What would Stephen Harper do...

[blueblood]

And if you don't get your Tory majority, will you become a separatist?

Are you one? You are quite bitter about harper running the show. I find it funny because the shoe is on the other foot.

[Canadian Blue]

"Stephen Harper's stand on public health care? '... Provinces have allowed private health care services in the past. Why should I care? Why should the Federal government care how they're managed?' Seriously, that's what he said. Well, Paul Martin cares very much, Mr. Harper. And so do Canadians."

I find this one quite ironic since me and jdobbin are having a discussion about it.

[jdobbin]

With regards to abortion and the death penalty I think you can keep dreaming. Harper wouldn't dare risk an election on either issue. However from what I hear Stephen Harper may force an election on the issue of whether or not Canadian's want soldiers with guns in cities.

I keep hearing about the poison pill in the budget to force an election. What is it then. Reneging on his promise not to withdraw provisions from the economic statement?

This is of course in response to your claim that Harper has a scary hidden agenda to turn us into something akin to 1950's Alabama.

I have never claimed a hidden agenda.

Come on Jdobbin, you know politics for the most part is about winning. You can't honestly tell us that the LPC is always truthful and never puts any spin on the issues in order to get votes.

I have never said that either.

Seriously, you can't honestly tell me that most Liberals weren't happy in the 90's when they realized their was no chance of any opposition party forming government.

I thought it was bad for the Liberal party and bad for the country. My opinion was that Chretien was unchallenged by the Opposition. It took the Liberals themselves to stop him.

The Liberals should have reformed their party from 2006-2008, they didn't. Your party dug itself into this mess, and it likely won't learn from it's mistakes simply because many people in the party think they're entitled to power.

I agree that the party should have done a better job in policy, organization and leadership. Think I have been pretty consistent as anyone who has read my comments knows.

Perhaps the Liberals should have listened more often to Gerard Kennedy who wanted to bring in reforms to the party.

Perhaps Gerard Kennedy should have had better French and he may have been leader.

Dion ended up the leader in part because of Kennedy's decision-making. That was reform?

[jdobbin]

Are you one? You are quite bitter about harper running the show. I find it funny because the shoe is on the other foot.

No, I happen to love Canada. I have never talked about separation after not getting my way.

[Canadian Blue]

I keep hearing about the poison pill in the budget to force an election. What is it then. Reneging on his promise not to withdraw provisions from the economic statement?

You ran for politics, think about it for one second. If Harper wanted to force a "poison pill" it would have to be something that most Canadian's would be sympathetic to coast to coast. Ending abortion and bringing in the death penalty are not that important to most people.

I thought it was bad for the Liberal party and bad for the country. My opinion was that Chretien was unchallenged by the Opposition. It took the Liberals themselves to stop him.

I meant the LPC as a whole, I don't recall Chretien ever begging Jean Charest and Preston Manning to unite the right so he could face some opposition in the next election. [interesting to note though that many were contemplating a united right which would be led by Stephen Harper who was considered a social moderate due to his pro-choice positions and his opposition to social conservatism]

I agree that the party should have done a better job in policy, organization and leadership. Think I have been pretty consistent as anyone who has read my comments knows.

If that's the case then most polticians if given the oppurtunity would attempt to obliterate their opposition. That's simply politics, the Liberals did the same thing when they called an early election in 2000 because they knew the Canadian Alliance would not be ready for it.

[jdobbin]

You ran for politics, think about it for one second. If Harper wanted to force a "poison pill" it would have to be something that most Canadian's would be sympathetic to coast to coast. Ending abortion and bringing in the death penalty are not that important to most people.

I disagree that they are not important. It is just Harper's policy to work on these policies incrementally.

Most Canadians don't want an election and Harper climbed down from provisions of the economic statement and promised to work with the Opposition. Now I keep hearing that he is going to act like a horse's ass again and people think that he will be rewarded for it.

I meant the LPC as a whole, I don't recall Chretien ever begging Jean Charest and Preston Manning to unite the right so he could face some opposition in the next election. [interesting to note though that many were contemplating a united right which would be led by Stephen Harper who was considered a social moderate due to his pro-choice positions and his opposition to social conservatism]

Is Harper begging the left to unite?

If that's the case then most polticians if given the oppurtunity would attempt to obliterate their opposition. That's simply politics, the Liberals did the same thing when they called an early election in 2000 because they knew the Canadian Alliance would not be ready for it.

I agree. The Liberals saw an easy defeat in the making for the Tories and took it.

The Tories thought they could call an election before May and squeeze the Liberals badly before they could be ready for it.

I said very early that the Liberals would say no.

[blueblood]

No, I happen to love Canada. I have never talked about separation after not getting my way.

I may not be a flag waver, but I am no seperatist. However, I wouldn't take sides on this issue.

[Canadian Blue]

I disagree that they are not important. It is just Harper's policy to work on these policies incrementally.

I doubt it, Harper was never really known as a social conservative and when he ran in the Canadian Alliance leadership race he attacked Stockwell Day for going after the religious vote. When we hear about incrementalism that's dealing with economic policy, criminal justice, decentralization, and a Tripe-E Senate.

Is Harper begging the left to unite?

No, he's a politician. But if you feel the NDP, Liberals, and Greens, should unite I say all the power to you.

[jdobbin]

I may not be a flag waver, but I am no seperatist. However, I wouldn't take sides on this issue.

I'll always take a side on separatism.

[jdobbin]

I doubt it, Harper was never really known as a social conservative and when he ran in the Canadian Alliance leadership race he attacked Stockwell Day for going after the religious vote. When we hear about incrementalism that's dealing with economic policy, criminal justice, decentralization, and a Tripe-E Senate.

That is not what Tom Flanagan says.

No, he's a politician. But if you feel the NDP, Liberals, and Greens, should unite I say all the power to you.

I don't think they should unite as one party. I do feel if Harper acts like a horse's ass again, they can vote no confidence.

[Canadian Blue]

That is not what Tom Flanagan says.

From my reading of Tom Flanagan and incrementalism, the policies he talks about are now regarding abortion, the death penalty, or gay marriage. What it more than likely deals with are tax cuts, free trade, privatization, the right to bear arms, senate reform, and ensuring basic individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech which has been eroded by the HRC's.

[jdobbin]

From my reading of Tom Flanagan and incrementalism, the policies he talks about are now regarding abortion, the death penalty, or gay marriage. What it more than likely deals with are tax cuts, free trade, privatization, the right to bear arms, senate reform, and ensuring basic individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech which has been eroded by the HRC's.

From my reading of Tom Flanagan, it is social and economic policies.

[Canadian Blue]

From my reading of Tom Flanagan, it is social and economic policies.

Such as?

Social policies could range from introducing tougher sentences for violent criminals, to ridding ourselves of the absurd Section 13 HRC's use to prosecute mainstream newspapers for hate speech. If the incrementalism that the Tories propose it to get rid of alot of these authoritarian policies put in place by previous governments which attempt to socially engineer a society or those laws and regulations which are an aversion to individual liberty then I have no problem with getting rid of them.

[jdobbin]

Such as?

The death penalty, abortion and same sex marriage. The one thing generally holding them back is a minority.

Social policies could range from introducing tougher sentences for violent criminals, to ridding ourselves of the absurd Section 13 HRC's use to prosecute mainstream newspapers for hate speech. If the incrementalism that the Tories propose it to get rid of alot of these authoritarian policies put in place by previous governments which attempt to socially engineer a society or those laws and regulations which are an aversion to individual liberty then I have no problem with getting rid of them.

Why is there a need when the Supreme Court has spoken?

[August1991]

I keep hearing about the poison pill in the budget to force an election. What is it then. Reneging on his promise not to withdraw provisions from the economic statement?

If Harper takes this route, the poison pill would likely be party financing.

A clear majority of Canadians believe that political parties should not be funded by the public purse, according to a new poll that suggests Prime Minister Stephen Harper was on the right track when he eliminated the subsidy, sparking outrage from the opposition parties.

Sixty-one per cent of voters said they oppose federal political parties securing $1.95 annually for each vote, which is a major source of party funding.

Link

Canadians need time to get to know Ignatieff. For many, he is a big question mark and this would not help the Liberals in an election. He must be proactive about it and not let the Conservatives define him. I'm sure Dion can and did fill him in on that pitfall.

Why would Harper give Ignatieff time to become known or get the Liberal house in order?

Chretien never gave Stockwell Day any time.

And before someone claims that the Liberals and Conservatives are the same, let me state that Stephen Harper would not create a sponsorship scheme as Chretien did. While Chretien made numerous promises about eliminating the GST, Harper promised to cut it and then did.

In short, there is a difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the difference concerns integrity.

Anyway, I have a suspicion that much of Canada is not going to like another urban intellectual who has a tendency to talk down to people. Ignatieff may be popular in cities but not elsewhere. Harper vs. Ignatieff won't be Tim Hortons vs. Starbucks - it'll be more like Tim Hortons vs. Beaujolais nouveau.

[Smallc]

In short, there is a difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the difference concerns integrity.

First, as a Liberal, I find that hugely offensive. Second, as a person, I find it quite ignorant. Stephen Harper has broken more than enough promises for any Prime Minister. Third, JC never promised to get rid of the tax, but rather to convert it into the HST. There was too much provincial opposition.

[jdobbin]

If Harper takes this route, the poison pill would likely be party financing.

Which means he was lying when he withdrew those provisions earlier.

You are big in favour of polls to support your position. The polls also said Canadians don't want an election. They blamed Harper for the brinkmanship. They didn't want a coalition. They wanted the government to work together.

You are saying that one poll is right without thinking about what the other polls show. Harper wants to go to an election breaking a promise he made only a few weeks ago? Is he that much of a sociopath?

Why would Harper give Ignatieff time to become known or get the Liberal house in order?

I've been saying that all along. I said Harper would call an election before May only to hear Tories saying that was impossible.

Chretien never gave Stockwell Day any time.

Never said he did.

I am saying that Harper is a liar. He lies straight to the Canadian people. He says he won't be partisan. He says he is willing to work with the Opposition. He says he will withdraw provisions of the economic update but I hear you saying they are going right back in. He is like a rabid dog with his obsession to destroy the Liberals.

And before someone claims that the Liberals and Conservatives are the same, let me state that Stephen Harper would not create a sponsorship scheme as Chretien did. While Chretien made numerous promises about eliminating the GST, Harper promised to cut it and then did.

But broke his promise on income trusts. Lies and bigger lies.

He also spends like a drunken sailor and will continue to do because he is not a fiscal conservative.

In short, there is a difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the difference concerns integrity.

Harper lies make him honest?

And you support those lies? He promised to keep the provision he took out of the economic update out of the budget. If they go back in, he is a liar.

Anyway, I have a suspicion that much of Canada is not going to like another urban intellectual who has a tendency to talk down to people. Ignatieff may be popular in cities but not elsewhere. Harper vs. Ignatieff won't be Tim Hortons vs. Starbucks - it'll be more like Tim Hortons vs. Beaujolais nouveau.

Ignatieff is now more popular than Harper. It is pretty easy when Harper shows his true colours on a regular basis.

[ToadBrother]

If Harper takes this route, the poison pill would likely be party financing.

Link

Why would Harper give Ignatieff time to become known or get the Liberal house in order?

Chretien never gave Stockwell Day any time.

And before someone claims that the Liberals and Conservatives are the same, let me state that Stephen Harper would not create a sponsorship scheme as Chretien did. While Chretien made numerous promises about eliminating the GST, Harper promised to cut it and then did.

In short, there is a difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the difference concerns integrity.

Which explains why Harper defied his own election amendments, why the Conservatives were busted try to buy Chuck Cadman, why government scientists are being heavily censored, and so forth.

The modern Conservative party plays every bit as dirty. Yes, they don't have the monster scandals yet, but being in a minority situation with little hope of fully gaining the reigns of power. Power corrupts, always. The self-righteous are no less vulnerable.

Anyway, I have a suspicion that much of Canada is not going to like another urban intellectual who has a tendency to talk down to people. Ignatieff may be popular in cities but not elsewhere. Harper vs. Ignatieff won't be Tim Hortons vs. Starbucks - it'll be more like Tim Hortons vs. Beaujolais nouveau.

This continued attempt to make Stephen Harper into a regular guy is ludicrous. He's not a regular guy. He's every bit the cold, intellectual snob that Ignatieff is. I realize that it's now official Tory party line to talk about Harper like he's a regular beer-swilling Joe, but he isn't. He's a political operator, every bit as tough and willing to get dirty as a street fighter like Chretien.

[ToadBrother]

First, as a Liberal, I find that hugely offensive. Second, as a person, I find it quite ignorant. Stephen Harper has broken more than enough promises for any Prime Minister. Third, JC never promised to get rid of the tax, but rather to convert it into the HST. There was too much provincial opposition.

Oh come on. That's complete historical revisionism. When Chretien was in Opposition he made it very clear that two major Tory initiatives; NAFTA and the GST, were toast under a Liberal government. Of course, once he got there, and doubtless had a few meetings with government economists, he was convinced otherwise, and Canada entered NAFTA and the GST survived, and a few of the provinces agreed to the pathetic attempt to try to make it look like Chretien was keeping his word by harmonizing their sales taxes with the Fed's.

[August1991]

Which explains why Harper defied his own election amendments, why the Conservatives were busted try to buy Chuck Cadman, why government scientists are being heavily censored, and so forth.

The modern Conservative party plays every bit as dirty. Yes, they don't have the monster scandals yet, but being in a minority situation with little hope of fully gaining the reigns of power. Power corrupts, always. The self-righteous are no less vulnerable.

Chretien organized a scheme to shovel taxpayer money to friendly ad-firms who then shoveled some of the money back to the federal Liberal Party. The scheme was so good that Chretien passed a law so that his successor in the Liberal Party couldn't use it.

Whatever his faults, Stephen Harper has done nothing like that.

On the contrary, within the give-and-take of political compromise, Harper has managed to keep some major promises.

----

I have faulted Harper on his recent dealings with French Canada. But I'll admit that he has some principles. Harper's a man for all seasons.

Ignatieff OTOH is not only an urban "public intellectual" but he's also a flake. Ignatieff seems to consider policy decisions as discussion points in a graduate seminar.

[ToadBrother]

Chretien organized a scheme to shovel taxpayer money to friendly ad-firms who then shoveled some of the money back to the federal Liberal Party. The scheme was so good that Chretien passed a law so that his successor in the Liberal Party couldn't use it.

Whatever his faults, Stephen Harper has done nothing like that.

On the contrary, within the give-and-take of political compromise, Harper has managed to keep some major promises.

And flagrantly broken others. I'm not saying he's the corrupt operator that Chretien was, but he's no angel, and judging by his performance recently, he's not, as you say below, a man for all seasons. He's a mean-spirited street fighter who seems to equate his own interests and ambitions with that of the entire country. Maybe he play nice, now that it's pretty clear that the Conservative caucus has given him some serious marching orders.

I think a guy who nearly puts the country into a constitutional crisis because he can't stop himself from being an a$$hole to the Opposition is no more deserving of the job than a guy who sets up a scheme to funnel public money to his pals. (Not that I think much of the Opposition either)

----

I have faulted Harper on his recent dealings with French Canada. But I'll admit that he has some principles. Harper's a man for all seasons.

Ignatieff OTOH is not only an urban "public intellectual" but he's also a flake. Ignatieff seems to consider policy decisions as discussion points in a graduate seminar.

Oh come on, Harper is every bit as much the intellectual as Ignatieff. Please don't tell me you seriously bought into the BS "sweater" commercials where Harper very badly try to convince us all that he's Joe Canuck. In fact, I don't want Joe Canuck running the country. I'd rather the Conservatives and the Liberals simply admit "Our leaders are elitists who think (and probably are) smarter than you."

I guarantee you that the Liberal spin doctors will be doing the same thing the Conservative spin doctors have been doing with Harper, trying to turn an arrogant SOB into Mr. Human Touch. Ignatieff, like Harper, will have to suffer through all the so-called "baby kissing", and he will probably look every bit as uncomfortable at it as Harper always does.

Both men are outsiders. The difference, I suspect, is that Harper will be much less afraid to fight dirty, Ignatieff looks sufficiently arrogant to think he can win by rising above the fray. And that's the real difference. Harper's spent a lot of time playing politics, and knows the road. Ignatieff doesn't know politics as well, and unless he's willing to trust his strategists and advisors, he'll come off as some rarified types do in the political arena; hopelessly idealistic and naive.

Edited December 17, 2008 by ToadBrother

[August1991]

Oh come on, Harper is every bit as much the intellectual as Ignatieff.

Toad, I'm sorry to simplify your otherwise good post down to this. But such are democratic politics.

Stephen Harper has a reputation (a public persona) of being intelligent, even crafty. He is not considered an "intellectual" and he does not advertise himself, as Michael Ignatieff does, as a "public intellectual".

I'm not sure what a "public intellectual" does but then, I'm not sure what a "community organizer" does either. It worked for Obama so maybe it'll work for Ignatieff. At this point, even I'm predicting 70 seats in Ontario, 30 seats in Quebec, 25 seats in the Maritimes and maybe 5 seats in the West for the Liberals under Ignatieff. That's enough for a minority government and 30 or so chauffered limousines, and 30 or so ministerial staffing positions.

In opposition, Dion had to take the bus to get home.

Edited December 17, 2008 by August1991

[Goat Boy©]

The death penalty, abortion and same sex marriage. The one thing generally holding them back is a minority.

Fear mongering. It won't happen.

I guess you like to ignore things like the '94 Reform convention when Harper stood out against government intervention on defining marriage? Oh and didn't he vote for the gun registry too?

Why is there a need when the Supreme Court has spoken?

Anything the SCC says can be changed. They've made some seriously bone head moves.

[jdobbin]

Fear mongering. It won't happen.

I guess you like to ignore things like the '94 Reform convention when Harper stood out against government intervention on defining marriage? Oh and didn't he vote for the gun registry too?

Harper will let private members bills originate from his party on these issues to give some cover but incremental social policy changes is what he and Flanagan have mentioned many times.

Anything the SCC says can be changed. They've made some seriously bone head moves.

It can? Citation for that? The issue can be revisited but generally not for quite some time.

[noahbody]

I have never claimed a hidden agenda.

That's too funny. Scroll down the page and see your comments on abortion and capital punishment. Both of which Harper has stated many times are not his government's policy. Then there's his main agenda for killing off the Liberal party.