing to sacrifice Canada's economic recovery to punish Canadians. Be specific, Harper.

      • From Kady's twitterfeed of the election campaign, today
        at 11:14 it says, "SH subtly reinforces candidate Larry Smith message: elect Conservatives and you'll get federal spending in your riding".
        I am not sure exactly what Harper said though – perhaps someone heard Harper's speech (platform unveiling) today, or perhaps someone has seen a transcript?

        • mmmm,
          mmmm ………. Great reporting Kady! Make a derogatory statement then ask the tweetersphere for help to support that statement. And the worst thing is she will get some left wing CBC supporter type to anonomously swear that it is true.

          • It was actually Chris Hall who made that twitter comment and the last line was mmmm wondering if anyone had seen the transcript so it could be verified.

          • thank-you Scott
            I finally found something online…. Harper is quoted here on the subject:
            I won't try to interpret the words but this is what the article had to say:

            "When questioned at the launch of the party's election platform in Mississauga, Ont., Harper said Tories have a good record of delivering programs all across Quebec, in Conservative and non-Conservative ridings.

            "But the reality is this, all these projects were delivered by Conservative members of Parliament even in their own ridings because the other parties voted against those programs," said Harper.

            "I think all ridings would be better served to have a Conservative MP in office working with us to best identify the projects in their ridings."

          • In fairness, the point of an election is to try to win all 308 ridings, isn't it?

  7. He's already representing the riding as senator. Why isn't he doling out the cash anyway?

  8. So a politician should never ever speak the truth. And if a politician dares to speak the truth, then the mockery will be well-deserved. Is that what we're going with?

    One is true but obviously condescending.
    Two is true but is a red cape to a vache sacrée.
    Three is true, disgusting, and a fine example of why freedom from tyranny starts with small government.

    But each statement is TRUE.

  9. Quote 2 doesn't sound like a gaffe, it sounds like an accurate depiction of the immediate concerns of the typical 30 – 45 year old Quebecker.

    I don't understand what's so eye-rolling about quote 2 – is it the idea of Gilles Duceppe having ever actually accomplished anything?

    • Actually, you might be surprised, the 25 to 45 year old Quebecker is very concerned about the protection of French. Maybe not to the point of the Partie Québecois and their adding CEGEP to the 101 law but language is definetly an important issue.

    • I think it's quite funny that Smith is happy to say, sure, if you're francophone and concerned about your right, Duceppe is your guy, but if you're not concerned about your rights, think about us.

  10. I'm guessing that Wells would prolly like to walk back his whole "Larry Smith is proof of the Conservative genius at playing the long game" thesis just a bit right about now… :)

    • Why should he? This election is actually happening in 2012.

  11. I hope the poor of Canada are taking notes (and deleting their facebook profiles, pronto!)… to get with the program, start voting for tax breaks for corporations! The poor will get their tax breaks when Zod returns to Venus.

  12. Whether it's accurate for the Harper gov't or not, Quote #3 is exactly why having governments toss around program specific spending is never a good way to 'help' an economy. The first thing we learned in a Poli Sci class I took at the U of S was the historical levels of government spending in Saskatchewan – more for ridings with government representation and way more for ones with cabinet ministers. Politicians will spend money in the ways that it benefits them. Any benefit to the economy above the other uses the resources would have gone to is sheer luck.

    I often wonder if a law could be set up to automatically transfer money to regions that get shorted in a particular year which they could take as a tax break or to shore up their local gov't finances. It would completely change the incentives of bringing home the bacon.