Harper Government: Honest

[Smallc]

Maybe not brother in laws, but what about party fundraisers?

[August1991]

Maybe not brother in laws, but what about party fundraisers?

Smallc, that is my point.

Harper's government has come under scrutiny from journalists who fundamentally disagree with it. Admittedly, these journalists are largely incompetent, moreso given the financial state of their business - but they have found nothing.

For the first time in a long time, Canadians have an honest federal government. Whatever his faults, Harper runs an honest ship.

[Smallc]

I don't get how the fact that he appointed party hacks proves your point. I don't get how the fact that Harper broke promises proves your point. I don't get your point really.

[Topaz]

Next year is going to be worse in Ottawa because Harper's Tories will govern the senate and so he will be able to be the dictator he is and can do whatever he wants. I wouldn't be surprise if the 3 opposition parties, will be forced to join back together or have another election.

[blueblood]

Next year is going to be worse in Ottawa because Harper's Tories will govern the senate and so he will be able to be the dictator he is and can do whatever he wants. I wouldn't be surprise if the 3 opposition parties, will be forced to join back together or have another election.

Except for those pesky things called elections. You see they are when people decide which party is good enough to represent their interests in parliament. If Harper does something people don't like, they vote for somebody else, being a "dictator" would get someone else elected.

That toaster of yours should get into televangelism, that way you could make some extra money.

[blueblood]

I don't get how the fact that he appointed party hacks proves your point. I don't get how the fact that Harper broke promises proves your point. I don't get your point really.

The CBC trying their damndest to blow up any little controversy in Harper's gov't and it not gaining any traction is a starter.

[Smallc]

I haven't seen the CBC trying to blow up any type of controversy. I've seen them (and CTV as well) reporting stories a they would on any government. I've seen them use some sensationalism, as all media sources do to an extent.

[August1991]

I don't get how the fact that he appointed party hacks proves your point. I don't get how the fact that Harper broke promises proves your point. I don't get your point really.

Smallc, is your post addressed to me?

Harper has kept his critical promises (cutting the GST). Harper has measuarbly appointed fewer party hacks than Chretien or Mulroney. But that is neither here nor there.

Harper's cabinet has been in power for almost four years. In this time, there has been no story of extravagant foreign travel, no minister has benefitted from side deals, pay-offs. No minister has had to resign because of influence peddling.

No Canadian believes that Stephen Harper is "on the take". No Canadian suspects that he is in the pocket of Paul Desmarais.

Moreover, all Canadians know that Stephen Harper is not a rich man - and his honesty comes not from his inherited wealth, but from his basic frugality and values.

The sad thing is that you will not see or hear this reported in Canada's MSM. Canada has not had such a PM since Lester Pearson.

----

I am no conspiracy theorist but I have to say that this "climategate scandal" has bothered me. The fact that the French/English press took so long to acknowledge this story (Rex Murphy/Nathalie Elgrably eventually did) made me think.

This thread is admittedly partisan but why, after Chretien and Mulroney, is no one noting Harper's basic honesty?

Edited December 19, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

Smallc, is your post addressed to me?

Harper has kept his critical promises (cutting the GST).

And appointing senators...and not having deficits...and not taxing income trusts....and on and on and on.

Harper has measuarbly appointed fewer party hacks than Chretien or Mulroney. But that is neither here nor there.

You've counted and taken into consideration he differences in the number of years in power? Why is this not important? Is it honest in your opinion to give political favours?

Harper's cabinet has been in power for almost four years. In this time, there has been no story of extravagant foreign travel, no minister has benefitted from side deals, pay-offs. No minister has had to resign because of influence peddling.

No, but people have had to resign because of incompetence.....not to mention that the ministers really don't get to say or do anything without the approval of the overlord...I mean, the PMO.

No Canadian believes that Stephen Harper is "on the take".

Did you conduct a poll? I'm sure I could prove you wrong many times over.

No Canadian suspects that he is in the pocket of Paul Desmarais.

Probably not that particular individual.

Moreover, all Canadians know that Stephen Harper is not a rich man - and his honesty comes not from his inherited wealth, but from his basic frugality and honesty.

That'd be fine, if he were an honest person.

The sad thing is that you will not see or hear this reported in Canada's MSM. Canada has not had such a PM since Lester Pearson.

Why would this ever be reported unless some kind of study was done on it? It's a non story.

[nicky10013]

There has been no minister or caucus member accused of taking money for personal benefit. No one claiming their "entitlements".

Once again, no one taking money for personal benefit.

No one in this government has hired their brother-in-law, received money in an offshore account or influenced a "water meter" contract.

Such corruption may come to light but for the moment, despite the antipathy of the CBC/MSM to Harper's government (compare this to their treatment of the American Obama), they have yet to find anything.

It's the party taking government money for partisan gain. They're using it to figure out where they are in comparison to the Liberals. On top of that, the money flowed through Conservative friendly ad agencies. Sounds awful familiar doesn't it? So does the buck stop at personal responsibility or should we hold the party responsible, too? I think it should be both, sounds like you only believe it should be the former.

[nicky10013]

Smallc, is your post addressed to me?

Harper has kept his critical promises (cutting the GST). Harper has measuarbly appointed fewer party hacks than Chretien or Mulroney. But that is neither here nor there.

Harper's cabinet has been in power for almost four years. In this time, there has been no story of extravagant foreign travel, no minister has benefitted from side deals, pay-offs. No minister has had to resign because of influence peddling.

No Canadian believes that Stephen Harper is "on the take". No Canadian suspects that he is in the pocket of Paul Desmarais.

Moreover, all Canadians know that Stephen Harper is not a rich man - and his honesty comes not from his inherited wealth, but from his basic frugality and values.

The sad thing is that you will not see or hear this reported in Canada's MSM. Canada has not had such a PM since Lester Pearson.

----

I am no conspiracy theorist but I have to say that this "climategate scandal" has bothered me. The fact that the French/English press took so long to acknowledge this story (Rex Murphy/Nathalie Elgrably eventually did) made me think.

This thread is admittedly partisan but why, after Chretien and Mulroney, is no one noting Harper's basic honesty?

This post is hilarious from top to bottom because it's entirely based on Harper being honest. The fact is he's been lying since the day he decided he wanted to be a serious candidate for Prime Minister. Go back into his history and you'll see how truly right wing this man is yet he constantly trying to position himself as a centrist Liberal. Yes he has an ungodly amount of power over his caucus because his caucus is just as reactionary as he is only with less discipline and no one wants to see what they're hiding. So, at the very core of what we think Stephen Harper is, is completely dishonest. We haven't seen who he truly is since the day the writ dropped in the election he won. Not to mention the fact that he sent party aides to bribe a dying man with a million dollars to bring down the government. You may come up with all these horrible stories of the Liberals but no cabinet member was charged with anything. They've got Harper on tape admitting he knew about it, vetted as genuine by Harper's personal FBI buddy (according to AM640). Yet, Harper's lawyers have had it tied up in the courts because god forbid it gets out. Bribing a parliamentarian is illegal and he could go to jail! And, as we've seen it's not like the caucus goes against his will so it's not like some rogue aide who happens to have a million dollars in his pocket could go and offer a bribe to an independent MP.

Anybody who believes this government is any better than the Liberals (after 4 years no less) is frankly a tad delusional. What's more is that it seems like a good whack of Conservatives (not here but all over the place) know it. The common defence for the Conservative party these days is, "well the Liberals did it first!!!!!" As if that makes what the Conservatives have done any better. This is what our politics has been reduced to in just 4 years.

Edited December 19, 2009 by nicky10013

[ToadBrother]

I would not take a bet that had any kind of majority any time soon. Harper is now dealing with the HST and prisoner abuse. It is likely he will be dealing with the economy again in spring which will also be when a new budget is due out. There will likely be spending cuts along with program cuts. The debt and deficit will start to become problematic and at that point taxes will have to go up. These are not good things for a minority government and will likely prevent a majority government.

I tend to concur here. As much as Tory supporters would love to believe that Harper will be in a position sometime next spring or summer to get his majority, I don't think it's in the cards. A lot of it depends on how well Iggy recovers from his own blunders, of course, and if he screws up next year as much as he did this year, well, you never know, but at the same time, it's pretty clear there are a lot of issues gnawing at Tory support and they have slipped back down below the majority threshold.

[ToadBrother]

The CBC trying their damndest to blow up any little controversy in Harper's gov't and it not gaining any traction is a starter.

If you're referring to Afghanistan, you're wrong. The polls earlier this month made it very clear that Canadians felt there was some serious issues here. Whether it's fair or right is another thing, but clearly a majority of Canadians do feel it's an issue, and last time I looked, that's the textbook definition of "traction". At the very least, it's done Mackay some pretty serious harm. I doubt Harper feels bad about that, though, since Mackay was always his chief potential rival in any leadership debate to come. First rule of politics, always give the chief rivals in your party the jobs that will most likely see them fall on their own swords.

[Riverwind]

Whether it's fair or right is another thing, but clearly a majority of Canadians do feel it's an issue, and last time I looked, that's the textbook definition of "traction".

The textbook definition requires evidence that people care enough about it to change their votes. The revelations bother me. It sounds like some bureaucratic incompetence and inept handling by the CPC. It matters in the sense that there are problems that need fixing. But it is near the bottom of my list of things that will affect my vote. I suspect many people feel the same.

[BrassTax]

The haven't been in government long enough for anything to come out. There is nothing inherently dishonest or untrustworthy about Liberals or Conservatives. There is something that's inherently untrustworthy of humanity. There will be scandals. Not everyone is honest in government, no matter which government is in power.

What a ridiculous thread, you put it so eloquently with your reply here, i had to repost.

[August1991]

This post is hilarious from top to bottom because it's entirely based on Harper being honest. The fact is he's been lying since the day he decided he wanted to be a serious candidate for Prime Minister.

Nicky, you live in a civilized democracy where you have the right to disagree openly with your political leaders. (Try that approach in Iran, Saudi Arabia or China... )

So, you disagree with Harper's decisions. Does that make Harper dishonest? IMV, honesty has a different meaning. Has Harper stolen money for his personal benefit? Has he even been accused of this? Has anyone in his cabinet been accused of this?

----

This Harper government is remarkable because no minister has resigned because of theft, and no one suspects Harper of theft, and no one suspects that Harper is in the pay of a billionaire.

Right or wrong, the general opinion was that Mulroney was "on the take", Chretien "helped his friends", Martin was on the "Desmarais payroll". Trudeau was a rich guy.

But Harper, like Pearson, seem honest by principle. No one in the CBC/MSM notices this fact.

Edited December 22, 2009 by August1991

[Molly]

My, how the goal posts march! Honesty has now been redefined to mean 'hasn't been caught red-handed, shoveling stolen money directly into ones own pocket, yet'. Lying, cheating, bribery, misrepresentation and misappropriation... so long as you aren't directly caught with stolen money on your person.... no longer count.

This thread is a bad joke, August. The greater part of my extreme distaste for these guys is based on their fundamental dishonesty. Born of the betrayal of David Orchard, elected with the help of fraud (David Emerson), sustained through misappropriation of public funds (in-out), they are completely consistent.

[William Ashley]

quaff, they are running an OVER $50 000 000 000 DEFICIT that is they have spent 50 BILLION public tax paying dollars to buy votes that they don't have - and are now ramping to cut all services so they can spend on infrastructure instead of public supports, and idoits like you are lapping your tounges practically licking harpers face waging your tail, not even aware his hand is about to grasp your fur and fling you into a meat grinder of tax debt.

Edited December 23, 2009 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

quaff, they are running an OVER $50 000 000 000 DEFICIT that is they have spent 50 BILLION public tax paying dollars to buy votes that they don't have - and are now ramping to cut all services so they can spend on infrastructure instead of public supports, and idoits like you are lapping your tounges practically licking harpers face waging your tail, not even aware his hand is about to grasp your fur and fling you into a meat grinder of tax debt.

oh and if you are a total moron, guess who is going to buy that infrastructure in privatizations at sub market rates?

Edited December 23, 2009 by William Ashley

[myata]

This thread is a bad joke, August. The greater part of my extreme distaste for these guys is based on their fundamental dishonesty. Born of the betrayal of David Orchard, elected with the help of fraud (David Emerson), sustained through misappropriation of public funds (in-out), they are completely consistent.

And more than anything, a perfect illustration of how far the notions of rationality, objectivity and responsibility shall be put away, once ideological blindfolds are set firmly on. Once I know that my guy is the epitome of honesty incarnate, and by definition, I only need to forget, not notice, filter out all those episodes abovementioned; plus more, like kicking out "independent" oversight supposed to keep an eye on government's activities, so very honest - if you say that I'm honest you stay; if you try to dig around, not heeding the honest advice, you're out, and things return to their "honest" state again.

No, unlike the author of OP, I do not believe that one side of the duopoly equation is any better, cleaner, opener and angel like, than the other. On the contrary, I see that arrogance, secrecy of the former Liberal government can only be matched, if not surpassed by those of the current conservative one. And that should come as no coincidence or surprise in the political system that sets no restraints, limits or meaningful oversights on the government in power. It - the system - will be changed, by us, citizens, as there seem to be nobody else seriously interested, or the circle (and circus) of "honesty" and "transparency" necessarily followed by a grand scandal is bound to repeat itself forever - may be as a reward for our extreme attachement to the status quo and reluctance and inability to change?

[ToadBrother]

The textbook definition requires evidence that people care enough about it to change their votes. The revelations bother me. It sounds like some bureaucratic incompetence and inept handling by the CPC. It matters in the sense that there are problems that need fixing. But it is near the bottom of my list of things that will affect my vote. I suspect many people feel the same.

The Tories have dropped from their near-majority reaching highs in the polls a month or so ago. I'd say the story has some traction. Not enough to make the Opposition try to pull the chair out, but enough to suggest that the voters are not entirely pleased by the revelations.

Quite frankly, I think the best thing Harper could do is make Mackay apologize for any intentionally or unintentionally misleading comments, admit that errors were made on the ground, and that everyone is doing their best to assure that the high principles which Canadian has long espoused will be upheld with much more vigilance, and leave it at that. By the time Parliament comes back from recess, it will be water under the bridge and the Opposition will have a harder time keeping the issue afloat.

This is what Reagan ultimately did with Iran-Contra, when all attempts at denial or shifting of blame proved not only futile, but were in fact making things worse. And you know what, it worked. The issue faded. Humility and contriteness can do wonders if applied appropriately.

Edited December 23, 2009 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

...This is what Reagan ultimately did with Iran-Contra, when all attempts at denial or shifting of blame proved not only futile, but were in fact making things worse. And you know what, it worked. The issue faded. Humility and contriteness can do wonders if applied appropriately.

Forgiveness is easier to get than Permission.

[ToadBrother]

Forgiveness is easier to get than Permission.

Or denial or blameshifting...

The point is that everyone now knows that there were prisoners transferred to Afghani authorities who were abused. Colvin, at least in the big picture, has pretty much been vindicated. Continuing to attack his reputation and continuing to try to manage the revelations in the vain hope that somehow they can spin this into something else has failed. Mackay, in particular, ought to be looking at saving his political skin here. He was, generally, reasonably well respected, but these allegations have been torpedoes into his hull, and he's sinking fast.

I have this theory that maybe this is what Harper wants. Mackay is his most likely successor/competitor. Allowing or forcing him to fall on his sword can only help the Harper camp. With Mackay's downfall, they would pretty much have finished swallowing the PC wing of the party. But that's conspiracy theory talk, of course.

[Wild Bill]

I have this theory that maybe this is what Harper wants. Mackay is his most likely successor/competitor. Allowing or forcing him to fall on his sword can only help the Harper camp. With Mackay's downfall, they would pretty much have finished swallowing the PC wing of the party. But that's conspiracy theory talk, of course.

Ridiculous! The present CPC has ALREADY been taken over by the PC wing of the party! In all word, deed and philosophy it is a clone of Mulroney's PC party. There is NOTHING left of Reform or Alliance in the CPC!

If you dealt more with what parties actually DO and not with labels you might have found this to be obvious!

[Smallc]

Harper is who he is because of his minority. Take away that minority, and I think you'd have a whole different beast. It would be radical, but it would be a creeping change in Canada.