normanchateau

Wouldn't you find 100% agreement with your 24-7 all hate for Harper views on Rabble? Wouldn't you find 100% agreement with your 24-7 all love for Harper on Free Dominion?

To pass any legislation as a minority, you have to get other parties' support. In other words, you are saying that the Conservatives as a majority would behave differently than they are now as a minority. That's exactly my point. As I said before, "The difficulty for the minority Conservatives in getting that majority is that on the one hand, they have to convince nonConservatives to vote for them because they are a centrist party like the Liberals, while at the same time convincing Conservatives that the way they govern now is not how they'd govern if they had a majority. Stephen Harper needs to fool Conservative believers into believing that he'd be more right-of-centre if he had a majority. But he also needs to fool centrists and undecideds into believing that he'd govern like a Liberal or the equivalent if he got a majority. So far he's been successful with the former but not the latter."

And then remember the Sponsorship Scandal of the Liberals? At $250 million we're talking REAL money. In the next election, Harper will actually have to defend his own record of sleaze and incompetence.

Since when has CPC not been willing to make idiots of themselves even when they didn't have the votes? Here's a recent example from December, 2006, where they were clearly willing to take what they viewed as a principled stand knowing that they'd surely lose: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/07/vote-samesex.html So why didn't CPC take a principled stand on the Shane Doan motion? For the same reasons that they can't think on their feet, or chew bubble gum while walking. This party of incompetents does best when they're touting carefully thought out policies developed a year ago like the motion to oppose same-sex marriage. But when they have to be spontaneous or react immediately to a crisis, they are a ship of spineless fools. Remember Norman that it was not the Tories who made complaints about Doan being selected to be the captain of Canada's hockey team. No one said they did. The Tories had a choice. They chose to support the Bloc.

I'm sure you will be called a Harper hater for even suggesting that Harper has done things completely the opposite of what he said in the election. If you want to have an actual debate on policy instead of the personality, weight or perceived agenda of the PM feel free. I'd be happy to debate Harper's policies. Which ones should we debate? His policies as leader of the National Citizens' Coalition? His policies as Reform Party Finance Critic? His policies as leader of the Official Opposition? His policies as Prime Minister in a minority government? His policies as Prime Minister of a majority government? How about his policies on medicare? They're all over the map. http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050430091919834 How about Harper's medical wait-times guarantee agreement? http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health...8&relation_id=0

It's damned if they do and damned if they don't. Just to play it safe, Harper has done both. He voted to support the Bloc motion and called Doan to tell him that he supports him. He can't have it both ways. Sure sounds like hypocricy to me.

"Scott Reid has resigned as the Conservative Party's official languages critic after saying bilingual services would be reduced if the Conservatives form the next government. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper immediately distanced himself from the comments, saying they did not reflect the party stance. Harper reprimanded Reid over the statements, adding the party would maintain the Official Languages Act. On Tuesday Harper told a Montreal audience that French would be a national priority in Quebec and across Canada." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/05/27/...gual040527.html Sounds remarkably like Harper opposed bilingualism in 2001 but became it's champion in 2004. Wonder where the hypocrite stands on the issue today...

This comes on the same day that the Sun newspaper showed 48% of Canadians believe the mission has not been well manged under the Tories. Harper appointed George O'Connor, a former lobbyist for the defence industry, as Minister of Defence. What was he thinking when he appointed this incompetent who even Conservatives acknowledge has not done a good job? Now Harper's only defence for keeping O'Connor is that it would play into the hands of the Taliban. Sounds remarkably reminiscent of Bush's defence of Rumsfeld before he sacked him. At least Bush eventually had the balls to fire Rumsfeld.

Perhaps this will be their election strategy: Blame the people who have no choice but to wait and wait and wait to get their passports. For a party which campaigned on a platform of government accountability, it's astonishing how rapidly they've transformed themselves into a party that blames their citizens instead of takes responsibility. As minister responsible for Passport Canada, you'd think Peter MacKay would be willing to take some responsibility.

"It is simply difficult – extremely difficult – for someone to become bilingual in a country that is not. And make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it less bilingual today than it has ever been... So there you have it. As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions." - Stephen Harper on bilingualism, Calgary Sun, May 6th 2001.

wtf is a freebooter? I could be wrong but I think he means pirate.

Kudos BC_chick.

Just because you think Harper is a hypocrite... I don't think it's even a matter of debate whether Harper is a hypocrite. He is a hypocrite. Do you want examples?

I wasn't posting here when Paul Martin was Prime Minister. Not as Michael Bluth.

Since when has CPC not been willing to make idiots of themselves even when they didn't have the votes? Here's a recent example from December, 2006, where they were clearly willing to take what they viewed as a principled stand knowing that they'd surely lose: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/07/vote-samesex.html So why didn't CPC take a principled stand on the Shane Doan motion? For the same reasons that they can't think on their feet, or chew bubble gum while walking. This party of incompetents does best when they're touting carefully thought out policies developed a year ago like the motion to oppose same-sex marriage. But when they have to be spontaneous or react immediately to a crisis, they are a ship of spineless fools.

This issue hasn't figured in the commentary in any recent polls. You're right. It hasn't. Are you suggesting that Harper should decide what to do or not do on the basis of polls? Didn't you condemn Martin for doing this or am I thinking of someone else?

I guess Paul Martin had no choice but to give some funding. But didn't you say earlier that he weakened the military?

Harper called Doan personally to send him well wishes. What do yoiu think Doan cares more about? The phone call or the motion in committe. It depends on whether he views Harper as sincere or as a hypocrite. And if he views Harper as sincere, which action is sincere? The phone call or his voting to investigate Doan as a racist? It's kind of reminiscent of Harper's stand on fiscal conservatism. He claims to be a fiscal conservative but all of his actions are those of a free spender squandering Canadians' money like a drunken sailor. He had a golden opportunity to reduce income taxes dramatically in 2007 but he blew that. In July 2006, he actually raised our income taxes and lowered our basic personal exemption. So is Harper a hypocrite by claiming to be a fiscal conservative? Do you think Harper would be as low in the polls now if he had lowered personal income taxes in the 2007 budget? Which action of Harper's is Doan to believe given Harper's track record of not telling the truth?

Yes, blame the victim. I'm sure the woman who now wants a passport because she was just diagnosed with terminal cancer should have anticipated this. I'm sure the family going to India for a wedding should have anticipated that their cousin would be married in July. I'm sure the mother who wants to go to a NY hospital to visit her daughter who was in an accident should have anticipated that she'd need a passport. Yes, blame the victim.

What have the Conservatives done differently than the Liberals on this issue? Give the Conservatives a majority and I believe you'll see some common senses applied to both areas. What you are saying is that if the Conservatives had a majority they'd have different policies than they do now as a minority government. I agree with you. The difficulty for the minority Conservatives in getting that majority is that on the one hand, they have to convince nonConservatives to vote for them because they are a centrist party like the Liberals, while at the same time convincing Conservatives that the way they govern now is not how they'd govern if they had a majority. I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Stephen Harper needs to fool Conservative believers into believing that he'd be more right-of-centre if he had a majority. But he also needs to fool centrists and undecideds into believing that he'd govern like a Liberal or the equivalent if he got a majority. So far he's been successful with the former but not the latter.

Tories ahead by 1%. We'll see if they can recover any momentum this week with some legislation on accountability that they plan to introduce. So now we know that the Decima poll was no fluke. Even Ipsos-Reid now has no statistical difference between the Liberals and Conservatives. This despite a March budget that shovelled money off the back of the truck to Quebec yet the Conservatives remain in third place in Quebec in both the Ipsos-Reid and Decima polls. You'd think that Harper would have learned by now that bribing Quebecers with money from other Canadians would not get him elected. Having sold out to Quebec, having abandoned fiscal conservatism and even having supported a motion to investigate whether Shane Doan is racist, what can Harper possibly due now to get his elusive majority? Abandon his social conservatism and pretend to be a liberal. It's the one dimension on which Harper has yet to redefine himself.

I'd love to see the changed you detailed but have seen no indication that they are going ahead with them. You could ask the AG: "I'm pleased at the progress Passport Canada has made in the relatively short time since our 2005 audit. The Agency has clearly directed a major effort toward resolving the problems we had identified. "" The 2005 report came out in April, 2005 when the Liberals were still in power and long lineups were not an issue. What evidence do you have that (1) "a major effort toward resolving the problems we had identified" referred to lineups as opposed to other issues such as security issues and (2) can be attributed to the Conservatives?

Nor will it gain anything for the Tories to blame the Liberals about the problem. I didn't know there was any anti-government Conservative voters left. They're all big government Conservatives now. Big government Conservatives rationalizing incompetent bureaucracy.

What have the Conservatives done differently than the Liberals on this issue?

And remain unchanged under the Tories when it comes to these points. Despite the Tories being warned by the Auditor General in mid-2006 that they were unprepared for the 2007 onslaught of applicants.