Conservatives Panic?

[Ontario Loyalist]

Time and time again, the Liberals, despite all their bluster, have shown no inclination (backbone) to bring down the government. What makes you think they will do it when Parliament resumes?

Maybe they know enough to realize that in general Canadians don't want an election. You know Harper would just drone on about how the Liberals brought this "unwanted" election about. Moreover, if they can work it so that the Conservatives eventually doing it for them... why should they? And that appears to be what's happening.

Let's not forget that while the Liberals don't have great representation in Parlaiment, they still have powerful, experiences, and influential people who are no doubt offering advice; Harper and his cronies don't have the experience to match this, and I think that they're slowly being worn down and boxed into a position that is much to their disadvantage--and they don't even realize it. Harper would be a fool to call an election--especially before Sept. 8.

[Shakeyhands]

I heard from a source that the writ will be dropped Sunday....

[Stephen Best]

To understand why Harper's calling an election, you have to understand Harper. Harper's only interest is in himself. As the record shows, he has no principle he will not discard, no promise he will not break, no colleague he will not betray to advance his personal ambitions and indulge his conceits. Harper likes being PM.

So why the election when he knows a Conservative minority is likely once again? Because by depleting the Opposition parties' campaign funds when it seems he'll at least not lose, he gets to be PM for another year to 18 months without being concerned about the Opposition taking away his job.

As I say, to understand Harper, you have to understand that he cares about only one thing, himself. And if servicing his whims and ambitions means bad policy that harms Canada and Canadians, too bad.

[Keepitsimple]

To understand why Harper's calling an election, you have to understand Harper. Harper's only interest is in himself. As the record shows, he has no principle he will not discard, no promise he will not break, no colleague he will not betray to advance his personal ambitions and indulge his conceits. Harper likes being PM.

So why the election when he knows a Conservative minority is likely once again? Because by depleting the Opposition parties' campaign funds when it seems he'll at least not lose, he gets to be PM for another year to 18 months without being concerned about the Opposition taking away his job.

As I say, to understand Harper, you have to understand that he cares about only one thing, himself. And if servicing his whims and ambitions means bad policy that harms Canada and Canadians, too bad.

Can we assume that you don't like Stephen Harper?

[Stephen Best]

Can we assume that you don't like Stephen Harper?

For cause. I was involved as an intervenor when the National Citizens Coalition and Stephen Harper challenged the election gag laws which Harper decried as undemocratic. With full-throated cry, he and the NCC raised millions of dollars from unsuspecting donors to the NCC to pay Harper's legal costs.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the gag laws. When Harper became Prime Minister, did he strike down the gag laws and allow third parties to campaign freely in elections, which he could have done? No! He made the gag laws even more stringent, stifling even more democratic debate when it matters most during an election.

The National Citizens Coalition which footed Harper's legal bills was outraged, and rightly so. Harper betrayed the NCC, and it's many thousands of supporters who trusted Harper.

As I say, Harper's only interested in his own ambitions. When he was in opposition or the president of an interest group he wanted democracy and open government because it served his personal ambitions. But as Prime Minister he wants everyone gagged, again because it serves his personal ambitions. That's why the gag laws have not been repealed. That's why access to information legislation has been stalled. That's why the Conservatives are undermining the committee process.

As I say, I've experienced Stephen Harper's hypocrisy and venality first hand. To understand Harper, all you need to know is that everything he does is calculated to serve his personal ambitions, and he will betray anything, anybody, and any value if necessary to have his way. You trust him at your peril.

[August1991]

So, Stephen Harper is an ambitious guy. And this realization was a shock to you? What politicians are not ambitious?

No one gets to be PM unless they are extremely competitive.

Now then. On the big ticket items, Harper sort of keeps his word. He said he would cut the GST and he did. That's contrary to the Liberals who have almost never done what they said they would do.

Harper has a few principles. Since Pierre Trudeau, the Liberals have absolutely none.

[Stephen Best]

So, Stephen Harper is an ambitious guy. And this realization was a shock to you? What politicians are not ambitious?

No one gets to be PM unless they are extremely competitive.

Now then. On the big ticket items, Harper sort of keeps his word. He said he would cut the GST and he did. That's contrary to the Liberals who have almost never done what they said they would do.

Harper has a few principles. Since Pierre Trudeau, the Liberals have absolutely none.

I've been directly involved in politics since the early 1970s. I've been involved in election campaigns in Canada, the United States, Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Community. I've never met a politician as hypocritical and self-serving as Harper. Most politicians have core principles that they will not compromise. Harper has none.

Was Harper's betrayal of every principle he ever claimed he had and sold to trusting supporters and colleagues a shock to me? Yes! Why? Because I'd never met a politician--and I've met and worked with many--who would betray every principle for nothing more important than personal ambition. I've seen politicians betray principles and promises for a higher cause, but not for a lower one, until Harper.

And lastly, the notion that the Liberals have no principles is just plain wrong. And because you know it, your assertion makes you look very foolish, indeed, and puts doubts about any claim you might make.

[August1991]

I've been directly involved in politics since the early 1970s. I've been involved in election campaigns in Canada, the United States, Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Community. I've never met a politician as hypocritical and self-serving as Harper. Most politicians have core principles that they will not compromise. Harper has none.

Was Harper's betrayal of every principle he ever claimed he had and sold to trusting supporters and colleagues a shock to me? Yes! Why? Because I'd never met a politician--and I've met and worked with many--who would betray every principle for nothing more important than personal ambition. I've seen politicians betray principles and promises for a higher cause, but not for a lower one, until Harper.

For the past 50 years or so, I've been involved with a variety of activities and I've met many dictators and democrats alike. I happen to know Stephen Harper and Jean Chretien personally. I've been to their home on several occasions.

There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Jean Chretien is dishonorable and will say anything or do anything to get and obtain power.

----

It is easy to make claims on the Internet and offer up personal opinions.

The fact of the matter is (and quite apart from my claims or your claims) both Jean Chretien and Stephen Harper promised to cut the GST but only Stephen Harper did it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We need this election to prove one thing. That one thing is simple, and that is the fact that Dion is not the right man to lead the Liberals.

[Wild Bill]

I've been directly involved in politics since the early 1970s. I've been involved in election campaigns in Canada, the United States, Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Community. I've never met a politician as hypocritical and self-serving as Harper. Most politicians have core principles that they will not compromise. Harper has none.

Was Harper's betrayal of every principle he ever claimed he had and sold to trusting supporters and colleagues a shock to me? Yes! Why? Because I'd never met a politician--and I've met and worked with many--who would betray every principle for nothing more important than personal ambition. I've seen politicians betray principles and promises for a higher cause, but not for a lower one, until Harper.

And lastly, the notion that the Liberals have no principles is just plain wrong. And because you know it, your assertion makes you look very foolish, indeed, and puts doubts about any claim you might make.

Oh, I dunno! I would agree with him!

That's based on personal observations made since Trudeau. I guess I'm just foolish as well. Still, no need for Liberal boosters to worry. Obviously, we must be the only two folk who feel that way in the whole country, wouldn't you agree?

Every accusation you've been making against the Harper Tories has been eclipsed by Liberal actions over the years. What else is new? That's politics and that's politicians.

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that everything you've claimed is 100% gospel. Now what? Why should I vote Liberal? Should I vote for someone I consider a worse choice because of the faults you've pointed out with Harper?

Putting someone down just puts him down. It does nothing to build another choice up! From what I recall of your posts I don't see a lot of reasons to feel the Liberals would be a better choice. All I see is a lot of Harper bashing.

I already knew Harper wasn't perfect. Meanwhile, I've seen no compelling reason at all to vote for Dion! Or anything to refute the impressions I had already formed about him and his party.

[Stephen Best]

There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Jean Chretien is dishonorable and will say anything or do anything to get and obtain power.

----

It is easy to make claims on the Internet and offer up personal opinions.

The fact of the matter is (and quite apart from my claims or your claims) both Jean Chretien and Stephen Harper promised to cut the GST but only Stephen Harper did it.

Isn't this forum for offering up personal opinions? Or did I miss something in the rules?

Even if your observation about Chretien is correct, it doesn't excuse Harper's reprehensible conduct.

As for the GST, is that the only promise you can reference? What about income trusts? What about making Parliament more open and accountable and transparent? What about empowering MPs? What about enhancing the committee system? Harper promises all and all broken. And that's just a partial list.

You have a very selective memory.

[Stephen Best]

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that everything you've claimed is 100% gospel. Now what? Why should I vote Liberal? Should I vote for someone I consider a worse choice because of the faults you've pointed out with Harper?

You could vote for the candidate in your electoral district--regardless of party--who you think might make the best Member of Parliament. Or are you locked into a Harper/Dion mindset?

[Oleg Bach]

You could vote for the candidate in your electoral district--regardless of party--who you think might make the best Member of Parliament. Or are you locked into a Harper/Dion mindset?

Harper is a good and obedient boy. It will be good once the liberal virus is extinguished - conservatism will return - look at the mess - If I wrote a report on the results of liberal policy it would make your hair curl - things are worse than expected after some prolonged observation in the field...Good luck to Harper - once the neo-cons are gone out of Washington - Harper will stop pretending to be one of them and return to real old fashioned socially healthy conservatism...you would not believe the suffering and rot that I have seen due liberal "freedom of choice" - the choice to destroy the very fabric of society is not a choice - it is madness.

[Wild Bill]

You could vote for the candidate in your electoral district--regardless of party--who you think might make the best Member of Parliament. Or are you locked into a Harper/Dion mindset?

There's that tired old academic suggestion again!

What earthly practical good would that do?

Perhaps I should go tilt at windmills instead.

Voting for a choice that could never, ever be elected might satisfy my sense of civic duty. It might also help pretend that the emperor is wearing clothes, as far as pretending our "system" works.

However, as I keep saying, I'm a techie sort of guy. I only care to spend effort for a positive result. If I make an action that has no noticeable effect, why should I have bothered?

[M.Dancer]

There's that tired old academic suggestion again!

What earthly practical good would that do?

Perhaps I should go tilt at windmills instead.

Voting for a choice that could never, ever be elected might satisfy my sense of civic duty. It might also help pretend that the emperor is wearing clothes, as far as pretending our "system" works.

However, as I keep saying, I'm a techie sort of guy. I only care to spend effort for a positive result. If I make an action that has no noticeable effect, why should I have bothered?

I have in the past voted for a candidate in my riding because, despite her party, I thought she had the best interests of the riding at heart. Now that she has been a member for over a decade and her efforts seem more directed at survival, I think another will get my vote. If I thought there was a party who had the ability to govern and the best interests of Canada top of mind, I would vote for them even if they had a snow ball's chance in hell. So this time round, for the 1st time in over 20 years I will not vote liberal even though the Conservative candidate in my riding has a slim chance of winning.

[August1991]

Isn't this forum for offering up personal opinions? Or did I miss something in the rules?

Even if your observation about Chretien is correct, it doesn't excuse Harper's reprehensible conduct.

As for the GST, is that the only promise you can reference? What about income trusts? What about making Parliament more open and accountable and transparent? What about empowering MPs? What about enhancing the committee system? Harper promises all and all broken. And that's just a partial list.

Of course this forum is about personal opinions but it's also about verifiable facts.

You pompously arrive here and then suddenly make claims about what you've done and who you know. For all I know, you may in fact be some 16 year old kid in his pyjamas in his Mom's basement making all this stuff up.

I mean, truth be told, I've met Harper once and Chretien a few times. I can't judge their character on such short meetings and anyway, politicians are past masters at dissimulating.

----

I think the GST matters because it was such an obvious, clear promise and it's something that affects everyone daily.

Here's another for you: the Tories under Mulroney promised to bring in Free Trade and then they did.

The last time the Liberals did anything close to what they promised is when Trudeau introduced the Official Languages Act.

For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone believes that Dion is going to pass his "Green Shift" policies. It is so obvious to me that he won't. Liberals never do what they say they'll. Liberals honestly believe that campaign promises are simply filling that have no connection to reality.

What earthly practical good would that do?

The political party of your choice will get $1.75 each year from taxpayers until the next election.

But Wild Bill, if you follow your thought to its logical conclusion, you'll realize something more fundamental about elections: whether you vote for the winning side or not, your single vote does not matter.

[Stephen Best]

There's that tired old academic suggestion again!

What earthly practical good would that do?

Perhaps I should go tilt at windmills instead.

Voting for a choice that could never, ever be elected might satisfy my sense of civic duty. It might also help pretend that the emperor is wearing clothes, as far as pretending our "system" works.

However, as I keep saying, I'm a techie sort of guy. I only care to spend effort for a positive result. If I make an action that has no noticeable effect, why should I have bothered?

Of course the corollary to your view is that if you're in an electoral district where one candidate or another will inevitably win--and that applies to the majority of EDs--there's no point in voting at all. What's the point of voting in Calgary West, for example, because you know Stephen Harper will win?

So, would you suggest that everyone who isn't in a swing/marginal ED stay home on election day?

[Wild Bill]

I have in the past voted for a candidate in my riding because, despite her party, I thought she had the best interests of the riding at heart. Now that she has been a member for over a decade and her efforts seem more directed at survival, I think another will get my vote. If I thought there was a party who had the ability to govern and the best interests of Canada top of mind, I would vote for them even if they had a snow ball's chance in hell. So this time round, for the 1st time in over 20 years I will not vote liberal even though the Conservative candidate in my riding has a slim chance of winning.

I can understand your reasoning, given your own experience. Still, what bothers me is the ruthless party solidarity practiced by ALL the parties today! Reform was the only party to want to change that, or even mention it as a problem, for that matter! That's another party plank that the new Tories couldn't shove down the orwellian memory hole fast enought after their merger with the PC's.

Such solidarity really makes MP's into trained seals. They are not going to vote for their consituents first. They are going to vote for their party whip first! If these goals ever come into conflict the MP will be able to nothing for his own riding.

As proof I cite the riding of Haldimand-Brant, which encompasses the city of Caledonia. An entire city has been thrown to the wolves over a native protest, both by the provincial Liberals AND the federal Tories!

If Dianne Findley survives I will be totally amazed. Talk to anyone on the street in that riding and the overwhelming consensus is that she is toast!

Which is a bit of a pity, since otherwise she hasn't done a bad job! That's all on the national front, however. She has done little or nothing to help her own riding's people.

[Stephen Best]

Of course this forum is about personal opinions but it's also about verifiable facts.

You pompously arrive here and then suddenly make claims about what you've done and who you know. For all I know, you may in fact be some 16 year old kid in his pyjamas in his Mom's basement making all this stuff up.

Let me introduce myself, Stephen Best. Now you know who I am, and that I'm not a "16 year old kid in his pyjamas in his Mom's basement making all this stuff up." And you are? Not a 16 year old in pajamas, I hope.

[Wild Bill]

Of course the corollary to your view is that if you're in an electoral district where one candidate or another will inevitably win--and that applies to the majority of EDs--there's no point in voting at all. What's the point of voting in Calgary West, for example, because you know Stephen Harper will win?

So, would you suggest that everyone who isn't in a swing/marginal ED stay home on election day?

If you are suggesting that a vote for a contending party in a riding where one party is heavily favoured is equivalent to voting for an independent or a fringe candidate then I would seriously question your perspective.

There is a big difference between "one in a thousand" and "one in a quintillion".

When I look in a dictionary for the word "academic" I would expect to see a quote of your post.

If I took your advice I could have a better chance of a lottery ticket - and only on the grand prize!

However, all is not gloom and doom. A spokesman for the band ABBA has announced that despite the success of the movie/musical "Mama Mia" the band has no intentions of a reunion tour.

As long as Disco stays dead I can handle almost anything!

[Moonbox]

I've been directly involved in politics since the early 1970s. I've been involved in election campaigns in Canada, the United States, Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Community. I've never met a politician as hypocritical and self-serving as Harper. Most politicians have core principles that they will not compromise. Harper has none.

Was Harper's betrayal of every principle he ever claimed he had and sold to trusting supporters and colleagues a shock to me? Yes! Why? Because I'd never met a politician--and I've met and worked with many--who would betray every principle for nothing more important than personal ambition. I've seen politicians betray principles and promises for a higher cause, but not for a lower one, until Harper.

And lastly, the notion that the Liberals have no principles is just plain wrong. And because you know it, your assertion makes you look very foolish, indeed, and puts doubts about any claim you might make.

Biased testimonials like yours mean pretty much nothing on an online forum where nobody can verify what you're saying. You've met a lot of politicians huh? Are we talking shaking hands or really getting to know them? Did you live in the US, Germany, Australia and the UK and actually have a vested interest in the politics there? What was your experience there?

Is there any possible chance that you MIGHT be exaggerating your knowledge of foreign and domestic politicians and in turn exaggerating your personal feelings of Stephen Harper? Maybe? Just maybe??

[Stephen Best]

If you are suggesting that a vote for a contending party in a riding where one party is heavily favoured is equivalent to voting for an independent or a fringe candidate then I would seriously question your perspective.

There is a big difference between "one in a thousand" and "one in a quintillion".

When I look in a dictionary for the word "academic" I would expect to see a quote of your post.

If I took your advice I could have a better chance of a lottery ticket - and only on the grand prize!

However, all is not gloom and doom. A spokesman for the band ABBA has announced that despite the success of the movie/musical "Mama Mia" the band has no intentions of a reunion tour.

As long as Disco stays dead I can handle almost anything!

Actually, Wild Bill, every vote counts, even in EDs where the winner is a foregone conclusion. As for the bulk of your post, I can't make head nor tail of the point you're trying to make. Maybe you could unmix your inconsistent tropes, imagery, and insults, and make your case with some simplicity and logical rigour. You know, make it a little more "academic" so that it, in fact, makes sense. Assuming there's some sense to be made.

[Moonbox]

Harper is a good and obedient boy. It will be good once the liberal virus is extinguished - conservatism will return - look at the mess - If I wrote a report on the results of liberal policy it would make your hair curl - things are worse than expected after some prolonged observation in the field...Good luck to Harper - once the neo-cons are gone out of Washington - Harper will stop pretending to be one of them and return to real old fashioned socially healthy conservatism...you would not believe the suffering and rot that I have seen due liberal "freedom of choice" - the choice to destroy the very fabric of society is not a choice - it is madness.

While I AM a supporter of Harper thus far, I can never really wrap my head around an argument like this. What the hell are you talking about with 'freedom of choice' and destroying society etc.

The CPC hasn't really changed anything as far as freedoms of choice are concerned, and the Liberals didn't really do much either. What are you talking about?

I'm completely opposed to the Liberal platform altogether, but your comment is so abstract it almost comes across as meaningless. Again...what are you talking about?

[Drea]

Of course the corollary to your view is that if you're in an electoral district where one candidate or another will inevitably win--and that applies to the majority of EDs--there's no point in voting at all. What's the point of voting in Calgary West, for example, because you know Stephen Harper will win?

So, would you suggest that everyone who isn't in a swing/marginal ED stay home on election day?

Unfortunately many people think this way. Many people will just stay home because they think their vote won't count. Well I live in a very conservative riding and I will vote NDP. Many will vote for the Christian Heritage party, some will vote for the Liberals, some will vote for the NDP, and even some will vote Green... Every vote that doesn't go to the cons is a good vote, IMO.

I will vote NDP this year. Until Dion is out and I can go back to voting Liberal.

[Wild Bill]

Let me introduce myself, Stephen Best. Now you know who I am, and that I'm not a "16 year old kid in his pyjamas in his Mom's basement making all this stuff up." And you are? Not a 16 year old in pajamas, I hope.

Stephen, I checked out your site and congratulate you on your accomplishments. Now for the "but"!

Please don't take this as personal criticism! I would simply like to point out that everything you mentioned of your background and what you have done falls under the "artistic" umbrella. There is nothing wrong with that per se but I would submit that it skews your perspective. I found your credentials to be impressive but totally one-sided! Where are the maths and hard sciences? The background of "cause and effect" and "how will the damn thing actually work?"

I'm starting to believe that there is a very broad difference in how we human beings think, between those of us who are "intuitive and artistic" and those who are more mathematical and "scientific thinking" in our perspective on reality.

"Artsy" and "engineer", if you like. In an ideal society we would have more teamwork. Artsies tend to make more beautiful bridges, that can fall down. Engineers make safer bridges that may be unintentionally ugly.

Politics is an area where many of us have come to believe the balance has gotten dangerously out of whack. The "liberal" (for lack of a better word) approach tends to take resources for granted, including the citizen's ability to be taxed. They seem to think everything is just a matter of will, leadership and achieving consensus. The other side thinks first about what the cost will really be and weighs it against the likelihood of a sufficiently positive outcome.

The reason why so many "rightwingers" dismiss the lib/left as "flakes" is because they find it hard to respect views that to them seem obviously impractical. A liberal might cry "But this is important!" His rival might reply "So what? It can't work!"

Or at least, not by the method the liberal had proposed.

Again, I mean this NOT as a personal criticism but merely as an observation about how different schools of political supporters actually THINK! I offer no blanket value-judgement as it depends on each specific situation as to which is the most appropriate philosophy.

I just want to point out a possible reason why it can seem to be such a challenge to persuade others to one's point of view. As any salesman knows, you have to understand your target market.

If you don't, you're wasting your time. A successful politician understands this in his bones.

That is the reason I feel Dion is going to lose more than Harper this coming election.