Stephen Harper and the problems of conservatism

[Visionseeker]

Hey, it worked well for Chretien for a looonnng time!

Can't argue with copying a success story!

Chretien won 3 majorities. Harper has a loss and 2 minorities to his credit. Guess that makes him a poor forgery.

[Visionseeker]

I know people who make beer within two blocks of a school.

Oh the humanity.

LOL!

[bush_cheney2004]

....The problem is that these social conservatives have to be thrown red meat on a regular basis to keep them onside. So, I would expect a Harper government to adopt a U.S. style tough-on-crime approach, that may not actually reduce crime, but will nevertheless fill up the prisons.

Yes, the lowest crime rates in 30 years is just a coincidence. Must be "U.S. style" statistics too.

He'll push as hard as he can against gay rights and abortion rights -- I don't think Canada is fertile territory yet for banning stem cell research, and trying to ban abortion and gay marriage, as the Bush Administration did. But, he will push as far as he can, and he will use that line about how his faith informs him about right and wrong when the next campaign is underway.

Of course, even though the "Bush Administration" did none of these things. It is really a compliment that a past American administration can still serve as a domestic bogeyman in Canada.

[Visionseeker]

Tough on crime has been an empty slogan for my entire adult life. If it wasn't for the fact that the general population is aging, crime rates would be higher than ever. Fighting crime should be about using ALL strategies that reduce crime, not just the ones that make good bumper sticker slogans for election time.

And let's take a look at the reasons why gang violence is getting worse. A good start would be an increasingly profitable illegal drug business.

Actually, the violence stems from the DECREASING profitability of illegal drugs due to an aging population and looming recession. But I agree with your assessment of the platitudinal slogan.

And why is it so profitable? Because believers in the absolute God-given values that Stephen Harper spoke about in his latest pre-campaign speech will not accept decriminalizing or legalizing drugs that are being used by more and more people every year.

As with anything, scarcity influences the price. While law enforcement intel and techniques have succesfully intercepted supplies of imported narcotics, their success has given us domestically produced meth and an explosion of grow-ops to replace declining imports.

It's a simple matter of supply and demand - just like in the days of Prohibition, if there is a demand for an illegal product, somebody is going to go into the business of supplying the market. "Tough on crime" policies of increasing charges for possession and destroying drugs during drug raids, increases the price for the addicts.....and how does that reduce gang violence again?

It doesn't. But you know that already.

[waldo]

He'll push as hard as he can against gay rights and abortion rights -- I don't think Canada is fertile territory yet for banning stem cell research, and trying to ban abortion and gay marriage, as the Bush Administration did. But, he will push as far as he can, and he will use that line about how his faith informs him about right and wrong when the next campaign is underway.

Of course, even though the "Bush Administration" did none of these things. It is really a compliment that a past American administration can still serve as a domestic bogeyman in Canada.

now bush_cheney2004… why would you prefer to stick with the stated literal wording rather than:

=> acknowledge the Bush/administration’s hand in banning federal funding for (embryonic) stem cell research? Really, c’mon… are you playing coy because “embryonic” wasn’t specifically mentioned or are you finessing the point of “banning outright” versus “banning federal funding”? Obviously, there’s no need to explicitly reference embryonic since it’s the only area of real contention… and… the Bush ban limiting existing research to private funding avenues severely impacted overall research efforts/results, notwithstanding the implicit messaging the Bush funding ban held in terms of ethics/morality/etc. (i.e. Bush/Republican “values”). Of course, a ban now reversed by the Obama administration…

=> acknowledge the Bush/administration’s hand in endorsing an amendment to the U.S. constitution restricting marriage to persons of the opposite sex? Whether, ultimately, that constitutional amendment had the Congressional support needed, surely you can’t deny this as a “Bush attempt to ban gay marriage”. Can you?

=> acknowledge the Bush/administration’s hand in banning federal funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide information about the procedures to women abroad? Surely you can’t deny the implications of this Bush funding ban and the message it sent… or why did Republicans raise such a shyte-storm with the recent Obama administration overturning of this Bush funding ban?

[bush_cheney2004]

now bush_cheney2004… why would you prefer to stick with the stated literal wording rather than:

=> acknowledge the Bush/administration’s hand in banning federal funding for (embryonic) stem cell research? Really, c’mon… are you playing coy because “embryonic” wasn’t specifically mentioned or are you finessing the point of “banning outright” versus “banning federal funding”?

Not coy at all....stem cell research continued in the Unites States without such federal funding....far more than in Canada which didn't even have such a "ban".

=> acknowledge the Bush/administration’s hand in endorsing an amendment to the U.S. constitution restricting marriage to persons of the opposite sex? Whether, ultimately, that constitutional amendment had the Congressional support needed, surely you can’t deny this as a “Bush attempt to ban gay marriage”. Can you?

By your own admission, Bush couldn't ban "gay marriage" if he wanted to. Before Bush, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by President Clinton actually set more state banning efforts in motion.

=> acknowledge the Bush/administration’s hand in banning federal funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide information about the procedures to women abroad? Surely you can’t deny the implications of this Bush funding ban and the message it sent… or why did Republicans raise such a shyte-storm with the recent Obama administration overturning of this Bush funding ban?

This policy stems (pun intended) from the Reagan Administration (Mexico City Policy). And again, it was US federal funding, not procedures.....big difference. The Republicans raised a "shyte-storm" because they have the right to do so.