Harper needs to step down

[Triple_R]

First of all – thank you for another long, skillfully worded and well-thought post.

You put my one-liner to shame

Having said that…

As you probably know very well, Dion was not #1 or even #2. He was the unlikely #3.

Which in and of itself points to the need for changes to how Liberal Party leaders are elected. The current system favors "compromise" candidates like Dion - people that are compromise candidates precisely because they are not one of the strongest candidates.

And yes, there are more than 1 strong personality within the Liberal party.

Harper’s style of ruling his own party is more of a dictature than anything else.

It's not necessarily what I like, but it does seem to work. Danny Williams employs more or less the same style of ruling in Newfoundland, and he basically is an one-man show in Newfoundland politics right now.

I voted Green as I have for a while. I embrace the current reality where the combined will of Canadians stopped Harper from getting a majority.

Question: In what ways do you think a Harper majority would be different than what we've already seen in the previous Harper minority?

Keep in mind that he had a virtual majority for long stretches during this last Parliamentary session due to Dion's propping up of the Conservative government, which Jack Layton frequently alludes to.

Yet the “Strong Leader” Harper was unable to win against a politically dead opponent. That surely shows his (lack of) potential.

The issue wasn't Dion (the politically dead opponent). Harper won overwhelmingly in English Canada (a solid majority of all English Canada seats) where his primary opposition was Dion and the Liberals.

The issue was Duceppe , who isn't a politically dead opponent.

Hopefully he does that within the next year a la Jean Chretien, of course

Your denial of the obvious fact that your party’s leader spent our time and money to try to grab a majority yet FAILED is hypocritical.

What's truly hypocritical is your argument here.

Jean Chretien, with a majority government, called an election roughly 3 years into one of his mandates, well short of the proper end of it. He had one of the shortest majority governments ever.

Stephen Harper, with a minority government, called an election 2 and 2/3 years into his first mandate, about a year short of a hypothetical 2009 date for it. He had the longest minority government ever, IIRC.

Which is worse?

Is that characteristic for all Conservatives (and Republicans)?

Part of the problem for Conservative supporters is that you overestimate your party.

No we don't. That's why we're happy with the result that we got. We knew that a majority government result would be very difficult, and unlikely, to achieve.

You were just shown that even with the Liberals pretty much out of the game Canadian people do not trust your party or your leader and WILL NOT give you a majority.

We were shown that the BQ is still very strong in Quebec, and we have work to do in that province. I'm very happy with how we did in English Canada. Substantial gains in Ontario and B.C., and the Liberals decimated from Manitoba west.

And how could they? Can you say Canadian soldiers would not have been in Iraq today had Harper had a majority in 2003?

Given how Harper has already set a date for us to pull out of Afghanistan, which Canada's involvement in is significantly more palatable to the Canadian public than us being in Iraq would be... I very much doubt that we'd be in Iraq today had Harper had a majority in 2003. We'd probably have went in, yes, but we'd also probably already been out (the eventual backlash against it would have made Harper do that).

Furthermore, we're almost certainly looking at a President Obama in the United States. As such, neoconservative foreign policy (which I personally dislike myself - its wasteful and costly and certainly doesn't seem to be of much help to the nations that America has gone into during the latest Bush administration) is not likely to be on the agenda for western nations over the coming years... regardless of who the Canadian Prime Minister is.

[BC_chick]

For example:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2006/01/libera...es-on-abortion/

Now that's scary. Boo!

Still waiting for evidence on Harper attending pro-life rallies.

:lol: :lol:

Is that what this is about? Because I said Harper spoke at rallies? (btw, I didn't just say pro-life, I said SSM and pro-life).

In any case, fine, since I don't feel like googling soundbytes from the 6:00 news from 4 years ago, I'll do something just for you!

I will continue to claim that Stephen Harper is a 'scary' conservative, but instead of providing you videos as my 'evidence', I'll present a handful of quotes directly from him, k?

"In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.

"It will come as no surprise to anybody to know that I support the traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, as expressed in our traditional common law."

- Stephen Harper, Hansard, Address in the House of Commons on Bill C-38, February 16, 2005.

"For taxpayers, however, it’s a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service. That’s why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law."

- Stephen Harper on pay equity, NCC Overview, Fall 1998.

"The Liberals have allowed a handful of tenured judges to create a situation where churches, synagogues, mosques and temples could be compelled to perform marriages that violate their own moral codes."

- Stephen Harper attacking the Liberals on same-sex marriage, News Hound, September 7th 2003. The proposed law specifically precludes any church, synagogue or mosque from having to conduct any marriage which violates their belief system.

"You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, in Report Newsmagazine, 2001.

"Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work."

- Stephen Harper endorsing Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders, who in 2001 called Nelson Mandela "a Communist and terrorist."

"Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made ... that this is analogous to race and ethnicity.... (For) anyone in the Liberal party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, 2003.

"I’m not doing witch-hunts on people’s pasts… If someone does something wrong, there will be action taken. But if somebody doesn’t do anything wrong, we’re not going to take any action… I don’t make volunteer field decisions… but Betty Granger is a riding president, a member in good standing. She’s somebody that other members I’ve talked to think very highly of, and quite frankly, she was the victim of an unfair slur story in the last election campaign."

- Stephen Harper on Betty Granger, one of three Harper leadership organizers in Manitoba. Granger is a candidate from the 2000 election whose remarks about an 'Asian invasion' created controversy. Calgary Herald, January 15th 2002.

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task."

- Would-be "second-world strongman" Stephen Harper in his article "It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada," December 12th, 2000.

"I have always said that controversial issues of a moral or religious nature, such as abortion, should be settled by free votes of MPs, not by party policy."

- Stephen Harper.

Side note on that...

"While [stephen] Harper has not promised to raise pro-life or pro-family legislation he has promised to allow such legislation to be introduced by others and to permit free votes..."

- Anti-abortion Web site LifeSite.net, March 22, 2004.

"It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."

- Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997.

Now, as you did with your Paul Martin example, I'm sure you (and probably Argus) are going to find the odd Liberal MP or American politician who, at some point or another, has agreed with one of the above statements.

But sorry, that doesn't make Harper a moderate.

Have you ever taken one of those political-compass tests? How do you think they come up with the final figures? They're based on people's natural inclination toward issues. For example, if I side on the liberal spectrum of things in 8 out of 10 issues, I'm a liberal. Those two instances where I side with conservatives does not make me a conservative, or even a moderate for that matter. Moderates would be scoring 50/50 down the line and so on.

You can find single issues where Paul Martin, Chretien, Elizabeth May, Jack Layton, and so many others have held conservative views. Sure.

But Stephen Harper has repeatedly (key word here) taken the conservative stance on issues. You can't expect us to just scratch all these memories of him just because you claim he's a moderate.

And your evidence is what exactly? That he didn't attempt anything funny with his 120 seats in an otherwise liberal-dominated parliament!?

Surely you're not serious.

[sharkman]

Nice quotes, good to see that left wingers in Canada still hate Harper. It shows he's going in the right direction. But I fear for the liberal fans, looks like they are headed for another long bitter leadership contest with many casualties. It's these moments in politics that provide much entertainment!

[capricorn]

Nice quotes, good to see that left wingers in Canada still hate Harper.

Harper Derangement Syndrome?

It shows he's going in the right direction. But I fear for the liberal fans, looks like they are headed for another long bitter leadership contest with many casualties. It's these moments in politics that provide much entertainment!

Don't you just hate it when the Conservatives monopolize the centrist position in this country?

[BC_chick]

There is no claiming he's a moderate when faced with all those quotes from the horse's mouth, is there? So the name-calling starts instead at me... at the LPC...

In a real debate that would mean I won, you lost. Better luck next time.

[capricorn]

I like quotes but I prefer video. It's more difficult to take comments out of context.

I saw some doozies by Pierre Trudeau that make Harper look like a pussycat but I won't bore you.

[Mr.Canada]

@ BC_Chick: Peoples views change. Have your views remained exactly the same for 11 years? If so you are one of very few I'm sure. He is human.

Also many of these things are true.

-Many people who are unemployed are so by choice and happy to get their monthly cheque, don't be so naive.

-The government nor the courts has a place to tell religious sects who and how they are to perform marriages to pacify a very small minority. Faith is dictated by God not the feminist, gay rights or any other special interest group. Perhaps religion is bunk to you and that's fine but I don't think that gives you any right to dictate how others are to live and worship.

-Many immigrants who come here do not assimilate into Canadian culture but instead stay with their own entirely and do not even try to integrate.

-Traditional definition of marriage is just fine. If gays want to get married go ahead just don't expect any special treatment, which is really the goal isn't it? They do not want equal rights they want special rights.

-Ok, and free votes are bad how exactly? I don't understand the problem with this one at all. I know in socialist countries free votes aren't allowed is that what the problem is?

-Mandela is a communist. The ANC is a Marxist party, that happens to be a fact. Marxism is one of the founding principals depending on the brand of socialism. Again I don't see the problem.

The rest are so outlandish that they don't deserve my comment at all.

EDIT- Harper is a conservative. I would expect him to have conservative values. If he didn't he wouldn't be a very good conservative now would he. If you don't like him BC_Chick that's fine, don't vote for him but at the same time please don't try to demonize every conservative the planet. We prefer a traditional way life and believe that not everything needs to be different and that some things are fine just the way they are. It isn't evil, just different, I thought left wingers were supposed to celebrate our differences, so there is no need to be so venomous and outlandish.

Edited October 17, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[kimmy]

Just over 1% point increase in popular support is steadily static results in my opinion, but of course Canada's FPTP allows him to gain a disproportionate number of seats...

Good point, he won.

But what happened yesterday is as good as it's going to get for a Harper-lead CPC. Is that really a victory?

Personally, I'm happy to see to him stay. As as a liberal, I don't want to see anything strengthens the CPC. But if I were a CPC strategist.... I would start really looking at Harper as a liability for the party.

Here is a perspective that you two might not have considered:

Jean Chretien's strong majorities were the result of popular vote percentages of 41.2% (1993) to 38.5% (1997) to 40.8% (2000).

Harper's win this week (37.6%) is only a few percentage points off of what had been easy majority territory just a short time ago.

Jean Chretien was considered to be a tremendously successful politician, a masterful campaigner, a strong leader; there were no calls for him to step down even though roughly 60% of Canadians rejected him in each election he ran. So what's the difference in Harper's case?

Well, the obvious difference: Chretien delivered 3 majorities, Harper has won 2 minority governments. How? Why such a difference in results, despite fairly similar percentages in popular support? I think if you study the results, you'll find it's not so much a difference in the amount of support for each man, but rather *where* their support was located. Chretien benefited more from regionalization than Harper has. I think you will find that a lot of Harper votes were in regions where he didn't *quite* have enough support to win seats. Whereas with Chretien, he was very strong in Ontario and in Montreal and in the Maritimes... but he was soundly rejected in areas where he didn't get seats. Harper, on the other hand, obviously has very high support in most of the west where it translated into seats, but a lot of Harper support in Ontario didn't translate into seats. The big difference between Chretien and Harper is not the amount of support, but how concentrated their support was.

(It's the same reason that 10% of the popular vote gets the BQ 50 seats while 7% of the popular vote got the Greens no seats.)

Related thought: Harper's 2 minority governments with 36.3% and 37.6% of the vote are a far more "democratic" result than Chretien's 3 majority governments with support based on 38.5% to 41.2% of the vote.

What CPC supporters fail to understand is that whether legitimate or not, Harper is 'scary' to us social-liberals. I'm not talking about his economic plans because a lot of people who did not vote for him admit to liking his economic plans. So, it's the image of the opposition leader Harper we just can't shake. The guy at the abortion rallies. The guy vowing that gays should not have equal rights for marriage. A lot of us seem to be having a hard time forgetting that Harper.

I don't see the wisdom of choosing a leader with the goal of making the party more popular with people who aren't likely to vote for that party regardless.

Perhaps I am giving people too much credit, but I don't think most people who didn't vote CPC made that decision based on personal dislike or distrust of Harper. I think a lot of people who chose to support other parties probably made that choice based on policies. "I'm voting NDP because I don't like big corporate tax cuts." "I'm voting Liberal because I think a carbon tax makes sense." "I am voting BQ because I don't like what the Conservatives have been saying about culture or youth crime."

I don't think it was a personal rejection of Harper; most polls said that he had far and away the highest personal approval of the party leaders. I think a lot of people just didn't like the platform. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

-k

[noahbody]

Is that what this is about? Because I said Harper spoke at rallies? (btw, I didn't just say pro-life, I said SSM and pro-life).

.

The issue is you made accusations you can't prove. You have no idea if they're true or false, do you? Ignorance is bliss. In the english language "and" means you accused him of both.

Now, as you did with your Paul Martin example, I'm sure you (and probably Argus) are going to find the odd Liberal MP or American politician who, at some point or another, has agreed with one of the above statements.

It wasn't long ago Paul Martin voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. And he's pro-life. Personally, I don't judge a politician on their personal beliefs. I judge them on what they do. Every party had a few nuts. In my opinion, Harper has done a pretty good job of creating a diverse party. In the Canadian system that's what should put your fear at rest. By the way anti-abortion legislation was introduced by a Liberal in MP in 2006. We can likely both agree, he's a nut job.

http://dawn.thot.net/abortion_rights.html

But sorry, that doesn't make Harper a moderate.

He is a politician. And smart enough to know that trying to implement a social conservative agenda would result in losing his job and keeping his party out of power for many years. The whole 'hidden agenda' thing is just a political ploy by the opposition. If Harper ever got a majority, he'd accomplish a lot, because that's what drives him. Canadians might appreciate that and realize the last party in power really sat on their hands for 13 years.

Have you ever taken one of those political-compass tests? How do you think they come up with the final figures? They're based on people's natural inclination toward issues. For example, if I side on the liberal spectrum of things in 8 out of 10 issues, I'm a liberal.

Once you start to identify yourself with a political brand, you lose perspective. You'll continue to buy the brand, even though the product is crap.

But Stephen Harper has repeatedly (key word here) taken the conservative stance on issues. You can't expect us to just scratch all these memories of him just because you claim he's a moderate.

What he's repeatedly (key word) said is that his government will not introduce pro-life legislation. And he will not be reopening the issue of gay marriage. Any other concerns?

[Who's Doing What?]

Why are you so bitter. He did very well considering 80% of the media was painting him as something he's not. I guess you are sucker for the bias mainstream Canadian media. You are probably a pro at playing follow the leader.

UM, more like 80% of the media was SUPPORTING him OPENLY. I wish you conservatives would take off your tinfoil hats when it comes to the media.

[Who's Doing What?]

Here is a perspective that you two might not have considered:

Jean Chretien's strong majorities were the result of popular vote percentages of 41.2% (1993) to 38.5% (1997) to 40.8% (2000).

Harper's win this week (37.6%) is only a few percentage points off of what had been easy majority territory just a short time ago.

Jean Chretien was considered to be a tremendously successful politician, a masterful campaigner, a strong leader; there were no calls for him to step down even though roughly 60% of Canadians rejected him in each election he ran. So what's the difference in Harper's case?

Well, the obvious difference: Chretien delivered 3 majorities, Harper has won 2 minority governments. How? Why such a difference in results, despite fairly similar percentages in popular support? I think if you study the results, you'll find it's not so much a difference in the amount of support for each man, but rather *where* their support was located. Chretien benefited more from regionalization than Harper has. I think you will find that a lot of Harper votes were in regions where he didn't *quite* have enough support to win seats. Whereas with Chretien, he was very strong in Ontario and in Montreal and in the Maritimes... but he was soundly rejected in areas where he didn't get seats. Harper, on the other hand, obviously has very high support in most of the west where it translated into seats, but a lot of Harper support in Ontario didn't translate into seats. The big difference between Chretien and Harper is not the amount of support, but how concentrated their support was.

When it comes to Harper and the Popular vote there is one big oil-soaked problem. That is Alberta. It is overwhelmingly conservative. I haven't seen the actual numbers but I have no doubt that they totally skew the entire argument about the popular vote.

Didn't Ducceppe get 10% of the popular vote?

Drop Alberta from the equation, and I bet it only effects Chretien's numbers by about 2% but it would drop Harper's by 5% or more.

[kimmy]

When it comes to Harper and the Popular vote there is one big oil-soaked problem. That is Alberta. It is overwhelmingly conservative. I haven't seen the actual numbers but I have no doubt that they totally skew the entire argument about the popular vote.

Didn't Ducceppe get 10% of the popular vote?

Drop Alberta from the equation, and I bet it only effects Chretien's numbers by about 2% but it would drop Harper's by 5% or more.

Alberta is not large enough to skew the election results as dramatically as you suggest. 65% of Albertan votes were for the CPC, but Alberta is the 4th largest province, and had the lowest voter turnout (52%) in the entire country.

The province by province results for the CPC in 2008:

NL: 16%

NS: 26%

PEI: 36%

NB: 39%

PQ: 22%

ON: 39%

MB: 49%

SK: 54%

AB: 65%

BC: 44%

Territories: 35%, 38%, 33%.

Only in Quebec, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia does the CPC support register significantly below their national figure of 37.6%. Only the 3 prairie provinces were significantly above the national figure. That's not very skewed. That's surprisingly balanced.

Harper has solid representation from every region except Quebec.

That's sonething Chretien never achieved, and never had to. With Ontario delivering 100 MPs for Chretien each election, it simply didn't matter that the Liberals were rejected in Quebec and the west. Each of Chretien's governments was more than half Ontario MPs.

-k

[TCCK]

TO BC CHICK:

After reading through this whole thread here is what I hve concluded:

You are bitter Liberal supporter mad that Dion is having to step down and tht the mass majority of Canadians think he is a serious wingnut.

You sound tons like a person on welfare in BC.

You also sound like a same-sex partner or someone that hs same-sex partner as a family member.

You are a minority and I am sick of this country playing favoritism to all the minorities and screwing around the greater percentage of the population. Just because minority screms the loudest does not mean the government should alwys give them thier wishes!

I could be wrong on your sexual preferance or the welfare bit and I apologize if I am but the first part I AM SURE OF!! Just because Dion sucks as leder does not men Harper does or that he needs to quit too.

[na85]

TO BC CHICK:

After reading through this whole thread here is what I hve concluded:

You are bitter Liberal supporter mad that Dion is having to step down and tht the mass majority of Canadians think he is a serious wingnut.

You sound tons like a person on welfare in BC.

You also sound like a same-sex partner or someone that hs same-sex partner as a family member.

You are a minority and I am sick of this country playing favoritism to all the minorities and screwing around the greater percentage of the population. Just because minority screms the loudest does not mean the government should alwys give them thier wishes!

I could be wrong on your sexual preferance or the welfare bit and I apologize if I am but the first part I AM SURE OF!! Just because Dion sucks as leder does not men Harper does or that he needs to quit too.

When faced with a solid argument that you can't surmount, resort to personal attacks.

[munsinger]

Yes, getting 140+ seats and 44% of the vote (outside of Quebec) clearly indicates that Harper's attempts to broaden his base...have been an abject failure.....

By all means, he should step down....

Give the koolaid another stir......

[nbguyca]

TO BC CHICK:

After reading through this whole thread here is what I hve concluded:

You are bitter Liberal supporter mad that Dion is having to step down and tht the mass majority of Canadians think he is a serious wingnut.

You sound tons like a person on welfare in BC.

You also sound like a same-sex partner or someone that hs same-sex partner as a family member.

You are a minority and I am sick of this country playing favoritism to all the minorities and screwing around the greater percentage of the population. Just because minority screms the loudest does not mean the government should alwys give them thier wishes!

I could be wrong on your sexual preferance or the welfare bit and I apologize if I am but the first part I AM SURE OF!! Just because Dion sucks as leder does not men Harper does or that he needs to quit too.

This is one of the rudest posts I have read.

[marksman]

-The government nor the courts has a place to tell religious sects who and how they are to perform marriages to pacify a very small minority. Faith is dictated by God not the feminist, gay rights or any other special interest group. Perhaps religion is bunk to you and that's fine but I don't think that gives you any right to dictate how others are to live and worship.

I'd hate to ruin your little soapbox speech but noone is forcing any religious group to marry samesex couples. You're arguing against an imaginary opponent not the government and not the courts.

-Many immigrants who come here do not assimilate into Canadian culture but instead stay with their own entirely and do not even try to integrate.

People say that but it's no more true now than any other time in Canadian history. Canadian cities have places called Little Italy or Chinatown or Greektown for a reason. It's natural for new immigrants to want to live near people familiar to them and that doesn't mean they aren't trying to integrate into their new country.

-Traditional definition of marriage is just fine. If gays want to get married go ahead just don't expect any special treatment, which is really the goal isn't it? They do not want equal rights they want special rights.

It looks like you're contradicting yourself when you say gays can go ahead and get married right after saying a traditional definition of marriage is fine.

What special treatment are you talking about? It isn't special treatment to get the exact same marriage certificate as everyone else when making a lifetime commitment to your partner.

You should maybe listen to yourself when telling the government to uphold a traditional definition of marriage. I've bolded the words I changed to make your argument generic instead of only supporting religious groups.

-The government nor the courts has a place to tell people who and how they are to perform marriages

If governments shouldn't tell religious groups who to marry then why should governments tell people who not to marry? Let people do what they want.

Maybe you'd like to listen to the last part of the same quote of yours. Bolded where I changed the reference to religion.

Perhaps sexual preference is bunk to you and that's fine but I don't think that gives you any right to dictate how others are to live and worship.

Your views don't give you the right to tell people what they can and can't do any more than someone else's views give them the right to tell you what you can and can't do.

[marksman]

Getting back to the topic I think the cons need to think about Harper's leadership. Right now he's the best they've got to lead and shouldn't step down but there should be questions about his success in this election. The liberals have been unorganized for 2 elections but both times no majority. Even with a massive scandal during the 1st election and if Harper's to be believed a completely incompetent leader in the 2nd election. The cons were in majority territory at the beginning of this election but couldn't pull it off. Sure the popular vote wasn't far from Chretien's results but who cares about that if you don't get a majority? Wasn't that the point of this election for Harper? He's only got 1 more chance before the party turns on him.

[TCCK]

This is one of the rudest posts I have read.

nO NOT rude just someone who can red between the lines and is sick and tired of minority group people getting all the attention and action in this country.

It is time the greater amount of the population (the 44% of the people that ll voted for the sme Man/party) get what they wnt for a chnge in this coountry.

That is what a democrcy is right? The largest group tht bands together gets to call the shots, whether it is a majority or not. Now if the BQ, NDP and the remains of the Liberals want to band together as one group under one name/coalition then they can cll the shots but until then it is the 44% and the Conservatives so

STOP YOUR BITCHING and let our leader lead!

[na85]

nO NOT rude just someone who can red between the lines and is sick and tired of minority group people getting all the attention and action in this country.

It is time the greater amount of the population (the 44% of the people that ll voted for the sme Man/party) get what they wnt for a chnge in this coountry.

That is what a democrcy is right? The largest group tht bands together gets to call the shots, whether it is a majority or not. Now if the BQ, NDP and the remains of the Liberals want to band together as one group under one name/coalition then they can cll the shots but until then it is the 44% and the Conservatives so

STOP YOUR BITCHING and let our leader lead!

You should step back from your monitor, take a few deep breaths, and then go play outside or something. You seem awfully worked up about this. Drop the ad hominem attacks and the mud slinging before you get a very interesting thread locked. Or is that your goal?

nO NOT rude

*snip*

STOP YOUR BITCHING

Riiiight.

------------------

Getting back to the topic I think the cons need to think about Harper's leadership. Right now he's the best they've got to lead and shouldn't step down but there should be questions about his success in this election. The liberals have been unorganized for 2 elections but both times no majority. Even with a massive scandal during the 1st election and if Harper's to be believed a completely incompetent leader in the 2nd election. The cons were in majority territory at the beginning of this election but couldn't pull it off. Sure the popular vote wasn't far from Chretien's results but who cares about that if you don't get a majority? Wasn't that the point of this election for Harper? He's only got 1 more chance before the party turns on him.

I think that after 13 years the elation of finally being able to for a government has outweighed the disappointment at being stuck with only a minority twice in a row. It may be that as the initial novelty of being in power wears off, there will begin to be some whispers in the Tory back rooms. Why has Harper failed against a dismally weak Liberal party twice in a row? Is the third time really the charm or will we get more of the same if we keep him at the helm?

[Oleg Bach]

You should step back from your monitor, take a few deep breaths, and then go play outside or something. You seem awfully worked up about this. Drop the ad hominem attacks and the mud slinging before you get a very interesting thread locked. Or is that your goal?

Riiiight.

------------------

I think that after 13 years the elation of finally being able to for a government has outweighed the disappointment at being stuck with only a minority twice in a row. It may be that as the initial novelty of being in power wears off, there will begin to be some whispers in the Tory back rooms. Why has Harper failed against a dismally weak Liberal party twice in a row? Is the third time really the charm or will we get more of the same if we keep him at the helm?

I will tell you why he failed - Same reason why Mayor Miller failed to control the violence at the ghetto called Jane and Finch - Both like Dion would not stand up like men who have a strong sense of what is right (honour) and put their careers on the line and say what is no their mind - to rule by the panderment of poll is not rule. You have to stand up and say - that the blacks at the Ghetto are acting not like men but hetro-fags. You have to stand up and ask -

Who's damn policy was it to ghettoize the blacks and welfare recievers? Harper is the best we have - BUT as is commonly known - conservatives are henchmen for the internationalist buisness elite - the liberals are the henchmen of the henchmen - they debase and control the population - and the NDP super lefties are useless factory workers in a land that has no more factories to speak of - To dump Harper is to dump the bank - and money is the social lubricant that makes it all click - are you willing to do with out your pay? - If you are not willing to be brave and go for broke then shut up and let Harper and the banks have their way - They may be crooks - but they are OUR crooks - Loyalty my friends.

[guyser]

nO NOT rude just someone who can red between the lines and is sick and tired of minority group people getting all the attention and action in this country.

Oh BS.

You're a minority and you know it. To post she is gay or on welfare is pitiful. But, not surprising.

STOP YOUR BITCHING and let our leader lead!

No one has stopped Harper from leading. Not now, not 2 years ago nor 8 months ago.

[Oleg Bach]

Oh BS.

You're a minority and you know it. To post she is gay or on welfare is pitiful. But, not surprising.

No one has stopped Harper from leading. Not now, not 2 years ago nor 8 months ago.

Harper made sure that all military supplies contracts were fulfilled and all were paid in full - If you bought stocks in war supplies you would love the guy - now get with it - but killing poor people for fun and profit is no way to go - seriously - Like the Americans who are back to their dependency on slavery (China) - no good will come of it - I just hope Harper follows his own mind and really goes for it - As can be seen internationally we have been all plundered...I just hope that the greedy powers that be have drank enough of our blood to be satisfied..Maybe Harper can stand up to the vampires and actually turn on them - All bullies back off when you give them a kick...but he could lose a foot - oh well - such are the ways of the world and international Mafism.

[nbguyca]

nO NOT rude just someone who can red between the lines and is sick and tired of minority group people getting all the attention and action in this country.

It is time the greater amount of the population (the 44% of the people that ll voted for the sme Man/party) get what they wnt for a chnge in this coountry.

That is what a democrcy is right? The largest group tht bands together gets to call the shots, whether it is a majority or not. Now if the BQ, NDP and the remains of the Liberals want to band together as one group under one name/coalition then they can cll the shots but until then it is the 44% and the Conservatives so

STOP YOUR BITCHING and let our leader lead!

No one stopped him from leading other than himself. Leading is not about getting your own way, it is about doing what is right for everyone. Unfortunately for you, there is no Conservative majority. If there were, then Harper could do what he wants. But maybe that is just what the other 66% of the people are afraid of and refuse to give him a majority. People with attitudes such as your do nothing for this country.

[BC_chick]

I like quotes but I prefer video. It's more difficult to take comments out of context.

I saw some doozies by Pierre Trudeau that make Harper look like a pussycat but I won't bore you.

So in your rosey world where Harper is a moderate whose words are repeatedly twisted, why don't we issues where he clearly sided with the left?

BTW, look at some of the other resposes from CPC supporters on this thread. The old line about him being a moderate is really tired when most of your fellow Harper supporters willingly and happily admit that Harper's a conservative. At least they can admit that his conservatism is what they like about him.

Try arguing why he's good for his party (and by a larger extension, for Canada) in spite of his conservative views. But trying to pretend he's a moderate is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Including your own.

Edited October 17, 2008 by BC_chick