Please Mr. Ignatieff, do not appease Harper

[capricorn]

Your ballot may only have individuals on it but a large number of people do in fact vote for a government because if they want change, it is the only option they have.

I have always voted for the party, not the candidate. I concentrate more on the policies than whether the candidate is good at flipping burgers or turning hot dogs on the grill and has a firm handshake.

Come to think of it, not once have I ever approached my MP for help in any matter which falls under federal jurisdiction or other. I'm a low maintenance constituent, the ones politicians like the most.

[Molly]

For every one of you, Capricorn, there is one of me, who votes candidate over party, and thank my stars that those things have only been in conflict for me a handful of times.

You vote for a schnook or a fool, you deserve a schnook or a fool. A good rep in opposition is far, far better than a jackass in government.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Molly

[Muddy]

Iggy is to smart a guy to form a coalition government with Layton and Duceppe. It would not last six months and they would be at each others throats. Iggy wants to be around for a long time. He will support the government. He knows he has three roads. Bring down the government and form a coalition, Bring down the government and have an unwanted election, or be a statesman and support the government of the day with the art of compromise.

[Mr.Canada]

For every one of you, Capricorn, there is one of me, who votes candidate over party, and thank my stars that those things have only been in conflict for me a handful of times.

You vote for a schnook or a fool, you deserve a schnook or a fool. A good rep in opposition is far, far better than a jackass in government.

I am of the same feeling as capricorn. I haven't had any big decisive decisions to make as far as local representation goes so I haven't a need to pay too much attention to the local MP. I do look into them but don't use it as a gauge as who I'll vote for. That being said not every MP of any stripe is a jackass because a certain team didn't win.

Iggy is to smart a guy to form a coalition government with Layton and Duceppe. It would not last six months and they would be at each others throats. Iggy wants to be around for a long time. He will support the government. He knows he has three roads. Bring down the government and form a coalition, Bring down the government and have an unwanted election, or be a statesman and support the government of the day with the art of compromise.

Ignatieff is indeed a smart academic, that's obvious. How smart a politician he is remains to be seen as he hasn't done anything politically yet. The Liberals aren't ready for an election yet is the reason he'll vote with the government, no other. Every politician is partisan for the most part and if Ignatieff thought he could win an election right now he'd pull the plug in a heartbeat, don't kid yourself.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Argus]

There were few dry eyes. Speeches gave quotes from all great leaders, Republicans and Democrats. You really got the sense that Americans were banded together for the first time in nearly a decade. I may have gotten very emotional over the whole thing and expect that tomorrow will be even more awe inspiring.

Why? Because a Black guy is going to be president? And can you list all his major policy intiatives? I'll give you a hint. He's got none to speak of, really. His campaign was one of smoke and mirrors, without any solid proposals for doing anything about anything. It was a touchie-feelie feel-good kind of campaign without much substance.

However, I'm not the Prime Minister, who chose to attack the Canadian people and pit West against East to save his job. His public display, and that of his Party, was one of the worst in Canadian history.

Yeah, I'm gonna go out on not much of a limb here and suggest you know about as much about Canadian history as Obama does. And not much more about politics. In fact, the Liberals under Trudeau/Chretien mastered the divide and conquer plan to political success, dividing the West and Central Canada, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, English and French Canada, immigrants and whites. They were absolutely notorious about it, and yet all that went "whifff" over your head while you sat there with a dumb, bland smile on your face.

Harper "attacked the Canadian people"? When? What did he say? Oh, wait, he said things against seperatists. Shocking! How horrible! How can we even let such a man stay in the country when he says bad things about seperatists! Ohmygod! Call the thought police! You can't dissaprove of separatists! I mean, they're frenchies! That's almost as good as being Black! You don't dare criticise anything about a minority of any kind, do you!?

It was like his whole caucus was on crack with their high pitched squeals and loud mothed rants

.

Here's a little bit of history for you to look up. It was only about 15 years ago. It was called "The rat pack", a group of Liberals who intentionally yelled, screamed, threw things, jumped over desks frantically shaking fists, and generally did everything they could to cause disruption in parliament.

But that pales into insignificance compared to Harper and a few of his minister DARING to criticise a plan by three political sleazes to grab power in order to ensure they kept fat government cheques coming for their parties. Parties which have so few people interested in them that they can't raise any funds on their own.

They attacked Justin Trudeau suggesting that he had shamed his father.

Shocking! They said unflattering things about a Liberal politicians!? Wow. How dare they!

That shouldn't be allowed, right? Lock em up!

They attacked Jack Layton, again suggesting that his father was rolling in his grave. This was dirty. [ This was personal. And he has done nothing since to gain their confidence or respect.

I know a guy who works on contract for various political parties. He says Layton is as vicious and bitter a man that you'll ever find whenver Harper's name comes up. He's hated him for years, and goes on rants that has everyone else just rolling their eyes or waiting impatiently for him to stop. He's obsessed with Harper. He'd do almost anything to destroy the man. I think we can forgive Harper for being "mean" to him.

But that doesn't matter to you I know. Lefties don't care about facts or truth. All they need is sunshine and mirrors, tears and smiles and feel-good, wishy-washy statements with no substance. That's how you get a Lefty swooning in admiration. It obviously works with you.

[Argus]

For every one of you, Capricorn, there is one of me, who votes candidate over party, and thank my stars that those things have only been in conflict for me a handful of times.

You vote for a schnook or a fool, you deserve a schnook or a fool. A good rep in opposition is far, far better than a jackass in government.

Unfortunately, the way party discipline works, your MP is nothing more than a pawn, moved back and forth by party leaders. He says what he's told to say. He votes how he's told to vote. It really doesn't matter if he's good or not - and most people know virtually nothing about their candidates anyway. One of the main thrusts of modern politics is to ensure candidates reveal nothing about themselves, take wishy-washy stands on controversial subjects, and learn how to speak without saying anything.

[Argus]

Oh but voters do agree. 62% of voters in fact

The so-called coallition collapsed in the face of heavy public dissaproval. Even many of those who voted Liberal wanted nothing to do with a bastardised coallition guided by Layton and Duceppe.

and when you factor in the 63% of Quebecers who now want the Coalition to take power

As a former Quebecer, let me enlighten you on the priorities of Quebec voters on the national scene

001. Power for Quebec

002. Money for Quebec

....

643.... anything concerning whatever lies beyond Quebec's borders.

Quebecers have long decided that the proper path to this is to always vote for Quebecers, no matter what, and preferably French Quebecers. You can take the dumbest, crookedest, vilest perverted Francophone Quebec leader who drools when he talks and routinely urinates in public, and run him up against an Anglo from Ontario, and the Quebecer will get most of the votes from Quebecers. The only time in history when the majority of Quebecers have voted for anyone other than a Quebecer was when they had no Quebecer as an alternative.

So yeah, it's not much of a surprise that a coallition with two French Quebecers would draw their approval.

What is surprising is that people outside Quebec would consider this a significant factor which ougth to convince the rest of us to somehow support them.

How exactly did we know his budget was going to contain stimulus? His word? Ha ha ha ha.

It was patently obvious from every source remotely connected to the government, and yes, his word. Harper has been imperfect in doing as he said, but that still puts him leagues beyond the outright lying sleazoids like Martin and Chretien who came before him.

The word of a man who told us during the election that there was no economic crisis...

Can you give me a cite on that? Good luck.

that he had a steady hand at the wheel? The word of the 'economist' who didn't see this coming?

Like other economists, he did see it coming, and mentioned it more than a year ago. Like other economists, he didn't see the full extent of it and how fast it would unfold.

Martin and Dion and Ignatieff, of course, never said a thing which would lead anyone to believe they had even the most remote clue anything was amiss.

Then we find out that not only was the 13 billion dollar surplus gone, but we were ALREADY IN A DEFICIT, masked with the 'projected' sale of assets. Out and out fraud.

I'm sorry, but I would believe in Santa Claus much easier than believe this man or the Conservative Party has an ounce of integrity.

Not surpring. As I've said before, conservatives deal with facts and logic. Lefties deal with feelings and emotions. Harper's big crime has not been anything he's actually done, but the fact he doesn't smile and say all the bland, soothing little nothings that touch the heart of mindless lefties.

[Argus]

It brings me tears to think that we have a choice between "sobbing emotional halfwits" and a self-serving Machiavellian political manager whose only interest is smashing his opponents to pieces and treating the MPs in his own party like halfwitted voting machines who must do as he says or face dire consequences.

Uh huh. The mindless, unthinking hypocrisy of the left at play yet again. It's really quite sad the state of voter our incompetent educational system has produced.

Oh Harper is an evil, controlling power mad man! Why? Uhm, uh, well, uh, uhm, look at his eyes! He's evil!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can be a Tory and be pro choice or pro life. You can be in favour of the death pentalty, or against it. You can be in favour of gay rights and gay marriage or not.

If you want to be an NDP MP, you tow the party line on each and every single issue the party lists as important. There are no exceptions. There is no alternative. Accept the party line or you aren't allowed to have any position of authority or importance in the NDP, much less be a candidate. There was one MP last session who actually dared vote against gay marriage because of her constiuents overwhelming opposition. She's no longer an NDP MP. She was forced out of the party.

And yet, this sort of thing doesn't even raise the slightest suggestion of discomfort among you lefties.

Chretien was famous for his absolute control over his MPs, who were little more than sheep. But that didn't bother you in the slightest either.

Oh but Harper is evil! He's controlling! He's uhm, yeah okay.

[Argus]

Sometimes the level of political discourse is disappointing.

Can you help me understand what purpose such characterizations serve, apart from obscuring the lack of cogent argument?

Forgive me for mocking someone who posts a childishly naive statement filled with paranoid nonsense about the government, and ludicrously optimistic statements about a "coalliton". Most political observers figured that coallition was a train wreck in the making, unlikely to last more than a few months, yet you're dead certain it would produced "stability" for years to come. You express your contempt for Harper for wanting a majority, and wanting to beat out the other parties - laughingly assuming the other parties don't think and act in exactly the same way. As if Layton and Dion wouldn't have gleefully cut each other's throat at the first opportunity!

[Argus]

What does this have to do with anything?

I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of your statements.

[Molly]

Argus, it still comes back to the voters choice. Elect a pawn, get a pawn. Elect a quality individual, get someone whose opinion is sought by the party of which he is a member, get something a little more nuanced than a rubber stamp.

You get the representative/representation you vote for, and rightly deserve.

[Argus]

If there was ever a Canadian politician who excelled at smelling blood in the water and calling elections for no other reason than to maintain or enhance his majority, it was Chretien. Calling an election right after Day was chosen leader is a prime example. He smelled weakness and pounced. It was the smart political move but had nothing to do with the country's welfare. 300M for an election we didn't need and didn't want, he already had a majority.

Shhhhh. The simpletons of the left don't want to hear things like that. Liberals are sweet and kind and gentle and loving and only have everyone's best interests at heart. The only people who are ruthless and self-serving at those evil tories they're so scared of all the time.

[Argus]

And I've said many times that if Harper resembles any other recent politician in his behavior, it's Chretien. Both men basically have the same management strategy and the same authoritarian bent.

The chief difference is, of course, that Chretien won several majorities, while Harper has never, and by the looks of it, will never achieve a majority government. At the end of the day, Chretien was the better politician.

The Liberals took almost every seat in Ontario. That was the key to their victories. Harper hasn't been able to do that because of all the immigrants and homosexuals in Toronto.

[Moonbox]

The Liberals took almost every seat in Ontario. That was the key to their victories. Harper hasn't been able to do that because of all the immigrants and homosexuals in Toronto.

You're right. He pretty much swept Ontario other than Toronto and a few GTA suburbs.

[Progressive Tory]

I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of your statements.

I don't even know where to begin. I did look in the mirror and am a little bland, I suppose. Other than that, I severly question....well...just about everything you said.

1. I did not ever vote for Chretien. I like him much better now as a statesman.

2. My family was Roman Catholic and Liberal. Trudeau was in power when I came of voting age so supported him initially because of family tradition.

3. Became enthralled with a local female candidate, Flora MacDonald so voted Conservative for for her tenure (16 years, I believe). Also volunteered manning phones, etc. She was amazing. My parents not pleased but supportive.

4. Remained a Tory until they were disbanded. As a Red Tory, the new Party had nothing for me. Voted NDP as next best option. Voted Liberal in 2008, as per strategic voting. My parents are both deceased so I vote with my head, not partisanship or blind faith.

5. Iggy took over - I officially joined the Liberal Party and sent them $ 100.00 from part of a small lottery winfall. First time I ever officially belonged to any political party.

6. Can't remember offhand what other names you called me, but can't believe that there is anyone left on this board who doesn't know about the 2004 Coalition, engineered by Stephen Harper; that clearly included Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton. Don't remember a Coalition option on the 2004 ballot either, but if it was good enough for Stephen Harper, it's good enough for me.

So I'm not sure how a born-again Liberal at the age of 55, is a hypocrite. In fact I thank Stephen Harper for my re-birth. Now I must go off and say my prayers.

'Dear Iggy. Please forgive Argus as he knows not what he does. And please Iggy, I know you don't like the idea of a Coalition, but if the GG asks you, don't say no. And please Iggy, could you tell me where I left the remote.'

[Moonbox]

6. Can't remember offhand what other names you called me, but can't believe that there is anyone left on this board who doesn't know about the 2004 Coalition, engineered by Stephen Harper; that clearly included Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton. Don't remember a Coalition option on the 2004 ballot either, but if it was good enough for Stephen Harper, it's good enough for me.

2004 wasn't a governing coalition. A group of parties bringing down a party is not a 'coalition' It would have been a coalition if the Bloc would have governed jointly with the CPC afterwards, but this was not the case.

What we were looking at in 2008 was an NDP and Liberal cabinet. Most canadians didn't want anything to do with that, and we see Iggy etc back pedalling now.

My local MP, Frank Valeriote, publicly announced he didn't support it. He was muffled after the fact and forced to change his position, but even Liberal MP's clearly new the coalition was a toxic idea.

[jdobbin]

2004 wasn't a governing coalition. A group of parties bringing down a party is not a 'coalition' It would have been a coalition if the Bloc would have governed jointly with the CPC afterwards, but this was not the case.

I'm sorry. With Harper talking about a coalition at the time and signing a tri-party letter to the Governor General, it sure looked like a coalition. Walk like duck.

[Argus]

Argus, it still comes back to the voters choice. Elect a pawn, get a pawn. Elect a quality individual, get someone whose opinion is sought by the party of which he is a member, get something a little more nuanced than a rubber stamp.

You get the representative/representation you vote for, and rightly deserve.

Maybeso, but almost no one ever gets to see and meat his or her potential MPs - or their actual MPs. So no one knows if they're smart or not. No one knows if they avoid talking about issues or not. All the majority have to go on when it comes time to vote is what the party says.

[Argus]

I don't even know where to begin. I did look in the mirror and am a little bland, I suppose. Other than that, I severly question....well...just about everything you said.

1. I did not ever vote for Chretien. I like him much better now as a statesman.

2. My family was Roman Catholic and Liberal. Trudeau was in power when I came of voting age so supported him initially because of family tradition.

3. Became enthralled with a local female candidate, Flora MacDonald so voted Conservative for for her tenure (16 years, I believe). Also volunteered manning phones, etc. She was amazing. My parents not pleased but supportive.

4. Remained a Tory until they were disbanded. As a Red Tory, the new Party had nothing for me. Voted NDP as next best option. Voted Liberal in 2008, as per strategic voting. My parents are both deceased so I vote with my head, not partisanship or blind faith.

Here's the part you seem to be ignoring. There is NO difference in political ideology or philosophy between a "red tory" and a liberal. They are absolutely identical. So the fact you voted for Flora Macdonald in no way makes you anything other than a small-l liberal.

5. Iggy took over - I officially joined the Liberal Party and sent them $ 100.00 from part of a small lottery winfall. First time I ever officially belonged to any political party.

I've never belonged to a political party and never donated to one. I have yet to find a politician at any level in any party worthy of my support. I vote for the least worst candidate. And that is the best one can say about them. There is not a man or woman in Parliament who I would not gladly flush down the toilet and replace with a random sampling of anyone else in hopes of getting an improvement.

So I'm not sure how a born-again Liberal at the age of 55, is a hypocrite.

You're a hypocrite because you sit there typing feverishly about the evils Harper does as though he is not doing the very same things all the other parties do - including the one you belong to and donate money to. Yet you don't care when they do it. You only care when the tories do it - because you're obsessed with the "evil scary" Stephen Harper.

Stepen Harper is neither evil nor scary. He's a bland, middle management type I voted for simply because he is the least worst candidate, and his party is the least worst party available. I have no great enthusiasm for him or his party. To me they're the same as the Liiberal party, with nearly the same policies. They have simply not yet proven themselves as utterly corrupt, hypocrtical, power mad and thoroughly dishonest as the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Barts]

I've never belonged to a political party and never donated to one. I have yet to find a politician at any level in any party worthy of my support. I vote for the least worst candidate. And that is the best one can say about them. There is not a man or woman in Parliament who I would not gladly flush down the toilet and replace with a random sampling of anyone else in hopes of getting an improvement.

You do not know all the men and women in Parliament; that makes your toilet flushing comment worthy of nothing more than the toilet itself. The fact is that most of the people in Parliament are good people.

Before commenting on political things you know nothing about, perhaps you should consider getting more deeply involved in politics, parties, and politicians. Ignorance does not become you.

[blueblood]

You do not know all the men and women in Parliament; that makes your toilet flushing comment worthy of nothing more than the toilet itself. The fact is that most of the people in Parliament are good people.

Before commenting on political things you know nothing about, perhaps you should consider getting more deeply involved in politics, parties, and politicians. Ignorance does not become you.

Yes because him being a civil servant results in him knowing nothing about political things...

[Argus]

You do not know all the men and women in Parliament; that makes your toilet flushing comment worthy of nothing more than the toilet itself. The fact is that most of the people in Parliament are good people.

Before commenting on political things you know nothing about, perhaps you should consider getting more deeply involved in politics, parties, and politicians. Ignorance does not become you.

I've had far too much familiarity with parliament and politics. I used to go down to the Hill and get a pass from one of my relatives who worked there, and watch Question Period from the visitors galleries at least a couple of times a week. And that was when I was about 15. Security was pretty slack in those days. I was able to wander around parliament hill, take the green buses back and forth, eat in the cafeterias, and chat with the younger staffers, and my relatives and their friends. I've been following politics for quite a long while.

Good people? <shrug> Define good. My neighbour seems to be a good lady. I sure don't consider her to be an impressive, educated, thoughtful, wise individual worthy of representing me in parliament, though. If 33 million people wanted to round up a few hundred to represent them, one would hope they would be the best and brightest. They're not. I've met quite a few, and had tales told to me about quite a few more, the kind that rarely get into the papers; adultery, misapropriation of office funds, small-minded jealousies, sucking up to party leaders, tantrums, mean-spirited treatments of staff, etc. Good people? They're mostly bland functionaries eager for the jobs because they want to feel important. Few of them are distinguished in any way by academic, military, business or any other achievement. Hell, none of them are even very good looking! It's true I don't know them all. But if a wise, brilliant, honest person with vision and charisma is lurking somewhere in parliament he or she is hiding themselves quite well. If I encountered these people in my private life it would not occur to me to think they were in any way special. Jean Chretien could have delivered my mail and I'd never have thought he should be more than my mailman. Paul Martin could have been the pompous ass middle manager type up the aisle and I wouldn't think he ought to be the leader of the country. Jack Layton would be the used car salesman who gave me a bad feeling (like he's either a crook or a secret serial killer) and caused me to go up the road to another dealer. Stephen Harper could be the dreary accounting head and I'd just hope he didn't bore me to death with his jargon. Dion would have been the temper tantrum prone administration manager we all laughed at and mocked. Ignatieff? Don't know him much yet. I just know he's an ivory tower intellectual who has yet to do or say or write a single thing which impressed me.

None of these people, if I encountered them in private life, would leave me impressed, and thinking they ought to be running the country.

[ToadBrother]

None of these people, if I encountered them in private life, would leave me impressed, and thinking they ought to be running the country.

As a general rule, our modern party system, particularly in this country, frowns upon overachievers. Remarkable people tend not to be the kind of people who the leadership of parties want sitting on the benches, mainly because remarkable people actually requiring convincing on policy, and usually can't be bought off by promises of larger sign budgets in the next election or by some cushy little position on a committee, or maybe by some well-timed federal grant to their riding. The kind of people you want on the benches, even, to some extent, in Cabinet, are people who are easily overawed, generally unimaginative, but able to repeat an official script and stand up and do what the whip and house leaders tell them to do.

It's rather like why we've bred dogs and sheep for docility and obedience. The native stock are too beligerant for our purposes. The same applies to MPs (and, from what I can tell in most countries, for most elected representatives). If you're a bright, opinionated person who really wants to make a meaningful difference, you'll probably going into academia or business, maybe into the public services, but the last place you'll ever really be permitted by the autocracy of party discipline to make your mark, unless its for "most monuments for a dedicated party functionary", is the House of Commons.

Edited January 22, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Barts]

None of these people, if I encountered them in private life, would leave me impressed, and thinking they ought to be running the country.

Your diatribe is so pervasive, Argus, I suspect the problem may be you and not others.

I too have worked with politicians and bureaucrats, and not only in Canada. I found a group of people who like most people generally try to do a good job. Do they fail from time to time? Of course. Are there some less than qualified people? Of course. But that's no different from any human enterprise. But your blanket condemnation, I would suggest, likely says more about you than about those you condemn.

[Argus]

Your diatribe is so pervasive, Argus, I suspect the problem may be you and not others.

Yes, I have the failing of having high standards.