Stephen Harper

[Galahad]

In yesterday's National Post Linda Frum had an interview with Stephen Harper. Read these quotes & then tell me if you ever want this man to lead our country:

"I don't smoke, I don't take drugs. I rarely drink. I don't fool around on my wife. It's not just a matter of personal values. It's who I am."

"I anticipate the next election will be very dirty. The Liberals are going to lash out at their opponents in demagogic ways. You can see it coming."

Harper: "I'm an an introvert."

Frum: "But can introverts achieve success in high office?"

Harper: "Well, Trudeau did. He was quite self-contained, cerebral, internally motivated. So am I."

Frum: "Mr. Trudeau possessed that ineffable quality that made him prime minister material. Do you?"

Harper: "Yes I do."

"People are perceived as leaders for different reasons. Those who follow me perceive me as a leader because they think I'm smart, sincere, and I know what I'm doing."

Reading these quotes I see a man who is not very bright but has a stunningly inflated opinion of his intelligence.

But I guess he can't help it...that's "who he is".

[dnsfurlan]

I see a man who is not very bright but has a stunningly inflated opinion of his intelligence.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing when I was reading your post, but I wasn't thinking it about Harper.

[Galahad]

I see a man who is not very bright but has a stunningly inflated opinion of his intelligence.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing when I was reading your post, but I wasn't thinking it about Harper.

GREG!!

I was chastized for merely remarking that the Baron of Banality had a rather larger than normal butt!! An actual truth.

So I towed the line! I reasearched my topics, I quoted directly from sources like a maniac, in fact I have behaved like a snivelling teachers pet...just looking for your approbation!!

And what happens?? This vile poster insults me to the very core!

You MUST send this person a nasty note telling them that "YOU WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS TYPE OF POST!!"

Thanking you in advance...Galahad

PS: To the poster...your mother wears army boots ( I get a free one Greg...it's only fair).

[theWatcher]

"I don't smoke, I don't take drugs. I rarely drink. I don't fool around on my wife. It's not just a matter of personal values. It's who I am."

"I anticipate the next election will be very dirty. The Liberals are going to lash out at their opponents in demagogic ways. You can see it coming."

Harper: "I'm an an introvert."

Frum: "But can introverts achieve success in high office?"

Harper: "Well, Trudeau did. He was quite self-contained, cerebral, internally motivated. So am I."

Frum: "Mr. Trudeau possessed that ineffable quality that made him prime minister material. Do you?"

Harper: "Yes I do."

"People are perceived as leaders for different reasons. Those who follow me perceive me as a leader because they think I'm smart, sincere, and I know what I'm doing."

>Reading these quotes I see a man who is not very bright but has a stunningly inflated opinion of his intelligence.

Yes you have mentioned several quotes (several different snippets pasted together) and which of those comments do you perceive as not very bright?

[Seveneighty]

I don't get this thread.

I don't like Harper very much at all as far as his political stances go--but where do you get the impression that he's not intelligent? He may not be Tony Clement but he's smarter than Chretien and eighty times smarter than Belinda. So whats the prob?

[Galahad]

I don't get this thread.

I don't like Harper very much at all as far as his political stances go--but where do you get the impression that he's not intelligent? He may not be Tony Clement but he's smarter than Chretien and eighty times smarter than Belinda. So whats the prob?

That's the deal.

Harper & his handlers keep trying to sell him as the "smart" candidate when he's as dumb as a plank.

Just look at every one of those quotes. Is the man thick or what? LOOK AT THEM!

At least no one tried to sell Chretien as smart ... he was "da leeltle guy from Shawinigan" & Belinda hasn tried to say she has brains (so far as I can see she hasn't actually tried to say she has anything we should be buying).

Somehow though, I understand that if you tell the Canadian public long & hard enough that Harper is smart ... they'll buy it ... even though every word he utters belies that fact. It really is amazing & I'm just trying to counter that.

As for his policies ... he hasn't had a new idea since he stabbed Manning in the back.

[sir_springer]

What kind of crap are you trying to perpetuate here, Galahad?

It would have been just as easy, in fact, much easier to post the entire article...as opposed to statements taken totally out of context.

You work for the CBC? Or the Toronto Liberal Rag? Or what???

That's about as slimey as it gets, pal.

Here's the full article. Give people around here some credit for brains and give them the entire story.

**********************************************

Can this hockey dad be PM?

Linda Frum

National Post

Saturday, March 06, 2004

"You can't win this race unless you have widespread appeal," says Stephen Harper, Conservative party leadership contender.

On March 20, the Conservative Party of Canada will select a new leader from among three candidates. Linda Frum knows each of the candidates personally: She has raised money for Stephen Harper, been friends with Tony Clement for 20 years, and attended Belinda Stronach's second wedding. Over the next three weeks she will present profiles of each contender in an attempt to illuminate their distinct personalities and political styles.

**ADMIN -- Remainder of this post removed due to Copyright Infringement**

[August1991]

I actually went to this debate in Montreal and sat through the whole thing. Gawd. Trudeau started this crazy bilingualism thing and so I had to listen to two anglophones absolutely massacre the French language. Harper is better than Clement.

As leaders go, Trudeau or Levesque would have danced circles around these three. All were visibly nervous at the start, Stronach particularly. (Incidentally she's taller than Clement which is somehow funny.)

Harper is well, boring. Now I understand why he hasn't caught on. He is well advised and well organized. And he was the only one that said anything that might have any connection to what anyone in Quebec thinks. (Respect for provincial jurisdiction.)

Otherwise these three might have been arguing on Mars. For example, there were several hundred people there. On the streets outside (making traffic a mess) there was a manif for women (8 March) with several thousand. Of course no one said anything about this.

News reports covered primarily the manif, not the debate. This party has no connection to Quebec whatsoever. It's as if the BQ parachuted candidates into Alta.

[August1991]

Interesting article in The Gazette today by Ian Macdonald about leadership voting for the CPC.

Ian Macdonald Gazette

There are 30800 points on offer which means 15400 to win.

There are 9000 members in Quebec (for 7500 points) of which about 5000 members were previous CA/Tories. IOW, Stronach has sold about 3500 new members and about 500 others have joined on the other own.

Macdonald claims that Stronach might get as many as 5000 of the 7500 Quebec points. (For comaprison, Harper has about 6400 points from Alta/BC according to Macdonald.)

Even using Macdonald's very optimistic Stronach numbers for Quebec, she apparently didn't sell enough memberships to take this puppy out for a walk.

Anybody have a reading of Ontario?

[Galahad]

Yes you have mentioned several quotes (several different snippets pasted together) and which of those comments do you perceive as not very bright?

Watcher-

It seems no one is actually READING these quotes.

"It's not a matter of personal values. It's who I am".

Is he trying to push predestination? Karma? Fate? I guess since he didn't CHOOSE these values...he was just BORN this marvelous creature, we should all start taking a different look at our justice system & our religions. Why are we prosecuting the Coquitlam Pig Farmer out here? It's "who he is". Hell poor old Hitler was just "who he was."

"I anticipate the next election will be very dirty. The Liberals are going to lash out at their opponents in demagogic ways. You can see it coming."

Demagogic? And his saying that they will be "very dirty" was not demagogic? He condemned an action in the same sentence that he utilized the very same action.

The comparisons to Trudeau. (Aside from being demagogic)...who in hell is he trying to kid? Why is he not comparing himself to the other candidates he's running against? Aside from the fact that politically Trudeau 's policies would be anathema to him, attempting to place his mind in the same category with Trudeau's obsidian sharp mind rather than where it belongs....in the same category as Tony & Belinda's ( ie possibly high average) is ...well....verging on the delusional.

"perceive me as a leader because they think I'm smart, sincere, and I know what I'm doing."

My garage mechanic is smart, sincere & knows what he's doing. That makes him PM material?

Hope I answered your questions.

[Galahad]

What kind of crap are you trying to perpetuate here, Galahad?

It would have been just as easy, in fact, much easier to post the entire article...as opposed to statements taken totally out of context.

You work for the CBC? Or the Toronto Liberal Rag? Or what???

That's about as slimey as it gets, pal.

Here's the full article. Give people around here some credit for brains and give them the entire story.

Springer-

Well you printed it in toto...now people can see that it was NOT out of context. Thanks for the help.

And your clear & focused mind will ALSO note that I was quoting from an article from the NP, not the Globe & Mail. That should give you an idea of my political leanings. If you must know, I'm a touch right of Atilla the Hun politically...I think Bush & Rumsfeld are heroic figures & was ready to crown Preston Manning PM for life had he made it in the polls.

This is PRECISELY why I am trying to point out that the Conservative movement will be DEAD if a fool like Harper is elected leader. The man is mediocre in everything except stabbing people in the back.

If you want to talk "slimy"...just look back on Harper's record with Manning. Bloody Devil's spawn.

[August1991]

Harper & his handlers keep trying to sell him as the "smart" candidate when he's as dumb as a plank.

Harper's not dumb as a plank, he's just boring.

Trudeau was never boring.

Well, hate to break this to you, but in the grander scheme of things, Canada is boring.

[Galahad]

On the streets outside (making traffic a mess) there was a manif for women (8 March) with several thousand. Of course no one said anything about this.

News reports covered primarily the manif, not the debate.

Ok...you said it twice so it's not a typo...what in hell is a "manif"?

[August1991]

Sorry, manif = demo. That one slipped by. (To be precise, demonstration = manifestation.) You know, chanting, slogans, signs, bull-horns. Rather common here.

[Galahad]

Sorry, manif = demo. That one slipped by. (To be precise, demonstration = manifestation.) You know, chanting, slogans, signs, bull-horns. Rather common here.

Thx.

Next you'll be telling us that you want a hot dog "all dressed" from the corner "depanneur" served to you on your "chesterfield".

( I speak a little Montreal).

[Galahad]

Baron -

I saw your post & thought "what a brave warrior" after reading that Fanatic Alliance is being "investigated".

Greg the Enforcer hasn't provided us with a list of the actual "punishments"... I hope you're OK out there. It scared the pants off of me.

Please let us know you're still alive.

Rudyard

PS - I have already answered The Watcher why I consider Harper's quotes outrageous, but since you ALSO insist that Harper is absolutely sane in all of them, I put to you one that I didn't explain, because I was saving it to have fun with in answer to your post, which, BTW, has since (magically) disappeared. Hmm, the first time I've got you clearly over the barrel and the evidence disappears. Suspicious.

The one I was saving for you is the one where Linda Frum cleverly asks: .... "But Stephen, Mr. Trudeau possessed that ineffable quality that made him prime minister material. Do you?" .... to which Harper answers: ... "Yes I do!"

Before you make a fool of yourself again by saying that there is nothing wrong with that, please let me remind you what the word "ineffable" means.

Ineffable = incapable of being expressed in words

So, although these qualities can't be described in words, Stephen still thinks he has them. Whatever in hell they may be.

[sir_springer]

Galahad...

So that you know from where I am coming:

I've been a Reformer/CAer/now CPCer since the earliest days of Manning's campaigns to get his new party off the ground.

I was, and still am, one of Manning's biggest fans.

I also am a fan of Stock Day, despite his crash and burn experience starting in the 2000 election.

That said...

Stephen Harper brings qualities to the table that neither Manning nor Day could manage to manifest:

(And know that I've dug up and read just about every word he's written or uttered over the last ten years.)

1) Politcal savvy the likes of which I have not witnessed since WAC Bennett.

2) Shrewdness that Manning could at times match, but of which Day had little or no inkling.

3) An ability to be a tad ruthless when need be, something that Manning, and certainly not Day, were reluctant to apply when push came to shove.

(Joe Clark can thank Harper for the quick demise of his own political career atop the PCs.)

4) A degree of intellect probably only approached by Trudeau. If there is another mind in Ottawa as sharp as Harper's, I have no idea who owns it.

5) A degree of integrity of which those who know him describe as "almost to a fault".

6) A knowledge of conservative principle and policy that is second to no one in this country.

Needless to say, I would not want to play neither chess nor poker with this guy.

He did NOT, as you suggest, backstab Manning. He simply disagreed with the direction in which Preston was leading the party. As it turned out, Harper was right and Manning was not.

And it took Harper's ability and skill to accomplish that which eluded both Manning and Day: Merger.

Had Harper ran against both Manning and Day, I would have supported him ahead of the others. Many would have. No one knew more about what the Reform Party was about than Stephen Harper.

That being said, by Harper's own admission, he has mellowed on his political stances over recent years, primarily brought about by having his own family...something that tends to take the hard edges off of just about anyone.

I had a recent conversation with a member of his caucus. Could not say enough good things about Stephen, but most importantly was the degree of leadership which he brought to the party that had been missing prior.

To put it in no uncertain terms: He does not suffer fools lightly, and he does not take shite for an answer, period. The degree of professionalism he has brought to what prior was a rather unruly bunch of MPs has been stark in contrast to that of both his predecessors. As it was told to me, his effect upon the caucus was virtually immediate.

Short version:

This is the man who must become Prime Minister of this country, end of story. He is precisely what we need to turn around the sorry ass state of this nation, and bring some integrity, accountability, and responsibility back to the federal government...minus all the do-gooder agendas, empire building, and patronage bullshit that has become the trademark of Ottawa over the last 40 years.

We blow this opportunity, this GD country deserves whatever shite it lands in under the Liberals, cheered on by the NDP.

[maplesyrup]

Canada when Trudeau was around never felt boring or dumb.

[maplesyrup]

I think Belinda said it all about Harper at the Montreal debate yesterday:

Under Stephen's leadership, the Alliance party lost 11, or is it 12, consecutive by-elections.

The problem around this issue is that by-elections are usually a time when citizens feel it is safe to chastise the government because there is usually no threat of overturning the government. So by-elections are most often won by the opposition parties.

[Galahad]

Galahad...

So that you know from where I am coming:

I've been a Reformer/CAer/now CPCer since the earliest days of Manning's campaigns to get his new party off the ground.

I was, and still am, one of Manning's biggest fans.

I also am a fan of Stock Day, despite his crash and burn experience starting in the 2000 election.

That said...

Stephen Harper brings qualities to the table that neither Manning nor Day could manage to manifest:

(And know that I've dug up and read just about every word he's written or uttered over the last ten years.)

1) Politcal savvy the likes of which I have not witnessed since WAC Bennett.

2) Shrewdness that Manning could at times match, but of which Day had little or no inkling.

3) An ability to be a tad ruthless when need be, something that Manning, and certainly not Day, were reluctant to apply when push came to shove.

(Joe Clark can thank Harper for the quick demise of his own political career atop the PCs.)

4) A degree of intellect probably only approached by Trudeau. If there is another mind in Ottawa as sharp as Harper's, I have no idea who owns it.

5) A degree of integrity of which those who know him describe as "almost to a fault".

6) A knowledge of conservative principle and policy that is second to no one in this country.

Needless to say, I would not want to play neither chess nor poker with this guy.

He did NOT, as you suggest, backstab Manning. He simply disagreed with the direction in which Preston was leading the party. As it turned out, Harper was right and Manning was not.

And it took Harper's ability and skill to accomplish that which eluded both Manning and Day: Merger.

Had Harper ran against both Manning and Day, I would have supported him ahead of the others. Many would have. No one knew more about what the Reform Party was about than Stephen Harper.

That being said, by Harper's own admission, he has mellowed on his political stances over recent years, primarily brought about by having his own family...something that tends to take the hard edges off of just about anyone.

I had a recent conversation with a member of his caucus. Could not say enough good things about Stephen, but most importantly was the degree of leadership which he brought to the party that had been missing prior.

To put it in no uncertain terms: He does not suffer fools lightly, and he does not take shite for an answer, period. The degree of professionalism he has brought to what prior was a rather unruly bunch of MPs has been stark in contrast to that of both his predecessors. As it was told to me, his effect upon the caucus was virtually immediate.

Short version:

This is the man who must become Prime Minister of this country, end of story. He is precisely what we need to turn around the sorry ass state of this nation, and bring some integrity, accountability, and responsibility back to the federal government...minus all the do-gooder agendas, empire building, and patronage bullshit that has become the trademark of Ottawa over the last 40 years.

We blow this opportunity, this GD country deserves whatever shite it lands in under the Liberals, cheered on by the NDP.

Springer -

I too have been on the Reform/Alliance bandwagon for an ungodly number of years....but I'm jumping ship now....solely because of Harper. Stock was no Manning, but he didn't appear Machiavellian like this character & he was a barrel of fun....so I could live with him.

To go through your points on Harper:

1, 2 & 3. I have no doubt that he is the ultimate shrewd & ruthless politician. The difference between us is that I do not see these as POSITIVE traits.

4) You're still selling that "brains" thing that all of his supporters are selling. But I'm not buying, as to date I have not seen one word uttered by him that proves this theory. Nor will any of his acolytes selling this point actually produce anything that he has done/said to prove it. Can you?

5) Integrity. Read Preston Manning's book "Think Big". In my books Preston is a man of great integrity....and Harper comes off like a back stabbing bastard. I choose to believe Preston's version....he hasn't lied to us yet.

6) As the Reform movement was STARTED by Preston, I think I have to bow to his greater knowledge once again. If Harper can memorize well, bully for him....but I do prefer someone who can actually think up new ideas. Got any ideas up your sleeve that are solely Harper's? Oh right....the firewall. See #4 above on "brains".

As for the merger....the Conservatives were at death's door. They would have merged with the Marijuana Party if they got to keep the word "Conservative" in the name at that point....just so long as the tiny little crowd of them could get to keep their seats.

[August1991]

I'm going to take you guys on - one by one.

Springer: 1) Politcal savvy the likes of which I have not witnessed since WAC Bennett.  2) Shrewdness that Manning could at times match, but of which Day had little or no inkling.  3) An ability to be a tad ruthless when need be, something that Manning, and certainly not Day, were reluctant to apply when push came to shove.  (Joe Clark can thank Harper for the quick demise of his own political career atop the PCs.)

My impression watching him in action? All true. (You have to see him move his pen from side to side. He may be Putin. Well, no. Much taller than the others. At G8, he'll beat Chirac and Tony.) I have learned that first reactions to politicians are often wrong. (These guys dream of this...) I'll wait and see. But he wants it and he's much better than Clark. He's just, well, boring.

Galahad: 1, 2 & 3. I have no doubt that he is the ultimate shrewd & ruthless politician. The difference between us is that I do not see these as POSITIVE traits.

Then you don't understand democratic politics. It's the ugly deal for the higher good. No, no, no. It's the deal that, with luck, makes everyone as best off as they can be. On the other hand, it's also just an ego game, power trip. Harper? We're in King territory maybe. Gawd.

Canada when Trudeau was around never felt boring or dumb.

Harper ain't that. I saw Trudeau up close several times. No comparison. More, I was always curious about Trudeau's take on a question - even if it enraged me. Harper is more Mack the Knife, not Whack the Wife.

My own opinion at this moment? Harper'll get this nomination because Belinda didn't do it right in Quebec. She needed to get 'em all and she didn't. Will Harper make PM? (Did Karol make Pope?) Maybe. Let's see whether these federal Liberals decide, as they did in 1984, that it's time for a time-out.

[sir_springer]

Galahad...

Where did you get this knot in your underwear regarding Harper???

It is common knowledge among Reformers that Harper quite literally wrote the policy manual for the Reform Party.

In his book, Manning credited Harper as a "brilliant strategist", had nothing bad to say about him at all.

Accomplishments? Harper is credited for the actual first draft of the Clarity Act for which Chretien loves to take credit. Again, pretty much wrote the policy manual for the Reform. Has written a wealth of papers and given numerous speeches on policy, conservatism, federalism, you name it. Even has taught at the university level.

Do you even begin to understand what the "firewall" thing was about? Do you even care? I agree with the position put forward in that document wholeheartedly. Demands nothing for Alberta that Quebeccers don't already take for granted. Calls for an end to Ottawa's incessant meddling in Alberta's affairs. It talks about Alberta because at that time, Harper was not an MP, just a concerned citizen of a province that's been getting bent over and jammed for decades and for tens of billions of their dollars.

Why the hell would you, a supposed "Reformer", find anything at all objectionable with his "firewall" comments? They are nothing more than an extention of provincial jurisdictional rights, an issue that lies at the very core of what the Reform Party was all about since day one.

I think you have a bone up your ass over the merger thing...something Manning strove for relentlessly since 1997.

And you're looking for someone to blame, if not to literally hate, for what you consider a betrayal of your Reform loyalties.

Give it a rest, and take off the blinders.

This had to happen, it was inevitable, it's the natural evolution of a process.

The PC Party had to gernade first in order to once again become a "conservative" party...as opposed to merely another Liberal Party in drag, waiting for the real one to self-destruct so it could have its own turn at bastardizing this country's institutions, democracy, as well as lining the pockets of their own pals at the government trough.

Yes, there is a struggle for control of this new party under way. No doubt about it.

The "good ol' boys" of the federal PC heirarchy and Ontario's Big Blue...thinly veiled behind the Stronach campaign...are taking a damn serious run for the grand prize, even as I write this. They are about power, prestige, money, and elitism that have been the trademark of both the Libs and the PCs since I can remember.

Harper represents the new CPC, an extention of populist, participatory, grassroots democracy born out of the Reform/CA.

Harper is our last hope. He loses this leadership, all of it...the Reform, the CA, you name it...will have been for nothing.

And I'm here to tell you that March 21, for me, is the acid test of what this country is going to be about.

Harper loses on the 21st, on the 22nd I mail in my CPC membership.

And on the 23rd, I start hunting for a separatist party to join...because from that day forward I will not walk across the street to vote in a federal election. Canada, for me, will be a lost cause no longer worth the braincells I've been wasting upon it, let alone the sweat off my GD ass.

Yeah, I've got issues with all this, too.

But this isn't about Stephen Harper, pal.

He's part of the the solution, not the cause. Get that straight in your head right now.

This is about the coming moment of truth when we...western Canadians in particular...find out where this country intends to go from here.

And if it chooses to go "back to the future" with the likes of that political bimbo and the big bucks behind her, I'm jumping off that train before it even leaves the station.

End of story.

I've had it with suckin' it up for the sake of kissing central Canada's collective arse just to get treated like second rate colonists in my own country.

I know for a fact that a great many other westerners are watching carefully to see what happens on March 21.

Harper loses despite pulling the majority of votes actually cast, western members of this party are going to go nuclear.

And this new party is going to suffer a meltdown like no one can even begin to imagine.

[August1991]

Knot? Underwear? Where did you get the right to be verbose?

But first, I missed maplesyrup:

Belinda: Under Stephen's leadership, the Alliance party lost 11, or is it 12, consecutive by-elections.

In Quebec, that was a really dumb comment. The PQ (and Levesque) always lost by-elections. That's life. If she'd added, "That's life", in English even, everyone would have understood and laughed. She didn't. So, she just came across as another American with a TV show in Toronto.

Harper had the sense, carefully registered among Mulroney Quebec Tories, to say that he will not cross Canada's BNA lines.

Back to verbose. Springer, can you please find a way to be succinct?

[Galahad]

Galahad...

Where did you get this knot in your underwear regarding Harper???

It is common knowledge among Reformers that Harper quite literally wrote the policy manual for the Reform Party.

In his book, Manning credited Harper as a "brilliant strategist", had nothing bad to say about him at all.

Accomplishments? Harper is credited for the actual first draft of the Clarity Act for which Chretien loves to take credit. Again, pretty much wrote the policy manual for the Reform. Has written a wealth of papers and given numerous speeches on policy, conservatism, federalism, you name it. Even has taught at the university level.

Do you even begin to understand what the "firewall" thing was about? Do you even care? I agree with the position put forward in that document wholeheartedly. Demands nothing for Alberta that Quebeccers don't already take for granted. Calls for an end to Ottawa's incessant meddling in Alberta's affairs. It talks about Alberta because at that time, Harper was not an MP, just a concerned citizen of a province that's been getting bent over and jammed for decades and for tens of billions of their dollars.

Why the hell would you, a supposed "Reformer", find anything at all objectionable with his "firewall" comments? They are nothing more than an extention of provincial jurisdictional rights, an issue that lies at the very core of what the Reform Party was all about since day one.

I think you have a bone up your ass over the merger thing...something Manning strove for relentlessly since 1997.

And you're looking for someone to blame, if not to literally hate, for what you consider a betrayal of your Reform loyalties.

Give it a rest, and take off the blinders.

This had to happen, it was inevitable, it's the natural evolution of a process.

The PC Party had to gernade first in order to once again become a "conservative" party...as opposed to merely another Liberal Party in drag, waiting for the real one to self-destruct so it could have its own turn at bastardizing this country's institutions, democracy, as well as lining the pockets of their own pals at the government trough.

Yes, there is a struggle for control of this new party under way. No doubt about it.

The "good ol' boys" of the federal PC heirarchy and Ontario's Big Blue...thinly veiled behind the Stronach campaign...are taking a damn serious run for the grand prize, even as I write this. They are about power, prestige, money, and elitism that have been the trademark of both the Libs and the PCs since I can remember.

Harper represents the new CPC, an extention of populist, participatory, grassroots democracy born out of the Reform/CA.

Harper is our last hope. He loses this leadership, all of it...the Reform, the CA, you name it...will have been for nothing.

And I'm here to tell you that March 21, for me, is the acid test of what this country is going to be about.

Harper loses on the 21st, on the 22nd I mail in my CPC membership.

And on the 23rd, I start hunting for a separatist party to join...because from that day forward I will not walk across the street to vote in a federal election. Canada, for me, will be a lost cause no longer worth the braincells I've been wasting upon it, let alone the sweat off my GD ass.

Yeah, I've got issues with all this, too.

But this isn't about Stephen Harper, pal.

He's part of the the solution, not the cause. Get that straight in your head right now.

This is about the coming moment of truth when we...western Canadians in particular...find out where this country intends to go from here.

And if it chooses to go "back to the future" with the likes of that political bimbo and the big bucks behind her, I'm jumping off that train before it even leaves the station.

End of story.

I've had it with suckin' it up for the sake of kissing central Canada's collective arse just to get treated like second rate colonists in my own country.

I know for a fact that a great many other westerners are watching carefully to see what happens on March 21.

Harper loses despite pulling the majority of votes actually cast, western members of this party are going to go nuclear.

And this new party is going to suffer a meltdown like no one can even begin to imagine.

Manning's dream was a party that believed in accountability by governmemt. Something ANY Canadian can identify with.

Your entire rant is one of Western Alienation...thanks to the leadership of the one & Only Firewall Stephen Harper.

Sorry, this only appeals to a few sad losers west of the Rockies & hasn't a hope in hell.

Keep talking...I need the rest of Canadians to see exactly who is backing this pathetic back stabbing dullard Harper.

Not a hope, Springer, not a damned hope in hell. Canadian voters, by & large are a dull group...but not THAT stupid.

PS - WARNING!!: Keep up your inflexibility and I'm OUT OF HERE!

[sir_springer]

PS - WARNING!!: Keep up your inflexibility and I'm OUT OF HERE!

Don't let the door slam in the ass on your way out.