Jean_Poutine Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) First of all Harper is a right winger - an extreme one like the Reformers he came from. Yeah yeah, anyone that disagrees with you is extreme.... Iggy is not Obama, that is true. However, the move to the left in the US, and the savior image that Obama wears will rub off on Ignatief. America is still a right of center country -- certainly right of Canadian politics. By positioning himself as an Obama-like leader, Iggy will gain support - especially among the middle / moderate voters. Obama got to where he is through his ability to talk -- something that he's better at than Iggy. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it's not the best way to show leadership. Harper comes across as a bully and a dirty player. I sure once the Liberals with Ignatief at the helm start positioning themselves as "the alternative" Harper will lose support from all but the old cadre of the Reform. You're so certain that people will want a return to Liberal arrogance and sense of entitlement? Maybe Harper governs the way he does because proportionally, the Conservatives do have the most say. They have more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined. Given that they only need a dozen votes from the opposition, explain why you think the opposition should have influence that's out of proportion with that. In 1997, Chretien won a majority government with 38.5% of the vote, and in 2008, the Conservatives got 37.63% of the vote. So, less than 1% difference between a Liberal majority and a Conservative minority, yet it's ok for Chretien to do what he wanted with a low share of the vote, but Harper should cave in to every demand that the opposition has. Next, we are constantly told that the opposition is a "62% majority". First off, if you add up the share of votes for everyone other than the Conservatives that got elected, the total is 55.06%. Of course, the Green party is tossed in to inflate the numbers, but they don't have anyone elected, and it's kinda hard to be part of the opposition when you're not in Parliament. Meanwhile, if we tally up the share of votes for everyone other than Liberal that got elected in 1997, the total is 61.5%. It's ok when your guy is in office, but not when someone else is. That's called hypocrisy. Rather he was then and is concerned now about how these otherwise vocal right wingers would have sunk the moderate image he was trying to project. Like the stupid comments about Americans that came out of Chretien's Liberal government? I see Conservatives speaking all the time. Baird can be quite vocal, and I see him speaking to the media. Harpers days are numbered. That's not too difficult to see. When you only see what you want to see, I guess it's not to difficult. Edited February 3, 2009 by Jean_Poutine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Maybe Harper governs the way he does because proportionally, the Conservatives do have the most say. They have more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined. Given that they only need a dozen votes from the opposition, explain why you think the opposition should have influence that's out of proportion with that.In 1997, Chretien won a majority government with 38.5% of the vote, and in 2008, the Conservatives got 37.63% of the vote. So, less than 1% difference between a Liberal majority and a Conservative minority, yet it's ok for Chretien to do what he wanted with a low share of the vote, but Harper should cave in to every demand that the opposition has. Next, we are constantly told that the opposition is a "62% majority". First off, if you add up the share of votes for everyone other than the Conservatives that got elected, the total is 55.06%. Of course, the Green party is tossed in to inflate the numbers, but they don't have anyone elected, and it's kinda hard to be part of the opposition when you're not in Parliament. Meanwhile, if we tally up the share of votes for everyone other than Liberal that got elected in 1997, the total is 61.5%. It's ok when your guy is in office, but not when someone else is. That's called hypocrisy. “We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians.” Stephen Harper Harper had his chance at the helm and he has done nothing but push an agenda against a weak opposition without any direction. Now there is no longer a weak opposition facing him. The coalition proved that. And even though Igantief abandoned the coalition, he pretty much controls the house as an alternative to government. I also believe that then next three months will give him a chance to make or break his career as leader. If he aligns himself with Obama, speaks with command and dignity (as he did in lambasting Harper during his announcement he would support the budget) and continues to put Harper in an untenable position as a centrist, I think he will succeed in getting more support for the party. After all it was Harper and the rest of the Reform party that arose from the arrogance, hypocrisy and bullishness of Mulroney. Chretien's image can be over come and it no longer represents the image of the party, just like Dions floundering image no longer has any influence at what the party represents today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Your enthusiasm isn't shared by most Canadians. The polling makes this obvious. OK. Even if not all Canadians are blown away by his resume (many are); it certainly will not be viewed as a negative. Polls can change with the weather, especially in regards to voter intention. However, there is one number that we need to look at, in answer to a specific question. Asked which leader "would be best able to forge a positive working relationship" with US President Barack Obama, Canadians favored Ignatieff to Harper, 51 percent to 31 percent. There has to be a reason for that. Ignatieff is building his reputation while Harper is trying to live his down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Extreme being far right of centre but not fanatically right. Define "centre". I get the idea you put it considerably further to the Left than most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 In that case, there is prrof of the amssive cuts that were made...by Liberals. There is certainly proof of the illegal accounting games played by Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85RZ500 Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Today in the news The Conservatives fund raising is quadruple that of its closest competitor, the Liberals. In fact the Harper crew has amassed more than all the political parties combined. There are now four NL mps that will vote against the budget today, one says he will support it and one is undeclared. Ignatief sz that this is not a good situation and has asked Harper to "fix" the NL/PQ "problem". Harper said no. Liberal hypocrisy rears it's ugly head again, this is in direct contradiction to the Liberal/Ignatief ammendment. The Liberals have to vote the budget down. Do they have the spine for it? Edited February 3, 2009 by 85RZ500 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Asked which leader "would be best able to forge a positive working relationship" with US President Barack Obama, Canadians favored Ignatieff to Harper, 51 percent to 31 percent. There has to be a reason for that. That number will probably change after Obama's visit on the 19th. The PM's photo ops with Obama will make the front pages. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Given that Harper and Obama are not that ideologically apart, (heck, neither are Iggy and Harper) I think they'll hit if off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Given that Harper and Obama are not that ideologically apart... pardon! As Harper = Bush And Obama != Bush Then Harper != Obama Edited February 3, 2009 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 I'm a huge Iggy fan; new Liberal supporter because of him. You obviously haven't met him then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean_Poutine Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 pardon!As Harper = Bush And Obama != Bush Then Harper != Obama $primeMinister = Harper; $president = Obama; if ($primeMinister != $president) { echo 'Harper is Harper and Bush is no longer President. Time for you to get a new line, or better yet, stop dragging American politicians into Canadian politics.'; } Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 pardon!As Harper = Bush And Obama != Bush Then Harper != Obama $primeMinister = Harper; $president = Obama; if ($primeMinister != $president) { echo 'Harper is Harper and Bush is no longer President. Time for you to get a new line, or better yet, stop dragging American politicians into Canadian politics.'; } # include <stdio.h> int main(void) { int count; for (count = 1; count <= 500; count++) printf (“Harper = Bush is always apropos, particularly as it grates on the CONS”); printf (“Jean Chretien is no longer PM. Time for you to get a new handle”); printf (“Someone else dragged in the American politician and gleefully trumpeted Harper was he”… time for you to direct your consternation elsewhere”); return 0; } Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 OK. Even if not all Canadians are blown away by his resume (many are); it certainly will not be viewed as a negative. Most of those impressed by his education don't have one of their own. Ignatieff is building his reputation while Harper is trying to live his down. Building his reputation for what? He hasn't done anything yet, hasn't proposed anything yet, hasn't shown any particular vision or come up with any ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Most of those impressed by his education don't have one of their own. There's no denying his academic credentials. The question is "Do they matter in someone wanting to be Prime Minister?" Herbert Hoover was probably the most intelligent, best-educated President in the history of the United States, but that didn't stop him from being nearly universally maligned in the 1930s. Building his reputation for what? He hasn't done anything yet, hasn't proposed anything yet, hasn't shown any particular vision or come up with any ideas. Which seems, at this point, to put him a step ahead of Harper, whose reputation isn't exactly shining these days, even in his own party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.