PDA

View Full Version : My Beef with Harper



PickLeZ
09-12-2008, 07:53 PM
Over the last couple weeks I have been sucked into an incredible level of exasperation with the political situation, as many of you have. The number of labels being thrown around is perplexing to me, as it is reminiscent of the same misrepresentation and outright lies that we saw south of the border for the last eight years.

At a time when we are witnessing the collapse of a superpower, a collapse (or at least a significant acceleration thereof) that can be directly tied to the Bush administration's policies since its election, I find it hard to escape the similarities in the political tactics that have been used in the U.S. and are being adopted--Canadian-style, by Harper and his cronies.

6 billion people cannot be wrong, and even Republicans can't help but laugh...self-consciously...about the buffoon they've had in power down there. Bush made of mockery of every institution he could get his hands on, from the Office of the President, right on down.

Political success can not be measured simply by acquisition and maintenance of power--it would appear this was the only yardstick the Bush administration was using to gauge its success, yet it will go down in history as the worst eight years the U.S. has ever had.

I don't want that for Canada, yet it would appear this Machiavellian approach is the only thing Stephen Harper is capable of, as leader of the federal Conservative Party, and Prime Minister of this country.

At a time when the world is at his fingertips, Prime Minister Stephen Harper simply cannot get a grip. At a time when the Conservative Party's only real political opponent is in absolute tatters; at a time when Canada's economy, though stuttering and sinking, is nonetheless among the most robust economies on the planet; at a time when issues of Confederation were very much on the back-burner....

At a time when any 'leader'--of any stripe--should have been able to rise to the occasion, to LEAD this country, to UNIFY the people and earn the respect and votes of this nation, Harper has resorted to fracturing and dividing the Canadian people, has resorted to Constitutional power-plays and ill-willed legislative games.

At a time when opportunity could not have been knocking harder for Harper to gain a majority in a way that would be celebrated, he has achieved nothing but dividing the populace and providing a forum for every backwater detractor of Canadian federation. He has treated the democratic process with absolute contempt--and he needs to step down.

The labels and the lies cannot be allowed to fly. A coalition government is an option, provided by the opposition parties to the Canadian people, to allow us to escape the prospect of another costly election whose results are predictable and not likely to produce much change in the make-up of the parties elected to the House of Commons. The BQ do NOT hold the 'balance of power', under this option, unless the Conservatives continue to act in their own self-interest (as instructed by Harper), rather than in the interest of Canada. The 'East' is not trying to 'take power away from the West', and the 'West' would still carry far more weight than 'Quebec and the BQ', should the coalition take power. It just means that negotiation and compromise must take place, such as Harper has been unwilling to do for two years.

We need to allow the coalition to form government, to ensure that we have some measure of consistency and stability while the CPC retools and finds a new leader. I am confident that we can achieve success, and unity, using this approach. The Liberals are going to be a non-factor in the next election should the Conservatives use this approach. There are too many strong leaders waiting in the wings of the CPC, as compared with the Liberals. The Conservatives can and will achieve a majority--the only thing holding them back is Harper and his proven track record of being unable to inspire or unify the Canadian people to pursue any goals of any merit.

We need someone who can lead. The only place I can see that leadership coming from is the CPC--but it's not going to come from any of the tired, sullen old holdovers from a bygone era of divisive Conservatism.

ralph60
09-12-2008, 08:07 PM
If the results of another election are going to be the same as the last one doesn't that mean that the people of Canada want a Conservative government?

PickLeZ
09-12-2008, 08:56 PM
No. It means that the people of Canada have elected the same proportion of people to represent them in the house.

kcantor
09-12-2008, 09:07 PM
...it's not going to come from any of the tired, sullen old holdovers from a bygone era of divisive Conservatism.
that's okay - it probably won't come from posts like this either.

PickLeZ
09-12-2008, 10:23 PM
that's okay - it probably won't come from posts like this either.

Well one would hope that the next leader of Canada "won't come from a post like this". That would be pretty assinine. Nice (attempt) at a contribution though...:rolleyes:

Swizzlerz
10-12-2008, 02:40 AM
no it means the people of CANADA elected a Conservitive government...

and the people of Quebec elected there seperateist party...

point is if there was not Block then the conservitives would have a majority...

time to take the block out of the equation or take alberta out..

where is are Alberta party???

a party that is only intrested in the needs of albertans.. which wants more money for alberta??? Time to make one!!!

NINTman
10-12-2008, 06:19 AM
^yay, it'll be just you voting for it then

grish
10-12-2008, 06:29 AM
how far will the greed take us? out of greed, alberta will separate from canada. then, out of greed, north alberta will separate from south alberta and keep all the oil. then, out of greed, north east alberta separates from north west alberta. then north west alberta develops its own oil and gas as well as diamond industry. the north east alberta moves to annex north west alberta as the oil revenues in the north east diminish. North west tells north east to "prorogue yourself". Meanwhile, south alberta attempts to charge every visitor $10,000 to visit Banff. No one comes. South Alberta asks Canada to re-join to apply for transfer payments. The rest of canada says "sure, but first we need every albertan who voted for initial separation to eat this delicious craw pie". South alberta agrees.

Jimbo
10-12-2008, 06:48 AM
I'm so tired of the Harper is Bush characterization. The two are completely different if one is not viewing through the lens of their own preconceived notions.

As for bringing the country together? Trudeau anyone? Machiavellian - take your pick.

Some people seem deeply offended by the mere fact a Conservative is Prime Minister. It's the new "N word". And a Prime Minister from Alberta? Unimaginable. We're all knuckle draggers here. But our money comes in handy.

The coalition is proving to be extremely unpopular with Canadians outside of Quebec, who would stand to gain substantially by effectively holding the veto. The West would get killed. The coalition is the best hope of the far left. No thanks.

And as for how far greed might take Alberta - I'm not in favour of an Alberta party, but whenever the subject comes up I think it's undoubtedly fair to assess how this exact approach has worked for Quebec (very well), and to question whether the same might be equally good for Alberta. Quebec is special? So is Alberta.

grish
10-12-2008, 06:57 AM
oh we are all special in our own, special kind of way.

Rseven
10-12-2008, 07:13 AM
Agree with Jimbo on this 100%

soycd
10-12-2008, 08:20 AM
I cannot agree with your assessment of the situation.


...he (Harper) has achieved nothing but dividing the populace and providing a forum for every backwater detractor of Canadian federation. He has treated the democratic process with absolute contempt--and he needs to step down.

WHO was responsible for so-called dividing the populace? My two cents say it was the creation of the coalition.




A coalition government is an option, provided by the opposition parties to the Canadian people, to allow us to escape the prospect of another costly election...

The creation of the coalition was a power grab. Nothing more. It was not to save the Canadian citizens from another election.


The BQ do NOT hold the 'balance of power', under this option, unless the Conservatives continue to act in their own self-interest (as instructed by Harper), rather than in the interest of Canada.

Things work out well as long as the Conservatives play nice accoring to coalition rules.



We need to allow the coalition to form government, to ensure that we have some measure of consistency and stability while the CPC retools and finds a new leader.

I think Liberal supporters have other things to worry about than who is the leader of the Conservative party.

MrOilers
10-12-2008, 09:03 AM
I am sick to death of the weak Harper = Bush analogy. The two are not even close. But it's a quick and dirty tool for Conservative/Harper bashers to pull out... which makes me hope that Harper gets a chance to govern with Obama as US President for a while just to hopefully show that Harper was simply "buddying up" with Canada's largest trading partner (as the Prime Minister should, in my opinion), and not buddying up to Bush specifically.

I also think that this coalition has more regional interests in mind than the Conservative government.

KJ2007
10-12-2008, 10:29 AM
I believe this was the name of this thread...not 'why the coalition proposal sucked'. It, I believe is intended to promote a discussion of Mr. Harper alone.

I too have a number of beefs with Mr. Harper. At the beginning of this Parliament, there was a vow to work more constructively. That he was unable to do this (with his hostile fiscal update or FU) created the conditions for the proposal of the coalition. He has, during his entire tenure in federal politics, been apparently unable to step out of a partisan combative stance and be the statesman that people want. There were a number of points during his first term as Prime Minister where I could not believe how mean-spirited he was. Personal attack ads against the leader of the opposition outside of an election cycle was only part of it. Petty actions like failing to invite opposition members to events like the rededication of the Vimy Memorial seemed beneath one who should have been statesmanlike. Frankly, as a supporter of another party, I hoped that these actions would come to haunt him. That they seem not to have startled and concerned more Canadians is something I do not understand.

During this recent crisis, there was a great deal of misinformation and mis-characterisation coming directly from the Conservative Party and it's supporters. Whether you agreed with the coalition proposal or not (and I wasn't frankly sure), to allow the discussion to reach almost hysterical levels with words like 'armed sedition' (heard on CHED), coup (heard directly from Dave Rutherford's mouth), undemocratic (Mr. Harper), etc., was reckless at best. Inflaming regional divisions should be beneath the office of the Prime Minister and the government. But that didn't stop our man Mr. Harper.

His speech to the nation was an opportunity to ask all of us to tone down the rhetoric. Instead he used the words 'Separatist' so many times my head spun. Instead of stating that he recognised that he hadn't engaged the opposition sufficiently and would not repeat it, he talked about how he was going to engage everyone but the opposition. Telling the country that he had invited them to send in ideas (and sniping that they hadn't) showed me he just didn't get it. There is a difference between telling someone to drop by sometime and a formal invitation to dinner.

My preference would be for this bully to not be the leader of the Conservatives. Obviously, that will be up to his party. But the fact that his behaviour seems to be cheered by his supporters rather than creating red flags all over the place, really concerns me. And if I had heard just one comment from Mr. Harper and his boys (e.g. Mr. Prentice) acknowledging their responsibility for at least part of what happened, that might make me feel that they actually get it. Alas, that hasn't happened.

To the Conservative supporters who post here - why aren't YOU demanding better of Mr. Harper?

grish
10-12-2008, 10:31 AM
/\ in a way, what you are saying is that he remained in a perpetual "opposition leader" role of trying to jab and score cheap points instead of assuming a PM's role. I agree.

North Guy66
10-12-2008, 11:07 AM
Harper is George W. Bush.

Prove me wrong if you do not agree. If anything Harper is worse than Bush because at least Bush listened to his advisers.


Some people seem deeply offended by the mere fact a Conservative is Prime Minister. It's the new "N word". And a Prime Minister from Alberta? Unimaginable. We're all knuckle draggers here. But our money comes in handy.

Not really. People are offended a former Reform/Alliance/firewall builder hijacked the Progressive Conservative Party.

moahunter
10-12-2008, 11:12 AM
Harper is George W. Bush.

Prove me wrong if you do not agree. If anything Harper is worse than Bush because at least Bush listened to his advisers.

Jack Layton is Joseph Stalin. Prove me wrong if you do not agree. If anything Layton is worse than Stalin because at least Stalin listened to his advisers.

Talk about childish / pathetic / weak arguments. If you can find a policy of Harper's that illustrates how evil he is, then fine - talk about that. But throwing out meaningless comparisons is frankly, meaningless.

But, playing the meaningless game - if anything, Harper is closer to Obama than Bush. They strongly support Afghanistan (although Harper has moved away from that, not exactly Bush like per Iraq), are opposed to gay marriage (although both won't implement that - its more a personal view), etc.

North Guy66
10-12-2008, 11:20 AM
^ Harper toned down on his social conservative issues because he needed the votes from Ontario and Quebec to form a government.


Jack Layton is Joseph Stalin. Prove me wrong if you do not agree. If anything Layton is worse than Stalin because at least Stalin listened to his advisers.

Yes, talk about weak arguments and weak comebacks.


But, playing the meangless game - if anything, Harper and the Conservatives are closer to Obama than Bush.

Insert :smt044 here.

raz0469
10-12-2008, 11:24 AM
Prove me wrong if you do not agree.

That's not how it works. You're making the claim, so you go ahead and provide evidence that Harper is Bush's doppelganger. I'm no fan of Harper, but claiming he's the same as Bush is patently ridiculous.

moahunter
10-12-2008, 11:32 AM
^ Harper toned down on his social conservative issues because he needed the votes from Ontario and Quebec to form a government.

I never saw Bush tone down anything...

Bush is very different from Harper. Harper is pulling the strings, he likes to be in total control. Bush by contrast, you always felt that Cheney was making the important decisions. Bush would rather be on holiday than working. Bush seemed to be totally beholden to special interest groups (i.e. big business / industry groups) - but Harper comes across as independent from Bay Street / big business (the income trust decision is a good example), which is a break from Canada's leaders of the past. Harper is intelligent, he is an economist, he works hard and he is pragmatic - toning down his views, or even backing down (like the political party funding) when needed. He has said himself he won't push a view on Canada that is not where Canada is at. From a personal standpoint, Harper comes across as a bit stiff, and a bit mean. Bush by contrast, is relaxed and jovial, almost foolish. Like his style or not, Harper is not Bush.

I gave similarities between Harper and Obama. I think they are very valid. The Democratic party in the US lines up very closely to the Conservatives in Canada on many issues, and Obama's personal views on Afghanistan and gay marriage are a direct match for Harper. But I don't call Harper Obama, because he is not. It's fine to want to "smear", but when the smear is patently ridiculous, and the person making it is unable to provide any support other than the insinuation, it just makes the person making the smear look ridiculous.

kcantor
10-12-2008, 12:32 PM
...
To the Conservative supporters who post here - why aren't YOU demanding better of Mr. Harper?

and on what basis do you assume they are not?


...
Not really. People are offended a former Reform/Alliance/firewall builder hijacked the Progressive Conservative Party.

although if that is true, it would be just as true to say they are (were) equally offended by a former academic "activist for the separatist cause" campaigning for the parti quebecios ultimately hijacking the liberal party. i think the key word you used is former - people change and grow, hopefully for the better. after all, if dion hadn't been allowed to move past his past, we wouldn't have the clarity act. we also wouldn't be going through the nonsense we're presently going through either but that's a different story and for that there is more than enough blame to go around without throwing stones at the same time.

North Guy66
10-12-2008, 12:43 PM
Harper has the same arrogance as the Bush administration. The "you are either with us or against us" rhetoric.

You can argue Chretien is arrogant too, but at least he will still put his rival in the cabinet. Obama (although not arrogant) recently crowned Hillary Clinton as the new secretary of state. It is not in Harper's veins to do such a thing.

I think it comes down to Harper has not shown he is a diplomatic politician. He would rather snub China than negotiate with them. Obama was getting flak from the Republicans because during the US election he said he'll open discussion with enemy groups in the Middle East. Again, it is not in Harper's veins to show diplomacy with opponents.

moahunter
10-12-2008, 12:48 PM
Harper has the same arrogance as the Bush administration. The "you are either with us or against us" rhetoric.

So? Why does that matter? Its a common flaw of politicians. He should be judged on what he achieves, good and bad (and there is plenty of bad, like any leader). He worked with the opposition in the last minority government, and it appears he will work with Ignatieff now. Harper's personality is aggressive, but if you look at the positions his party has ended up taking during his time at the helm they were mild, occasionally independent (like the income trust decision), occasionally stupid (like cancelling the Portrait Gallery in Ottawa) and on the whole popular like cutting GST and providing child care benefits that don't discriminate. This is why the Conservatives keep gaining in support - the country has done well with them leading a miniority. It's also why people were shocked to see that about to change, which has generated even more support for the Conservatives.

As to the China thing - Harper has a moral position, that China's human rights are abusive. Having some connections in China who have told me some of the things that go on there (offend the wrong burecrat and you are publically hung in many small towns), I don't have a problem that he would rather associate with the peaceful Dhali Lama, no matter how many Chinese officals it offends. China needs Canada more than Canada needs China - sometimes we can choose to do the right thing rather than the economically smart thing.

kcantor
10-12-2008, 12:55 PM
Harper has the same arrogance as the Bush administration. The "you are either with us or against us" rhetoric.

You can argue Chretien is arrogant too, but at least he will still put his rival in the cabinet. Obama (although not arrogant) recently crowned Hillary Clinton as the new secretary of state. It is not in Harper's veins to do such a thing.

I think it comes down to Harper has not shown he is a diplomatic politician. He would rather snub China than negotiate with them. Obama was getting flak from the Republicans because during the US election he said he'll open discussion with enemy groups in the Middle East. Again, it is not in Harper's veins to show diplomacy with opponents.
and at least we have now gone from "a former Reform/Alliance/firewall builder hijacked the Progressive Conservative Party" to potential issues and specifics. not all of which i disagree with by the way, although i would have stayed away from some of the over the top rhetoric you dislike in others.

North Guy66
10-12-2008, 01:02 PM
He didn't really worked with the opposition is the last minority government. The opposition parties were in such a tailspin that they prayed to the high heavens there would not be another election for a while. But there was one shortly because parliament was "dysfunctional". Remember?

Cutting the GST by 2% is always popular with the masses.....the Edmonton Sun, pothole patrol masses. Mention 'Liberal' or 'NDP' and people in Alberta start seeing taxes coming out of their ears. Mention 'Conservative' and people in Alberta think of a fiscal government....just like the fiscally responsible, lower the taxes Republicans in the USA.

North Guy66
10-12-2008, 01:08 PM
So as KJ2007 asked earlier today, "To the Conservative supporters who post here - why aren't YOU demanding better of Mr. Harper?".

Is he the best leader the Conservatives can offer? Does he have a better chance to get a majority in the next election (third time lucky?) with Ignatieff as the Liberal leader instead of Dion?

North Guy66
10-12-2008, 01:10 PM
and at least we have now gone from "a former Reform/Alliance/firewall builder hijacked the Progressive Conservative Party" to potential issues and specifics. not all of which i disagree with by the way, although i would have stayed away from some of the over the top rhetoric you dislike in others.

I am just playing the same game as the pro-harperites, anti-communism crowd.

Ins
10-12-2008, 01:15 PM
Was listening to CBC radio yesterday. They had on two Poly Sci profs. One stated, that it's Harpers goal to destroy his opposition, it's just in his DNA and he's done a poor job of hiding it. I think in that regard he's very much like the Republican party of Karl Rove.

Who ever the PM is or will be, they must bring forward a front of unity and work with the other parties. At least Harper is trying to appear to be cooperative now. This economic situation is the real deal. It really doesn't matter who is running the country, what matters is getting things done on the economy. In a minority government that means working together.

moahunter
10-12-2008, 02:36 PM
Was listening to CBC radio yesterday. They had on two Poly Sci profs. One stated, that it's Harpers goal to destroy his opposition, it's just in his DNA and he's done a poor job of hiding it. I think in that regard he's very much like the Republican party of Karl Rove.

Or, the Liberal Party of Martin - who started all the attack adds. It's ironic watching Ignatieff complain about them now - they started the red eyed monsters, funny how its not so funny now. It's also ironic watching people say Harper is unique in wanting to destroy the opposition - you really think the Liberals weren't happy to encourage the old divisions between the PC's and Alliance from those days? I expect the Conservatives still have some Liberal Party inflicted wounds from those days. This is politics, it is always dirty wherever you go, anywhere in the world, and it has to be, for if it wasn't, it would just mean people didn't care.

Agreed though - Harper looked very conciliatory on cbc. Ignatieff will have to be a bit more firery before he caves in, to win back a bit of face over the coalition fiasco.

240GLT
10-12-2008, 02:44 PM
^ Well that's a bit rich.

Are you suggesting that attack ads were invented in 2005 ? Not likely my friend.

The libs didn't need to do much to create divisions between the crazy reformers and the fiscal conservatives.. they created those divides all on their own.

Harper had better be concilliatory... If Iggy can pull all that soft support for the cons back to the libs he'll topple the government as soon as it is politically expedient to do so.

moahunter
10-12-2008, 02:49 PM
Are you suggesting that attack ads were invented in 2005 ? Not likely my friend.

Perhaps not, but the modern personality attack generation in Canada did (no doubt flowing on from the US). The Conservatives got no-where even close to matching the Harper = Devil adds, with Dion. No special effects were needed to cast Dion in an unfavourable light.

Lets face it - all the parties use the same media people at the end of the day, even Layton was running attack adds with cartoons that mocked harper. It's not right to criticise a government or party for its adds, or to say one party is closer to Rove, for they all are now. Rather, the criticism is simply the way modern political advertising has developed, and like it or not, that is based on what works.

240GLT
10-12-2008, 02:57 PM
No special effects were needed to cast Dion in an unfavourable light

No, all they did was use sound bytes and video clips taken out of context to take advantage of his lack of english language speaking skills and poor physical presence to paint him an unfavorable color.

Special effects ? maybe not but the sleaze factor was exactly the same.

MJ
10-12-2008, 02:58 PM
You can argue Chretien is arrogant too, but at least he will still put his rival in the cabinet. Obama (although not arrogant) recently crowned Hillary Clinton as the new secretary of state. It is not in Harper's veins to do such a thing.

I fail to see any logic over this one. Obama and Clinton were the final candidates for the Democrats. Now who ran with Harper in the Conservatives? Stronach (now retired) and Clement (failed to win his riding). Can't extend an olive branch to your competition when they're not even around!

Peter MacKay and Jim Prentice have spots in Harper's cabinet so the old PC boys are represented. Who is Harper clearly omitting to have any relevance to your Obama/Clinton comparison?

Jeff
10-12-2008, 03:30 PM
Rather, the criticism is simply the way modern political advertising has developed, and like it or not, that is based on what works.

negative campaign tactics most certainly do not work in all cases...

and in playing to the theme of this thread, Harper's traits shine through in one of the "worst of the worst", with that Harper Conservative party news release that stated Liberal leader Paul Martin condoned child pornography. Apparently, a headline that reads "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography", fits well within acceptable Conservative campaign guidelines.

Harper refused to disavow the actions. Harper refused to apologize for the news release.

Ins
10-12-2008, 04:07 PM
Was listening to CBC radio yesterday. They had on two Poly Sci profs. One stated, that it's Harpers goal to destroy his opposition, it's just in his DNA and he's done a poor job of hiding it. I think in that regard he's very much like the Republican party of Karl Rove.

Or, the Liberal Party of Martin - who started all the attack adds. It's ironic watching Ignatieff complain about them now - they started the red eyed monsters, funny how its not so funny now. It's also ironic watching people say Harper is unique in wanting to destroy the opposition - you really think the Liberals weren't happy to encourage the old divisions between the PC's and Alliance from those days? I expect the Conservatives still have some Liberal Party inflicted wounds from those days. This is politics, it is always dirty wherever you go, anywhere in the world, and it has to be, for if it wasn't, it would just mean people didn't care.

Agreed though - Harper looked very conciliatory on cbc. Ignatieff will have to be a bit more firery before he caves in, to win back a bit of face over the coalition fiasco.

Don't you recall the right attack ads on Chretian with a particularly unappealing photo and the voiceover woman saying "I'd be embarrased to have him as my Prime Minister". To Chretian's credit he flipped that around on the Tories/Reform.

Politics is dirty yes. Parties try to crush each other, yes. But in the middle of the worse economic situation since the depression and with a minority government. We just can't afford the nonsense.

Ole Timer
10-12-2008, 04:38 PM
I don't know why anyone would state that Harper is overly intelligent - being an economist is almost as bad as graduating with a fine arts degree - doesn't take a lot of brain matter. After all what do most economists do - try to explain why something happened after it happened - just like the weathermen - now on the other hand try to get either profession to actually forecast with any continued accuracy on the happenings in the future and you will find that their forecasts are not much better than flipping a coin.....

Generally speaking, I consider Harper to be a higher educated Ralph Klein - no common sense, one trick pony who couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag - take credit when the times are good and run and hide the rest of the time......actually quite similar to a number of the CEOs of the financial corporations that got us into this mess in the first place, by puffing up current numbers for their own benefit at the expense of long term stability and economic hardship on the rest.

Throw the bum out ..... oops I forgot most conservative supporters are much the same, greedy, small minded, self-centred slimeballs....

moahunter
10-12-2008, 04:41 PM
Politics is dirty yes. Parties try to crush each other, yes. But in the middle of the worse economic situation since the depression and with a minority government. We just can't afford the nonsense.
I agree. Which is why, when Harper withdrew the attack on political funding, the opposition should have let things go back to normal rather than throw a "coalition" hissy fit / power grab. The Canadian public has spoken in the polls on that one - and not surprisingly, we are back where we were, with the Liberals going to prop the Conservatives up. A lot of drama / nonesense could have been saved, but some who will likely never taste power (i.e. Layton and Dion), wanted to make a bizare statement by suggesting a totally untenable / politcally unrealistic coalition.

moahunter
10-12-2008, 04:44 PM
I don't know why anyone would state that Harper is overly intelligent - ....
He got to level 9 on Royal Conservatory piano exams, only bright kids can do that (i.e. Bush would not have been able to). I was simply pointing out he is not Bush - I'm sure most of our politicians, be they on the left or right, are very intelligent. Maybe not sensible, or wise, or ethical, but intelligent.

Ole Timer
10-12-2008, 04:47 PM
So did I - at age 15 - you don't see bragging about it - Let's face it - if it weren't for George senior, George W would be lucky to be working at a car wash

moahunter
10-12-2008, 04:49 PM
Let's face it - if it weren't for George senior, George W would be lucky to be working at a car wash
I don't disagree. Nobody gave Harper a free ride though - like him or not, he is there on his own making, just like most of our other politicians (well, perhaps not the Trudeau kid).

Ole Timer
10-12-2008, 04:54 PM
Just because you can play slimey enough to become the leader of a bunch of slimeballs does not say much for his morals or ethics two things that I believe a leader should have. Single minded folks tend not to be overly intelligent, only continually re-iterate the same old conservative rhetoric that makes the rich people richer at the expense of the rest.

moahunter
10-12-2008, 04:59 PM
Single minded folks tend not to be overly intelligent, only continually re-iterate the same old conservative rhetoric that makes the rich people richer at the expense of the rest.
So there are no single minded folks who continually re-iterate the same old socialist rhetoric that that makes governments and unions and bureacracies richer at the expense of the rest? Don't work hard, take chances and start a business - Government can do it all for you, you are owed a nice living! They throw out labels like "Neo-Con" and "Bush" because instead of debating the points, all their single mindedness lets them do is to try and attach a label of what they most hate.

"If a man is not a socialist in his youth, he has no heart. If he is
not a conservative by the time he is 30 he has no head" -- Georges
Clemenceau, Former French Prime Minister and one-time radical. (sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill and other great leaders / writers)

kcantor
10-12-2008, 05:26 PM
... oops I forgot most conservative supporters are much the same, greedy, small minded, self-centred slimeballs....
on one hand i managed to make a choice between declaring myself either ignorant or naive but this kind of takes my breath away...

on the other hand, maybe it says more about the poster than it really does about most conservative supporters (or at least most conservative supporters i know).

Caesar555
10-12-2008, 05:54 PM
Nice article PickLeZ. I agree with most of what you say, except for the Conservative party having a lot of leaders in the waiting. Harper has not allowed anyone to step forward and shine, so this has yet to be proven.

Harper must be a disappointment, even to the Conservatives. I disagree with most of his policies, which is natural since I am from a different political perspective, and I would rather leave it at that. However, what troubles me is that he just seems mean and bull headed, and instead unifying the country during a difficult period he seems to want to divide and conquer.

I hope the Conservatives replace Harper, and I also hope they lose the next election. The former is good for the country, the latter is just my competitive nature.

PickLeZ
10-12-2008, 07:28 PM
I cannot agree with your assessment of the situation.

WHO was responsible for so-called dividing the populace? My two cents say it was the creation of the coalition.

The creation of the coalition was a power grab. Nothing more. It was not to save the Canadian citizens from another election.

Things work out well as long as the Conservatives play nice accoring to coalition rules.

I think Liberal supporters have other things to worry about than who is the leader of the Conservative party.

The simple proposal by the opposition parties, to the GG, that a coalition government be formed can hardly be blamed for 'dividing the populace'. The useless and intentionally misrepresentative rhetoric that came pouring out of various media outlets (like, every single one of them in Alberta), as well as Mr. Harper himself, are the only elements that can be blamed.

The notion that two parties proposing to work together could somehow "divide the populace" is ALMOST laughable were this kind of nonsense not so tiresome after listening to it from FOX NEWS for for 10 years.

The creation of the coalition was not a 'power grab'. Politically, it could have been predicted that it was long-odds to succeed--with very recognizable potential for negative fallout. It HAD to be done, however, to maintain an effective opposition in the House of Commons. AND it was the only option the opposition parties could propose to the Canadian people in wake of what was soon to be a true 'dysfunctional government' thanks to Harper's intentional decision to focus on virtually function-less pieces of legislation whose only intended effects were to clearly diminish the rights of Canadians to have an effective opposition in the House of Commons--especially under a minority government.

Yes, things work out well as long as the Conservatives play nice. But, I guess by your analogy you would agree that they prefer to be the schoolyard bullies? Heck, if even the "DEVIL" BQ can compromise with Canadians, why in God's good graces can not the Conservatives? Simple answer to that one. Harper.

I have never voted for the Liberals nor would I have ever claimed to be a Liberal supporter. That said, I will no longer tolerate Harper. So try again.


Swizzlerz said:

no it means the people of CANADA elected a Conservitive government...

and the people of Quebec elected there seperateist party...

point is if there was not Block then the conservitives would have a majority...

time to take the block out of the equation or take alberta out..

where is are Alberta party???

a party that is only intrested in the needs of albertans.. which wants more money for alberta??? Time to make one!!!

The people of Canada did not elect a Conservative government. The people of Canada do not elect our governments at all. In fact, the Prime Minister of Canada does not need to be elected, at ALL. It has simply become a matter of convention that yes, the party with the most seats in the house will form government, and yes, the leader of the party with the most seats will become P.M. The people of Canada elect individual representatives to our house of Commons to put forward the views of the populace. But it is ENTIRELY up to the members of the House of Commons (regardless of party affiliations) to decide who should form the government, how many, and to what end. It is also up to the House of Commons to decide who should lead the government (noting again that that individual does not by law need to be elected, but merely accepted as the best leader by those representatives whom we HAVE elected).

So, NO, Canadians did not "elect a Conservative government". Canadians DID elect MORE Conservatives to represent them than any other party, and the Conservatives were allowed to form government....their leader became P.M. Opposition parties (i.e. the majority of Canadians' representatives), allowed this to occur, following convention and giving Conservatives as the largest party in the House, the opportunity to govern. The Conservatives, however, did not allow the opposition parties to support their legislation such that the opposition parties (the majority of Canadians' representatives), decided that the people whom they represented (the majority of the ridings of Canada) would be better served by putting forward a new government, with a new leader. Canadians' representatives (by a majority in the House of Commons), acted in a manner that they felt would provide Canadians with the most effective government.

They did this knowing full well that it would come down to the Governor General's whim whether or not to allow the new government to proceed in Canadians' interests, or whether to call an election (in Canadians' interests).

The simple fact that it has been almost one hundred years since we have last had a coalition government--and the fact that it was during wartime that it occurred, should just serve to show you that individual MPs in the House of Commons felt they were acting in Canadians best interests. Knowing full well how shortly they could be facing the electorate, there is not a slim chance in hell that any representatives would have intentionally put their jobs on the line for an unlikely "power grab", knowing full well that were that the case they would almost certainly lose their jobs within a year.

All this Coalition proposal has done is made it so that Canadians can make it known to the Governor General that they do or do not want another an election. Without this proposal we would have had no choice whatsoever (nor would have the GG), but to go to the polls.

Jimbo
11-12-2008, 12:00 PM
... oops I forgot most conservative supporters are much the same, greedy, small minded, self-centred slimeballs....
on one hand i managed to make a choice between declaring myself either ignorant or naive but this kind of takes my breath away...

on the other hand, maybe it says more about the poster than it really does about most conservative supporters (or at least most conservative supporters i know).

Yikes! So we're mostly "most conservative supporters are much the same, greedy, small minded, self-centred slimeballs"? And this is the guy questioning the intelligence of Stephen Harper? Saying economists aren't intelligent? Questioning others morals and ethics?

At least I'm in good companyhere - thanks Ken