normanchateau

Does anyone, Harper supporter or opponent, know if Harper was ever actually employed or hired as an economist? Certainly if he was never employed as an economist, it would explain the poor decisions he's made since being elected in 2006. A good economist would not simultaneously increase spending while reducing revenues as Harper has done. It is, however, the policy that Bush has followed. It's worth noting that Bush was never employed as an economist either.

Your anti-Semitic comment fits my theory that anti-Semitism is not limited to any one side of the political continuum. Here's what wikipedia, admittedly not the only source on the topic, has to say about your terminology: "Jewish Bolshevism is a pejorative antisemitic expression based on the notion that Jews are responsible for Bolshevism and Communism. The expression was the title of a pamphlet, The Jewish Bolshevism, and became current after the October Revolution (1917) in Russia, and spread worldwide in the 1920s with the publication and circulation of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Daniel Pipes says that "primarily through the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Russian Whites spread these charges to an international audience."[1] James Webb writes: "t is rare to find an anti-Semitic source after 1917 which does not stand in debt to the White Russian analysis of the Revolution."[2] The label "Judeo-Bolshevism" was used in Nazi Germany to equate Jews with communists, implying that the communist movement served Jewish interests and/or that all Jews were communists.[3] Nowadays, the term is used on numerous antisemitic sites. " In case you hadn't noticed, Lenin and Stalin were not Jews. Stalin regularly targeted Jews, Trotsky included, for execution.

So you DO think it was an International Zionist Conspiracy? If your theory is correct, why weren't Jews warned by the "evil" Israelis? How do you explain that 10-15% of those killed in the blast were Jews? Let me guess. They were Reform Jews deemed not worthy by Israel's Conservative and Orthodox rabbis.

I keep hearing and reading that Harper's an economist but I've seen no evidence that he ever worked as an economist. Do you know what positions he held which required a degree in economics? The top positions for economists are for those with a PhD in economics: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos055.htm If Harper was never employed as an economist and never completed a PhD in economics I'd be wary of calling him an economist. Does Harper even call himself an economist or is this a label bestowed upon him by those who don't understand the profession of economics?

OK, I'll bite. Who do you think orchestrated it? Let me guess. Was it the International Zionist Conspiracy?

No doubt you're mad as hell at Harper's Universal Child Care Benefit which gives parents more money for having more children. And I'm sure you're pissed off at Harper's Child Fitness Credit which gives your money and mine to parents who can't afford sports for their children. And what must you think of Harper's latest lame-brained squandering of money for children: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2...r-families.html That's right. It's not a joke. "Fiscal conservative" Harper has pledged $150,000,000 a year in order to provide $500 per year per child for low income families to send their children to ballet and finger painting lessons. If the Liberals had come up with something so stupid, we'd be hearing about it daily. But when it's Harper, it's OK because hey, he's a tight-fisted, fiscal conservative.

Harper has now been responsible for three budgets: 2006, 2007 and 2008. Relative to the previous three years, program spending under Harper is up $46.8 billion or about 29 per cent. Yet you claim Harper understands that reducing the size of government must be incremental. Harper's budgets have increased spending, not reduced it incrementally. If the Liberals were in power and increased spending, I suspect you would call it what it is...increased spending. Yet when Harper does it, his supporters view it as evidence that he knows that reductions must be incremental.

C-250 passed because the Liberals, NDP, BQ and PCs voted for it. Harper and the Canadian Alliance voted against it. The law is in place. Whose free speech has been decreased? When C-250 finally passed, amendments had been put in place to protect religious freedom. During discussion in the House of Commons of the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals, Evangelicals like Harper argued that such legislation would prevent churches from being able to preach against homosexuality. Accordingly, Liberal MP Derek Lee proposed an amendment to C-250 which was adopted. It created a defense from prosecution for opinions expressed 'in good faith' or based on a belief in a religious text like the Bible. In other words, C-250 passed with amendments guaranteeing the rights of religious groups to discriminate and preach against homosexuality. Despite that Harper voted against it. If Harper generally opposed hate crime legislation, one could argue that this is merely a free speech issue. But Harper favours hate crime legislation based on religion, ethnicity, race, etc. The only hate crime legislation he opposes is that based on sexual orientation. Peter MacKay was then a PC and of course voted for C-250. Harper is a conservative even relative to other Conservatives. Or maybe it's just homophobia or his Evangelical beliefs. Either way, he's out of step with most Canadians.

In the 2007 federal budget, Harper pledged that beginning in 2008, he'd be giving Quebec another 4.1 billion dollars a year. This so-called fiscal conservative, who is anything but that, took an enormous federal surplus and instead of returning it to Canadians in the form of reduced income tax rates, squandered it with perpetual multibillion dollar handouts to Quebec. Charest, more clever than the fiscally irresponsible Harper, gave the billions back to Quebecers in the form of provincial income tax cuts. Harper will of course blame the growing deficit on "global" factors and will hope that Canadians forget how he contributed billions to the deficit and squandered the surplus before the global crisis had even begun.

Your argument here appears to be that it's premature to judge whether Harper's government is fiscally conservative or not but even if they're not, it's the fault of the other parties. For Harper to survive, he must spend and spend and spend in order for his government to survive. Let's suppose I buy that argument. Doesn't it follow logically that it's premature for you to judge whether Harper is socially conservative or not? For Harper to survive in a minority government, he must appear not to be a social conservative in order to survive. Do you not see the inconsistency?

Not only do a majority favour legalization but if one combines the percentage favouring legalization with the percentage favouring decriminalization, that percentage is greater than 80%. Yet a social conservative like Harper favours continued criminalization, a position completely at odds with the overwhelming majority of Canadians. I suspect that Harper's position on this issue puts him at odds even with some members of his own party. The challenge for the Conservatives in the next election is that they will once again go into another election with a leader who is more socially conservative than a majority of Canadians on a number of issues. This month Harper defeated arguably the weakest Liberal leader in a generation yet failed to capture a majority. The Conservatives are stuck in the 30's percentage wise until they go with a leader like Brian Mulroney who was not perceived as a social conservative. That Harper supporters do not perceive him as a social conservative dooms them to perpetual minority status until they are once again defeated by a Liberal leader whose views are in line with those of most Canadians.

Not a complete loser. He was voted the second sexiest male MP in the House of Commons: http://www.hilltimes.com/members/login.php...9/best_dressed/ I wonder how incompetent an incumbent Conservative MP in Alberta needs to be to lose his seat to the NDP?

The NDP won seats from coast to coast and in every province except Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island. Had they won the same percentage of seats in every province as they won in the Northwest Territories, they would have won every single seat in the House of Commons.

And much was in unnecessary areas: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for example, will receive $1.1 billion from Harper this year, an increase of $133 million or 13.5 per cent compared to the last year under the Liberals. Other agencies include: • The Department of Canadian Heritage will spend $1.4 billion this year, up $273 million or 24.4 per cent compared to 2006. • The Canada Council for the Arts will spend $181 million this year, up $30.3 million or 20.2 per cent. • The National Arts Centre Corporation will spend nearly $50 million this year, up $18.3 million or nearly 60 per cent compared to the Liberals. • The National Gallery of Canada will spend $53.3 million, up $8.8 million or nearly 20 per cent. And then there's the $4.1 billion Harper promised to give Quebec annually beginning in 2008 in his 2007 budget: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html In retrospect, had Harper not given that huge sum straight from the budget surplus to Quebec, it could have gone to income tax cuts for all Canadians. Instead, Jean Charest took the 4.1 billion and passed it on to Quebecers in the form of tax cuts. I'm sure Harper supporters felt that shovelling billions to Quebec was a necessary cost of winning a majority. Yet Harper continues to be perceived as a fiscal conservative.

The comparison group I had in mind were Americans. Canadians are socially more liberal than Americans: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...29?hub=Politics On most criteria indicative of social liberalism, e.g., views on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, etc., I'm sure you would agree that Canadians are more liberal. A majority of Americans will not vote for a Presidential candidate who is an atheist: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/...on_or_atheist_/ By contrast, 68% of Canadians will vote for a Prime Minister who is an atheist versus only 63% of Canadians who will vote for an Evangelical (Stephen Harper of course is an Evangelical): http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canad...on_in_politics/ Most Americans oppose same sex marriage but 59% of Canadians support it and 62% do not feel that Harper shlould have reopened the issue: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/same_..._say_canadians/ While 35% of Canadians view drug use as a crime, 65% of Canadians view it as an illness in need of treatment and prevention: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canad...ness_not_crime/ Although Stephen Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals, 62% of Canadians support adding sexual orientation to the equality rights section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canad...ion_in_charter/ A majority of both Americans and Canadians favour marijuana decriminalization. However, unlike Americans, most Canadians favour outright legalization. In one study, 57% of Canadians supported legalization and another 32% favoured decriminalization: http://www.nanosresearch.com/news/in_the_n...2025%202004.pdf That leaves only 11% of Canadians on the social conservative side with respect to the continued criminalization of marijuana. Stephen Harper is one of the 11%. He has steadfastly refused to reintroduce the marijuana decriminalization bill introduced by the Liberals and indeed it was part of his platform when he campaigned for election in 2006 . His position has not changed. Given a choice between the libertarian and socially conservative position, Harper went with the social conservative position.

Well then Harper would be wise to wait until 2010 before once again pulling the plug on his government. That way he can take credit for the growth and attribute it to his economic brilliance. And if anyone doubts Harper's "economic brilliance", consider this: The last Liberal government budget was for the fiscal year that ended on March 31, 2006. In that budget, government spending, excluding payments on the debt, grew by $22.7 billion or about 16 per cent compared to the fiscal year ending in 2003. The next three budgets were Harper's. Using the same three-year comparison, program spending under the Harper's Conservatives is up $46.8 billion or about 29 per cent. And Harper supporters claim Harper is a fiscal conservative.

Harper had to cut those programs. The money he saved on programs for the poor and disabled allowed him to increase spending on programs he considered important: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=726631 For the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, 2009, Harper's government voted to spend more than $4 billion on cultural programs, including the CBC, the Canada Arts Council, the National Gallery of Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. That amount is $660 million or 19.7 per cent more than was spent in fiscal 2006, the last year when the Liberals controlled the purse strings. Overall program spending during that same period is up 18.6 per cent. In other words, Conservatives have boosted spending on arts programs faster than they have boosted overall government spending. For the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, 2009, Parliament has voted to spend more than $4 billion on cultural programs, including the CBC, the Canada Arts Council, the National Gallery of Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. That amount is $660 million or 19.7 per cent more than was spent in fiscal 2006, the last year when the Liberals controlled the purse strings. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for example, will receive $1.1 billion from Harper this year, an increase of $133 million or 13.5 per cent compared to the last year under the Liberals. Other agencies include: • The Department of Canadian Heritage will spend $1.4 billion this year, up $273 million or 24.4 per cent compared to 2006. • The Canada Council for the Arts will spend $181 million this year, up $30.3 million or 20.2 per cent. • The National Arts Centre Corporation will spend nearly $50 million this year, up $18.3 million or nearly 60 per cent compared to the Liberals. • The National Gallery of Canada will spend $53.3 million, up $8.8 million or nearly 20 per cent. So for Harper to increase arts spending more than overall government spending, something had to be cut...programs for the disabled. Harper has a warped sense of priorities but hey, he's a tight-fisted fiscal conservative claim his supporters.

If the Conservatives are interested in smaller government, why are they spending more than the Liberals? http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features...fe-791cf25cc9de "There's a real sense of disappointment among the small-c grassroots conservative Reformers that are out there," said Gerry Nicholls, who worked with Harper at the National Citizens Coalition and is now a columnist and frequent critic of his old boss. "Harper's betrayed the principles that he once stood for." Consider this: The last Liberal government budget was for the fiscal year that ended on March 31, 2006. In that budget, government spending, excluding payments on the debt, grew by $22.7 billion or about 16 per cent compared to the fiscal year ending in 2003. The next three budgets were Harper's. Using the same three-year comparison, program spending under the Harper's Conservatives is up $46.8 billion or about 29 per cent. Yet Harper supporters continue to claim that Harper is a fiscal conservative who is interested in small government. If Harper had merely maintained program spending at the levels he inherited in 2006, he could have dramatically lowered income tax rates. Instead he saw the surplus as an opportunity to increase government spending.

An excellent point and perhaps I should modify my hypothesis and/or my terminology. I suspect that the average Canadian is both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Unfortunately no current political party easily fits that description. CPC certainly aspires to fit that description and is probably perceived as fitting that description by many CPC voters. Yet the "Conservative" vote, from 1997 to 2008, really has not increased in any meaningful way. In my opinion it has remained flat because the current CPC government has failed to alter the perception of nonCPC voters. NonCPC voters do not see CPC as socially liberal and never will with the current leader. CPC has convinced a large segment of the Canadian population, probably a majority, that they are fiscally conservative. This is an incredible accomplishment given that their spending to date has outpaced that of the previous Liberal government. Harper's major accomplishment is that Canadians perceive CPC as fiscally conservative despite evidence to the contrary. So why has the number of "Conservative" voters not increased? Perhaps it is because more than 60% of Canadians view themselves as socially liberal and neither Manning, Day nor Harper, all party leaders at one time and all perceived as fiscal conservatives by a majority of Canadians, will ever convince Canadians that they are socially liberal. Quebecois will be especially difficult to convince. I stand by my belief that the Liberals need to recapture some NDP and Green votes rather than Conservative votes. I don't see Frank McKenna doing that. However, if Frank McKenna were the CPC rather than Liberal leader, he'd win a majority with ease by resonating with the average fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter. Brian Mulroney was twice able to convince Canadians that he fit this description despite his deficit spending. Ultimately how Canadians perceive their leader is far more important than the leader's actual policies, priorities, behaviour and location on the left-right continuum.

The conventional wisdom is that Dion did indeed stray from the centrist path but other than the Green Shift, it's not clear to me that his policies were other than centrist. He supported corporate tax cuts, extending the mission in Afghanistan, the federal budgets, crime legislation, etc. I don't see that he moved the Liberals left (nor would he have succeeded given his inability to influence others).

I suspect you're right. The best indicator that the Liberals will return is that the Conservatives have made no meaningful gains in the popular vote. If you look at the numbers in the last five elections, there's no evidence whatsoever that Canadians have suddenly, or even gradually, become right wingers. The right wing vote has been remarkably consistent despite the braying of Conservatives on this board. The problem for the Liberals is that some Liberal voters have moved left. Here are some numbers: 2008 election Conservative votes =5,205,334 % of votes=37.6% 2006 election Conservative votes =5,374,071 % of votes=36.3% 2004 election Conservative votes =3,994,682 % of votes=29.6% 2000 election Alliance and PCs combined =4,843,927 % of votes=37.7% 1997 election Reform and PCs combined =4,959,785 % of votes=38.2% The only Conservative to win a majority in half a century was Brian Mulroney who, unlike Stephen Harper, was (1) not a social conservative and (2) had values consistent with those of most Quebecers. As long as Harper supporters continue to insist that he's not a social conservative, they're doomed to minority status. Meanwhile, the Liberals will surge again under a new leader.

As I look at the numbers in the last five elections, I see no evidence whatsoever that Canadians have suddenly, or even gradually, become right wingers. The right wing vote has been remarkably consistent. The problem for the Liberals in winning an election is that many Liberal voters have moved left or stayed home. They've not moved right. Here are some numbers: 2008 election Conservative votes =5,205,334 % of votes=37.6% 2006 election Conservative votes =5,374,071 % of votes=36.3% 2004 election Conservative votes =3,994,682 % of votes=29.6% 2000 election Alliance and PCs combined =4,843,927 % of votes=37.7% 1997 election Reform and PCs combined =4,959,785 % of votes=38.2% Many Liberals are under the impression that if Frank McKenna could be drafted as leader, he'd defeat Harper. I doubt it. The Liberals need a leader who can recapture the NDP and Green voters. Much as I'd like to see McKenna as leader, I don't see how he'd appeal to NDP or Green voters. McKenna might draw a handful of Conservative voters to the Liberals but that's trivial compared to a leader who could bring back substantial numbers of NDP and Green voters.

1) I agree that he's not instituted a social conservative agenda. With a minority government, he'd have no chance of success as he discovered recently when he revisited same sex marriage during his first term in office. My point is that he IS a social conservative, NOT that he's instituted a social conservative agenda. Surely you would agree that an Evangelical Christian like Harper who opposes abortion, opposes same sex marriage, opposes embryonic stem cell research and opposes marijuana decriminalization has social conservative values. The extremists in the social conservative movement are indeed upset with him but it's because he's not yet instituted his own social conservative values into government priorities. 2) You claim Harper is an economic conservative. If so, why are his policies exactly the opposite? He and his Finance Minister are the biggest government spenders of all time: http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php Martin cut CBC funding. Harper increased it just as he increased overall spending on the arts and culture. Harper's cuts to programs thus far have been more symbolic than substantial. The Conservative mantra that Harper is a financial conservative might be true in theory but is inconsistent with his out-of-control spending. 3) My "fallacies were pointed out."?? I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Care to elaborate or substantiate your allegations? If you actually have evidence, please provide it.

You're flipflopping like Harper. Here's what you said: "Every region of the country wanted a "Torie" majority except Quebec? " Yet Harper did not win a majority of the popular vote in any province except Alberta. No one disputes that he has support in various regions.

Harper...fiscally conservative but socially liberal? Now that is a hoot.