normanchateau

Typical of what century? In 2008, most Canadians do not believe in jail time or permanent criminal records for marijuana possession. Bizarrely, Harper does. Nor do most Canadians oppose abortions, embryonic stem cell research or same sex marriage. Harper is not a typical Canadian but he is a typical, intolerant Canadian.

Ignatieff will create cognitive dissonance among Conservative supporters. What are they to make of his support for the invasion of Iraq? What are they to make of his being one of the few Liberal MPs to support Harper's 2006 motion to extend the war in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2009? Will these now become negatives in the minds of Harperites or evidence that he's the most sinister kind of left-winger, one who disguises himself as a right-winger. Will they now try to link Ignatieff to Bush and the Republicans? Will they argue that with Obama in the White House, Canada needs a "moderate" like Harper as Prime Minister and not a Prime Minister like Ignatieff who supported the military policies of George Bush?

Sounds like another brilliant Harper strategy. Run against something that no longer exists. It fits well with the other Harper strategy of professing one set of beliefs, e.g., fiscal conservatism, while governing in exactly the opposite fashion, i.e., increasing government spending more than any prime minister in the history of Canada.

As dumb as Harper is, he knows now what he didn't know two weeks ago...his one and only hope of winning a majority is to run against the coalition. Unfortunately for Harper, Ignatieff knows this as well. It won't happen. Ignatieff took the Liberal leadership efficiently and with military precision. The stumbling and blundering Harper who ran to the G-G to save his equine ass can't take the risk of allowing Canadians to get to know Ignatieff, especially a pro-military, McKenna-type Liberal no longer manacled to Layton and Duceppe. Goodbye Three Stooges, Goodbye Court Jester Harper.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Alberta will soon be asking for far more than tax breaks. "CALGARY -- Crude-oil prices will plunge to $20 US a barrel as the global slowdown throws even burgeoning China into a recession, according to Philip Verleger, a professor at the Haskayne School of Business at the University of Calgary. Furthermore, he said, the downturn will be so deep that it will take three to four years for the global economy -- and energy prices -- to return to normal levels." http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/mon...5f5&k=40351 Assuming the cost of production of a barrel of oil from tar sands is $25 a barrel, even an economist like Harper would concede that tax breaks alone will not save the tar sands industry. Alberta will soon be asking for far more than tax breaks. I wonder if those free marketers who oppose socialist multibillion dollar handouts to the failing auto industry will favour socialist multibillion dollar handouts to the tar sands industry. If George Bush could switch from capitalist to socialist, so can the home of Stephen Harper.

I see. So Harper has to pretend not to be a fiscal conservative in order to achieve a majority government even though you know that he really is a fiscal conservative despite being the biggest spender in the history of Canada. Does he also have to pretend not to be a social conservative in order to achieve a majority government? Why is it that only Conservative supporters know what Harper's true beliefs are as opposed to the beliefs that Harper pretends to have? Do you sincerely believe that Harper's true beliefs will finally emerge if he wins a majority? If you do, you are incredibly naive. Those who gain power want to retain it and if Harper were ever to win a majority, he'd surely want to be re-elected by continuing to profess one set of beliefs while acting in a manner entirely contrary to those beliefs.

A majority of Liberals, NDP and BQ MPs voted for Bill C-250. Peter MacKay, then a Progressive Conservative, also voted for it. Stephen Harper voted against it. Are there Liberal homophobes? Of course there are. Are there Liberals who agree with Harper in his homophobic attempts to strip away the legislated rights of a group of Canadians to marry. Of course there are. Is Harper a homophobe? The circumstantial evidence suggests that he is. In any event, most Canadians have short memories and I suspect that few of them remember Harper's assault on human rights in December, 2006 via introduction of his absurd motion to the House of Commons. Do you think Harper was right to introduce a motion in December 2006 to remove a civil right from lesbians? I wonder how many remember that this horse's ass went on Fox Television in the US to denounce the government of Canada for failing to join George Bush in invading Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction. And how many remember that in yet another blunder, Harper told American viewers that Canadians, except for those in Quebec, supported Bush's invasion of Iraq?

circumstantial evidence, e.g., He lead the charge against allowing lesbians to marry as leader of the opposition. Even after being elected Prime Minister, he re-visited the issue and introduced a motion in parliament in December, 2006 to strip away their legislated right to marry. As leader of the opposition, he voted against Bill c-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. Harper made homophobic comments about Svend Robinson and subsequently apologized for them; http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/10/23/...act_021023.html Of course none of this is proof. Just a series of remarkable coincidences. I'm sure he loves gay men and lesbians and didn't really want to try to take away their legal right to marry. Unfortunately, God forced him to.

That would require CPC to dump Harper and replace him with a more centrist type leader.

Are you implying that Harper is into fiscal conservatism? During his 2-3 years in office, he's increased government spending more rapidly than any prime minister in the history of Canada. Remember that huge surplus he stumbled into in 2006? It's gone, much of it in multibillion dollar handouts to Quebec which allowed Charest to lower provincial income taxes at the expense of the rest of Canada.

In 2006, the House of Commons voted to extend the mission in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2009. The vote was 149 to 145. The Conservatives voted for the extension, most Liberals voted against the extension. One of the few Liberals who voted for it was Ignatieff. Harper and Ignatieff...peas in a pod or both flakes? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6051702077.html In 2003, Ignatieff wrote an article in favour of the US invasion of Iraq. In 2003, Stephen Harper appeared live on US Fox television to tell Americans why Canada was wrong not to invade Iraq. Harper even claimed that a majority of Canadians outside of Quebec wanted Canada to invade Iraq. Harper and Ignatieff...peas in a pod or both flakes? Finally, Canadians can choose between their favourite warmongers...the intellectual warmonger versus the homophobic warmonger.

Do you think that Harper also abandoned his social conservatism because he has a minority?

So you seriously believe that Harper and Flaherty went on a spending spree beginning two years ago because they knew there'd be a recession in December, 2008?

Dion, it must have been Dion.

[quote name='Mr.Canada' date='Dec 10 2008, 01:30 PM' post='370641' A recession is the time to up spending prudently. And obviously the clairvoyant Mr. Flaherty foresaw the recession by increasing government spending two years in advance of the recession. Brilliant, brilliant Conservatives.

Flaherty has increased government spending by more dollars than any finance minister in the history of Canada. If any CPC supporter disputes that, post the evidence. Harper's government has showed little evidence of fiscal conservatism since the day they were elected in 2006. Harper had far more important issues to deal with after being elected in 2006 such as futilely attempting to remove the rights of lesbians to marry and making sure that his cabinet was filled with anti-abortionists: http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/natio.../news_0306.html Harper: fiscal conservative or social conservative?

I wonder if Harper agrees with Dumont that Quebec should stop bending over backwards to accomodate minorities: http://www.thestar.com/Article/171449 And if this wins Harper votes in Quebec, how will it play in the rest of Canada? Who gave Harper the "brilliant" idea of courting Dumont? Ignatieff?

Perhaps it was the second best Christmas gift. The best was Harper remaining on as leader.

If the December 9, 2008 Angus-Reid data hold up in subsequent polls, Ignatieff will pull votes away from Conservatives, NDP and Green voters. "If a federal election were held tomorrow, which one of the following parties would you be most likely to support in your constituency?" With Dion as Liberal leader: Conservative 42% Liberal 22% NDP 18% BQ 10% Green 7% Other 1% With Ignatieff as Liberal leader: Conservatives 38% Liberals 33% NDP 13% BQ 10% Green 6% Other 1% http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/32387...rals_in_canada/ Harper's blunder was the best Christmas gift he could have given the Liberals, advancing by five months the time, money, infighting and effort it would have taken for the Liberals to give the leadership inevitably to Ignatieff.

Canadians are fair-minded. When Harper backed off from his partisan agenda mere days after it was presented, Dion should have backed off as well. The only good news for the opposition in these polls is that they guarantee that Harper will once again lead CPC in the next election. What the next Liberal leader does not need is a new and less partisan CPC leader.

Conservatives surge ahead in CBC-EKOS poll: CPC 44% Liberals 24% NDP 14.5% BQ 9% Green 8% http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/...ament-poll.html There's no chance now that the Liberals will vote non-confidence in the January budget.

It's addictive! Let me out of here.

That's one hypothesis and here's yet another. The Conservatives do not do well in ridings with universities and a high percentage of voters with university degrees. The more prestigious universities tend to be in cities. Note the location of the University of Alberta. It's in the only Alberta riding which failed to elect a Conservative MP in the 2008 election. Now let's examine your hypothesis with respect to my own riding of Vancouver Quadra. In this riding, 57% of adult residents have a university degree and the average family income is $145,000: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/riding/302/ The NDP did very poorly in this riding coming fourth after the third place Greens. But the Liberals came first with 46% of the votes, the largest Liberal percentage in BC in 2008. Do you really believe that some of the wealthiest ridings in Canada, many of them located in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, rejected Harper because poor people funded by social programs were determining the outcome?

Thanks for acknowledging my point. This is such a rarity on a political discussion board given our earnest but juvenile desire to "score points" . It almost makes me want to start posting again.