Will Brian Mulroney kill Stephen Harper's political career like he

[Fortunata]

I really don't think that other countries are that concerned about our internal affairs.

I don't care about other countries. I care about this one. This is an embarrassment to this country, within this country. Again.

[capricorn]

I don't care about other countries. I care about this one. This is an embarrassment to this country, within this country. Again.

You said: "This whole thing is an embarassment to the country". How else could I interpret your comment?

As Canadians we are collectively embarassed, within the country.

Edited November 19, 2007 by capricorn

[jennie]

If Harper's career takes a dive for this, won't that be ironic ... baggage from the old PC party killing the 'Reform/Alliance'.

Personally I think Harper is already dead, and taking the Conservatives' chances with him. Canadians can see through his manoevering and know he is only flirting with the 'moderate' position until he can get a majority and impose a more extreme regime. People see through it and they don't like being played for fools, nor will they take a chance on unilateral 'rule'. People have seen how he has muzzled their representatives even with a minority government, and they won't take a chance on any further oppression of their democratic rights to representation.

Now if Jim Prentice was leader, you would see a better outlook for the Conservatives, I believe.

[jbg]

Schreiber says he won't testify if he is sent to Germany.

Doesn't this show this is a gambit to stay away from Germany?

[jennie]

I don't care about other countries. I care about this one. This is an embarrassment to this country, within this country. Again.

http://www.thespec.com/article/281329

Brian Mulroney has declared himself the victim of an extended smear campaign but former political allies weren't quite rushing to his defence Tuesday.

In fact, the onetime chief of staff to Mulroney says he's dismayed that his former boss managed to escape questions for so long about details of his business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber.

Norman Spector accuses most media outlets of ignoring - until now - what could be one of the great scandals in Canadian history.

He says he was bothered by some of the things he witnessed while working as the top official in Mulroney's office from 1990 to 1992.

"(There are) things that in retrospect don't make sense to me," he said in an interview.

"Things that I thought were a bit unusual at the time that now trouble me, as a result of stories that have emerged."

Mulroney has accused several media organizations of libelling him and of conducting a longstanding vendetta - but Spector notes that the former prime minister has never sued those organizations.

Spector is pleased that the story of the $300,000 in cash payments delivered by Schreiber to Mulroney is finally receiving public scrutiny.

He says he has spoken out about the issue because, with the Liberal and Conservative scandals of the last few years, Canada's international reputation has suffered.

Canada has dropped to 14th place from 5th place in Transparency International's corruption index in just over a decade.

"I see this issue as an opportunity to clean up the system. It needs cleaning up," Spector said.

I quote this to point out two things: First, what happens inside Canada and what the world thinks of it DOES affect us internally ... economically.

Secondly, Norman Spector is indicating clearly that "this issue" is only the tip of the corruption iceberg. I don't see this as an attack on the Conservatives, but just a continuation of the cleansing of corruption in our entire system ... I hope!

Edited November 19, 2007 by jennie

[fellowtraveller]

Schreiber has said he will not testify from Germany, which casts serious doubt - for me at least- on every word that he speaks.

What is this really about?

Scriber had exhausted all appeals before this inquiry was called.

Are his claims the act of a desperate man who will say or do anything to avoid prolonged jail term in Germany?

He has contradicted himself numerous times in the last 15 years, and has no reason to tell the truth under oath in this country.

This will all end in tears.

[old_bold&cold]

I never liked the fact that Harper used Mulroney as an advisor and to me that was a lack of judgement on his part. I do how ever support the Harper government in what it sees as issues that need to be corrected. Yes there wiill be some government funded things that will get cut and I really do think that for the most part the majority of Canadians feel that cutting these off is a good idea. I like the idea where the government of the day is less involved in my day to day life, and also that these cuts will allow me tax breaks and budgeting for the areas that I feel should be supportted. Many will not agree with this, but that is mostly because they see the writing on the wall, and the old Liberal left projects, that really ponly wasted tax dollars will now be money saved for the things that need to be done.

Harper has the right view of the division of responsibility for every level of government. His is the federal responsibilty and yes he does have to make sure that all canadians have the same access to healthcare and social support. But that does not mean the federal trumps the provincial in those areas. The federal goverment gave us all tax breaks, and if the provinces think they just can not do what needs to be done with the tax base as it is, then they have taxation levels they can address. The same with municipalities. While the Federal may do some spending for infastructure etc. they should not be funding municipal budget shortages. The provinces will be the first to say that the federal should first give any money to the provinces and the provinces will decide as to what municipalities it will then spend in. There are 3 distinct levels of taxation for all levels of government, and if there are shortages then each should have to adjust they own taxation rate. I feel it is the responsibilty of each level of government to spend wisely and only tax where needed. They all must learn to live within their set budgets and we must never forget that there is no such thing as a surplus as long as we have large debt, that can be paid off. It is nice though for every so often we adjust the tax downward, as we learn better how to manage things.

Harper I believe is of the same mind and while some will call him a control freak, they can not deny he also is the one who will openly accept responsibility for things if they go wrong. He as the leader is accountable for all the things that his government does, yet you can not do all this alone, and yes we know that he wants to run a tight ship. I do not fault him for that, and to me it is a breath of fresh air that finally some larty leader says the buck stops here and means it.

Harper will do the right thing with Schrieber and that is let his justice department make the final decision to extradite or not. But either way I think that this whole public inquirey will be very quick and to the point, and if dion keeps wanting to try and drag Harper into it, then Harper will want the Chretien and Martin government s questioned in this as well. As they also were aware of this long ago and did nothing. Schrieber also said he sent the same letter that he sent to the CPC to all party leaders at the same time and they all did not acknowledge even seeing it until just recently. So I guess it is only Harper who can not say he did not know about it.

Edited November 19, 2007 by old_bold&cold

[Michael Bluth]

Canadians can see through his manoevering and know he is only flirting with the 'moderate' position until he can get a majority and impose a more extreme regime.

*scary* *scary* *scary* redux.

Now if Jim Prentice was leader, you would see a better outlook for the Conservatives, I believe.

Alas, Canadians would never vote for a party with two straight leaders from Alberta. Quebec, Ontario fine. Alberta no.

A dirty little piece of bias from the powers that be in central Canada.

[Shakeyhands]

*scary* *scary* *scary* redux.

Alas, Canadians would never vote for a party with two straight leaders from Alberta. Quebec, Ontario fine. Alberta no.

A dirty little piece of bias from the powers that be in central Canada.

Two things.

the *scary* label will start to stick again because, well, some of the policy changes lately indicate that there is something to fear. Its too bad really, but it is what it is.

And as far as where a leader comes from, who cares? It seems there is some sort of underlying inferiority complex from some in the west. Thats more fitting of the *scary* label.

[Wild Bill]

So you say but the only one I have heard talk about Chretien's good English being an act is you. It is character assassination defined. Likewise, who are you referring to calling Harper a crook? Do you have a citation for that?

Geez, I thought I didn't get out much anymore! I must've first heard this about Chretien 20 years ago and several times since then.

It's often a good idea to take a walk and look around once in awhile.

[jdobbin]

Geez, I thought I didn't get out much anymore! I must've first heard this about Chretien 20 years ago and several times since then.

It's often a good idea to take a walk and look around once in awhile.

Hearing about things from third hand sources is the definition of character assassination. Do you have any first hand citations from any source?

[Wild Bill]

Hearing about things from third hand sources is the definition of character assassination. Do you have any first hand citations from any source?

It is very hard to give footnotes for what is common knowledge. Or to cite what has been published in newspapers years ago.

I am NOT going to do that kind of research simply because you don't get out much!

I don't care if you believe this point about Chretien. If and when I trip across the old reference or if I see a new one I'll be glad to post it here for you.

I was simply pointing out that I too had heard that about Chretien, so your opponent on that point was NOT the only one! So it's two against one and I'm willing to bet at least 2 beer that more folks could chime in that also have heard about this!

While we're on the subject of Liberals, I'll leave you this quote:

"The philosophy of the Lliberal Party is very simple - say anything, think anything, or better still, do not think at all, but put us in power because it is we who govern you best."

If it interests you, I'll be glad to give you the speaker and the appropriate footnotes!

[jdobbin]

It is very hard to give footnotes for what is common knowledge. Or to cite what has been published in newspapers years ago.

I am NOT going to do that kind of research simply because you don't get out much!

The two people responsible for helping Chretien's English were Doug Fisher and Mitchell Sharp. The last time anyone wrote on the subject of Chretien's English versus Dion's was Larry Zolf back in March of this year. He wrote a CBC article on the subject and then went on CBC Radio to talk about it. At the time, he said Chretien was never able to speak in perfect English but he was able to speak it with perfect conviction.

I'm afraid that I have never read anything, anywhere about Chretien speaking perfect English. I await your citations. So far, all I have heard is two people on the right wing who make the claim.

Edited November 20, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

Two things.

the *scary* label will start to stick again because, well, some of the policy changes lately indicate that there is something to fear. Its too bad really, but it is what it is.

Which exactly are the policy changes that "indicate there is something to fear"?

The *scary* label dealt with the false accusations on Abortion and that there was more than the free vote on SSM. Harper said the issue would die if the free vote failed. *Scary* argued it wouldn't. Nothing Harper has done recently fits the bill.

It hasn't started to stick for a reason. It's a lie. The CPC's current downturn is due to the Mulroney fiasco. Yet they are still within striking distance of a majority.

That limited ability to grasp the political situation is why Steph is stuck at 30% in the polls.

And as far as where a leader comes from, who cares? It seems there is some sort of underlying inferiority complex from some in the west. Thats more fitting of the *scary* label.

Pretty easy to obliquely insult people from behind a computer screen. It's not an inferiority complex it's plain and simple fact.

For 41 out of the past 44 years we have had Prime Ministers have come from either Ontario or Quebec.

You may not care where a leader comes from but a lot of Quebeckers and Ontarians do.

[Shakeyhands]

Which exactly are the policy changes that "indicate there is something to fear"?

The *scary* label dealt with the false accusations on Abortion and that there was more than the free vote on SSM. Harper said the issue would die if the free vote failed. *Scary* argued it wouldn't. Nothing Harper has done recently fits the bill.

You seem to throw it out on more occasions than those mentioned above. The soft turn on capital punishment and more recently the proposed changes to the YOA. I find those terrifying...

Pretty easy to obliquely insult people from behind a computer screen. It's not an inferiority complex it's plain and simple fact.

For 41 out of the past 44 years we have had Prime Ministers have come from either Ontario or Quebec.

You may not care where a leader comes from but a lot of Quebeckers and Ontarians do.

Lets keep in mind that the vast majority of Canadians come from either Ontario or Quebec. Lets also keep in mind that ON and QC were and are the center of this countries banking and business centers. Is there really a question as to why most of the leaders come from here? Its pure mathematics. Not some subversive plot against the West or the East.

I can assure you that no one here gives a flying shite were the PM comes from. I've never EVER heard anyone say anything about where Harper comes from here in Ontario, its a non issue.

Get over it.

[Fortunata]

I can assure you that no one here gives a flying shite were the PM comes from. I've never EVER heard anyone say anything about where Harper comes from here in Ontario, its a non issue.

The Con supporters make it an issue so they can blame the lack of permanent rise in the polls (and in people's support) on something other than Steve himself.

[Michael Bluth]

I can assure you that no one here gives a flying shite were the PM comes from. I've never EVER heard anyone say anything about where Harper comes from here in Ontario, its a non issue.

Get over it.

Why so angry and uncouth?

Do provide some backup for your fountain of knowledge on where you have gotten the support for the assurance you have given. Not one person in the centre of the multiverse cares where the PM comes from? Statements like that really need to be called out for as false as they are. Do you have a poll that came from?

The Con supporters make it an issue so they can blame the lack of permanent rise in the polls (and in people's support) on something other than Steve himself.

If you want to start a mini-feeding frenzy over this take a look at the context. The conversation started when somebody mentioned how great a PM Jim Prentice would make. Nothing was said about bias effecting the Government's standing in the polls. But thanks for coming out...

[Shakeyhands]

Why so angry and uncouth?

Do provide some backup for your fountain of knowledge on where you have gotten the support for the assurance you have given. Not one person in the centre of the multiverse cares where the PM comes from? Statements like that really need to be called out for as false as they are. Do you have a poll that came from?

Not angry nor uncouth, why are you being obtuse? again.......

Edited November 20, 2007 by Shakeyhands

[Michael Bluth]

Not angry nor uncouth, why are you being obtuse? again.......

So I take it you are backtracking on your "no one" in Ontario cares where the Prime Minister comes from.

Obtuse? I don't know what that means.

You know you have always won an argument when your opponents only response is a personal attack. Have a good day.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Shakeyhands]

So I take it you are backtracking on your "no one" in the centre of the multiverse cares where the Prime Minister comes from.

You know you have always won an argument when your opponents only response is a personal attack. Have a good day.

It wasn't worth addressing, you know there is no poll or study to which I can point you to. In my experience no one cares, a good leader is a good leader period.

as an aside, it was you that started with the personal attacks, again.... Grow up.

[guyser]

is why Steph is stuck at...

Hmm ...interesting.....

Carry on.

[Michael Bluth]

Hmm ...interesting.....

Carry on.

Steve has been used repeatedly here to refer to Mr. Harper, so why not Steph for Mr. Dion? The moderators have seen no need to step in and stop either. Quid pro quo.

It wasn't worth addressing, you know there is no poll or study to which I can point you to. In my experience no one cares, a good leader is a good leader period.

When you make an assertion of fact it should be supportable. You didn't make it sound like it was just your experience when you made the original statement. Try coming from the hinterland and talking politics with a Torontonian. I've run into lots of people who take a party's leaders origin into consideration when they vote. You must run with a very enlightened crowd. Alas, not all Canadians are that enlightened.

as an aside, it was you that started with the personal attacks, again.... Grow up.

By asking why you felt the need to swear and use ALL CAPS? I posed an honest question, you aren't being fair if you interpreted it as a personal attack.

[Shakeyhands]

Hmm ...interesting.....

Carry on.

He does it because of the Steve thing, I think its cute.

[Wild Bill]

While we're on the subject of Liberals, I'll leave you this quote:

"The philosophy of the Lliberal Party is very simple - say anything, think anything, or better still, do not think at all, but put us in power because it is we who govern you best."

If it interests you, I'll be glad to give you the speaker and the appropriate footnotes!

Sorry! I just can't resist giving the info anyway!

The author of the quote was Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1963. He was then a journalist, 5 years before he was leader of the Liberal Party and won a sweeping election victory.

The quote is taken from a book y David Olive entitled "Political Babble - the 1000 dumbest things ever said by politicians. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Copyright 1992.

[jdobbin]

The quote is taken from a book y David Olive entitled "Political Babble - the 1000 dumbest things ever said by politicians. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Copyright 1992.

My favourite quote from Harper is when he said: "Nay" about not sending getting involved in Iraq in 2003.