Harper Government: Honest

[Shady]

(the Conservative logo fiasco)

If that's what you consider a political fiasco then I'd say that we're in pretty good shape. But your underlying theme is quite disturbing. Apprently to you and others, it's quite reasonable to ignore all of the emperical evidence, and characterize Harper as corrupt anyways. Why? Because you say so? Or because others have been corrupt in the past? Either way, it's projection.

[noahbody]

Anyone who thinks Harper is purer than Chretien or Mulroney has their blinders on.

There wouldn't be a thread on Harper's honesty if it wasn't for Chretien.

The show may be cleaner,

That's not difficult to achieve.

but in large part that's because he's in a minority situation and doesn't have the degree of control over the entire apparatus of government as his predecessors.

It's because since the Chretien years there is now distrust in government and everything is under the microscope.

But I think we've seen enough obfuscation and stalling on issues that cast the government in a poor light and use of government resources to put his party in a good light

(the Conservative logo fiasco) to suggest that, with the extent of control he does have, he's willing to use it to his political benefit.

That's what you'd like to believe anyway.

A more rational read of this guys biography shows someone who was a political animal from his teenage years, who had this tendency to adore his mentors until he believed himself their superior, who ultimately left Reform because Manning had his number, only to return after Manning was gone and the path to power was opened up. He didn't quit politics as so many seem to claim, but simply retreated to his corner until his rival had been demolished.

That's an emotional read. Harper's personality type is best suited for a back room policy writer. I'd suggest, to him, power is an opportunity to make policy happen.

[ToadBrother]

If that's what you consider a political fiasco then I'd say that we're in pretty good shape.

I'd say misusing your political logo on what is a government-funded program for political gain is misappropriation.

But your underlying theme is quite disturbing. Apprently to you and others, it's quite reasonable to ignore all of the emperical evidence, and characterize Harper as corrupt anyways. Why? Because you say so? Or because others have been corrupt in the past? Either way, it's projection.

My underlying theme isn't that Harper's corrupt, it's that he's a politician, and a career politician at that. I think the whole "Harper never wanted to be PM" PR line is sufficient evidence that he is a political operator, not unlike his predecessors, who essentially wrote a reputation for himself. In actuality, Harper has much less going for him reputation wise than even Chretien, who could boast being a senior minister in previous governments.

Frankly, I don't get this hero worship that you're projecting. I mean, the guy has done enough dirty tricks, like the proroguing off Parliament to save his skin from the will of Parliament that it doesn't strike me at all that he's a terribly ethical man.

[ToadBrother]

That's an emotional read. Harper's personality type is best suited for a back room policy writer. I'd suggest, to him, power is an opportunity to make policy happen.

Oh BS. This is just another version of the Cincannatus Myth. He's very clearly a skilled political manager, and clearly wanted control of the political machinery. If that's not an ambition for the top spot, I don't know what is.

Not all successful politicians are in the Disraeli mold; charming, smiling, baby-kissing types. I'd say that Harper is more a Gladstone figure; stern, resolute and coldly arrogant. In fact, he seems to have some of Gladstone's weaknesses, an incurable belief in his own rightness and an utter disregard for his opponents.

What Harper is not is some back room policy type. He had his chance at that, and it was nothing more than a holding pattern until Manning fell.

Edited December 29, 2009 by ToadBrother

[ironstone]

What of Mulroney?

Mulroney certainly had his reputation tarnished even more than it had been with the admission he took bags of cash from the sleazy Shreiber.This amount of money pales in comparison with the millions that are still not accounted for with the Quebec sponsorship program.Liberals will always have a hate-on for him because he handed them their heads during two elections and in the Liberal mind this is unforgivable.I think they should be somewhat more grateful to him for the cash cows that he left them with,the GST and free trade.Don't forget that Liberals are held to a much lower standard than Conservatives too.

[DrGreenthumb]

Don't forget that Liberals are held to a much lower standard than Conservatives too.

or so Conservatives think.

[bloodyminded]

Mulroney certainly had his reputation tarnished even more than it had been with the admission he took bags of cash from the sleazy Shreiber.This amount of money pales in comparison with the millions that are still not accounted for with the Quebec sponsorship program.Liberals will always have a hate-on for him because he handed them their heads during two elections and in the Liberal mind this is unforgivable.I think they should be somewhat more grateful to him for the cash cows that he left them with,the GST and free trade.Don't forget that Liberals are held to a much lower standard than Conservatives too.

You mean Liberals will hold themselves to a lower standard than they will hold Conservatives; and Conservatives will perform the same partisan acrobatics. That's not even debatable.

Edited December 29, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You mean Liberals will hold themselves to a lower standard than they will hold Conservatives; and Conservatives will perform the same partisan acrobatics. That's not even debatable.

The harsh reality is that one partisan faction is no better than the other. Once in power they seem to find ways to line their pockets at the expense of the people. What we need is a HIGHER standard for government, period. There should be corruption laws that put these people away for decades at a time. No first offense crap for coverage, whack them hard at the very first opportunity. To do this we need major reforms in our laws, that is worth doing ASAP.

[bloodyminded]

The harsh reality is that one partisan faction is no better than the other. Once in power they seem to find ways to line their pockets at the expense of the people. What we need is a HIGHER standard for government, period. There should be corruption laws that put these people away for decades at a time. No first offense crap for coverage, whack them hard at the very first opportunity. To do this we need major reforms in our laws, that is worth doing ASAP.

I don't know that I'd support that, but at least you are proposing a solution, which I'm not. As someone said here (it might even have been yourself) honesty--real, genuine honesty--is more important than whether a leader is CP, Lib, NDP, Green, or whatever.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I don't know that I'd support that, but at least you are proposing a solution, which I'm not. As someone said here (it might even have been yourself) honesty--real, genuine honesty--is more important than whether a leader is CP, Lib, NDP, Green, or whatever.

Don't you think it would be nice to see a politician propose legislation that would see some real steps toward corruption?

[noahbody]

He's very clearly a skilled political manager, and clearly wanted control of the political machinery.

What Harper is not is some back room policy type. He had his chance at that, and it was nothing more than a holding pattern until Manning fell.

So why did this skilled political manager with aspirations for the power of the PM's office, help write the Firewall letter?

[Smallc]

Why did he vote for the gun registry? Because people can change their mind.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Smallc

[noahbody]

Why did he vote for the gun registry? Because people can change their mind.

He voted for one that was going to cost $2 million. Saying he changed his mind on the gun registry is a huge stretch. Implying he changed his mind in this case is silly.

The positions he took after he left politics are pretty clear evidence that he wasn't planning to become PM.

[ToadBrother]

He voted for one that was going to cost $2 million. Saying he changed his mind on the gun registry is a huge stretch. Implying he changed his mind in this case is silly.

The positions he took after he left politics are pretty clear evidence that he wasn't planning to become PM.

The positions he took weren't a million miles away from the positions he took while in politics.

[Smallc]

He voted for one that was going to cost $2 million. Saying he changed his mind on the gun registry is a huge stretch.

No it's not. Much of the Conservative opposition to the gun registry has little to do with the cost. It seems that Harper was all for "making criminals out of hunters and farmers" before...and now he's not. How could someone possibly ever change their mind though, right?

[Wild Bill]

Man, I guess I'm not the only one bad with thread drift! Consider this from the opening post:

"Since 2006, there has been no scandal of ministers using limousines, or making extravagant foreign trips with chauffeurs. There have been no stories of ministers and extravagant spendings. No minister is borrowing money from some federal bank. We haven't heard of a federal political appointee who had his chalet painted on the public dime. No minister is sleeping with prostitutes, or taking money in thick envelopes."

This thread reminds me of the situation back in the days of Reform. There had been no end of serious scandals within the Liberal government. There was Shawinigate, where Chretien was accused of forcing the firing of a bank manager who refused to grant a loan to somebody with bad credit, so that he could buy some land from ole Jean! There was all the money wasted on the HRDC with Jane Stewart. There were actually LOTS more, really expensive ones but no need to list them all here.

My point was, some members of the media seemed desperate to come up with some dirt on Preston Manning! I guess they felt it would be only fair, or perhaps they were just desperate to divert the attention from the Liberals. They tried and tried but Reform just didn't seem to offer much scandal. Finally, they came up with this bit - Preston Manning had apparently included some personal dry cleaning bills in his expense report for being leader of his party!

Imagine! Dry cleaning in itself is a legitimate expense but only for those clothes worn when representing the Party at party functions. To include a few personal shirts and slacks could not possibly have been a simple mistake! Why, the dollars must have added up to maybe $20 or $30! It MUST have been a deliberate attempt at fraud!

Believe it or not, the MSM flogged this for over a week on CBC NewsWorld and other outlets. Finally, I guess they realized how stupid they looked and gave up.

It's called perspective! You can't consider Shawinigate equivalent to a $20 mistake with a dry cleaning bill.

What reminded me of this incident is reading in this post the vitriol by some posters against Harper and his government. There is little or no sense of proportion here either. No proof given, or certainly nothing equivalent to the scandals of the Chretien era.

No, it boils down to demonizing who you don't like and forgiving ANYTHING done by those you do! Proportion goes out the window.

The extension of this kind of thinking is the lynch mob. If a culprit is someone from your "team" you let him off. If he's not "your kind" then you hang 'em!

I'm far from Harper's biggest fan either but I would never support slamming him just because I didn't like him. By that logic I could NUKE Bob Rae!

What kind of a country would we have if we tried and convicted people just according to how much or little we liked them, regardless of what they might actually have done?

[Oleg Bach]

Yes.... They're honest, except when they're lying. As for the rest....

Once the status quo has intrenched itself to the point of being perminent establishment then the finest liars amoungst them are exaulted to the highest positions of honesty and honour...in fact the even have a title for them once they reach the top...It's called HONOURABLE so and so...which means you can lie all you want and if anyone questions you on the truth - you can lock em up...great arrangement. Like I said many times before...if the Scotts were having a feud the losers would eventually join the Hells Angels and the winners would run the banks and appoint judges..of course they are honest.

[Topaz]

Man, I guess I'm not the only one bad with thread drift! Consider this from the opening post:

"Since 2006, there has been no scandal of ministers using limousines, or making extravagant foreign trips with chauffeurs. There have been no stories of ministers and extravagant spendings. No minister is borrowing money from some federal bank. We haven't heard of a federal political appointee who had his chalet painted on the public dime. No minister is sleeping with prostitutes, or taking money in thick envelopes."

This thread reminds me of the situation back in the days of Reform. There had been no end of serious scandals within the Liberal government. There was Shawinigate, where Chretien was accused of forcing the firing of a bank manager who refused to grant a loan to somebody with bad credit, so that he could buy some land from ole Jean! There was all the money wasted on the HRDC with Jane Stewart. There were actually LOTS more, really expensive ones but no need to list them all here.

My point was, some members of the media seemed desperate to come up with some dirt on Preston Manning! I guess they felt it would be only fair, or perhaps they were just desperate to divert the attention from the Liberals. They tried and tried but Reform just didn't seem to offer much scandal. Finally, they came up with this bit - Preston Manning had apparently included some personal dry cleaning bills in his expense report for being leader of his party!

Imagine! Dry cleaning in itself is a legitimate expense but only for those clothes worn when representing the Party at party functions. To include a few personal shirts and slacks could not possibly have been a simple mistake! Why, the dollars must have added up to maybe $20 or $30! It MUST have been a deliberate attempt at fraud!

Believe it or not, the MSM flogged this for over a week on CBC NewsWorld and other outlets. Finally, I guess they realized how stupid they looked and gave up.

It's called perspective! You can't consider Shawinigate equivalent to a $20 mistake with a dry cleaning bill.

What reminded me of this incident is reading in this post the vitriol by some posters against Harper and his government. There is little or no sense of proportion here either. No proof given, or certainly nothing equivalent to the scandals of the Chretien era.

No, it boils down to demonizing who you don't like and forgiving ANYTHING done by those you do! Proportion goes out the window.

The extension of this kind of thinking is the lynch mob. If a culprit is someone from your "team" you let him off. If he's not "your kind" then you hang 'em!

I'm far from Harper's biggest fan either but I would never support slamming him just because I didn't like him. By that logic I could NUKE Bob Rae!

What kind of a country would we have if we tried and convicted people just according to how much or little we liked them, regardless of what they might actually have done?

So what your problem with Bob Rae? As far as not liking Harper it's really easy to do when you watch him and his gang in question period! He's NOT a good PM and never will be and he's not doing the Conservative Party any favours either or the country!!

[Oleg Bach]

Rae's real ambition was to be a singer song writer. Harper wanted to be a hockey star. Both were recruited by the big boys and I guess that Rae must have been a little put off when Harper did a cover tune by the Beatles and Rae never go to show off his original material. If both of these guys followed their hearts they would return to the professions that they were naturally designed for and let the big boys who deal in secret do their own dirty work.

[ToadBrother]

What kind of a country would we have if we tried and convicted people just according to how much or little we liked them, regardless of what they might actually have done?

What country would it be if Parliament was denied what it has a right to see by a small cabal of ministers using Constitutional trickery to evade the will of the legislative ranch of government? Oh, that's right, that's the country we're living in right now.

Edited December 31, 2009 by ToadBrother

[August1991]

I have flipped through this entire thread. Nothing contradicts the basic point of my OP (but maybe I missed something).

My OP? First, Stephen Harper and his government are honest. They don't steal. (You won't hear about this on the CBC or read about this in Canada's MSM.) The simple fact is that Stephen Harper does not steal and so far, he does not allow his ministers or caucus members to steal.

I am honest when I make that claim.

Second, some people disagree with Stephen Harper. In a civilized society, that is their right. Because they disagree with him, they claim that Harper is dishonest. I think that disagreements should have a better basis.

Harper may be a right wing fanatic idiot but he is not dishonest. So far, there is no evidence that he is "on the take". Remarkably, there is no hint that anyone in his government is on the take.

By Canadian political standards, Harper's government is remarkable.

Edited December 31, 2009 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

I have flipped through this entire thread. Nothing contradicts the basic point of my OP (but maybe I missed something).

My OP? First, Stephen Harper and his government are honest. They don't steal. (You won't hear about this on the CBC or read about this in Canada's MSM.) The simple fact is that Stephen Harper does not steal and so far, he does not allow his ministers or caucus members to steal.

I am honest when I make that claim.

Second, some people disagree with Stephen Harper. In a civilized society, that is their right. Because they disagree with him, they claim that Harper is dishonest. I think that disagreements should have a better basis.

Harper may be a right wing fanatic idiot but he is not dishonest. So far, there is no evidence that he is "on the take". Remarkably, there is no hint that anyone in his government is on the take.

By Canadian political standards, Harper's government is remarkable.

Even as it starts using a Reserve Power as a regular way to escape the notion of the Supremacy of Parliament.

[Pliny]

Except that they aren't. What we call liberals today, especially in Canada, have no resemblance to social conservatives. Liberals today are mostly social liberals. They believe in progressive social policy and restrained fiscal policy. Today's social conservatives seem to believe the exact opposite.

Better get that out to the news.

A "social conservative" is for social programs,i.e., the welfare state, but his view is tempered by fiscal responsibility, they are more to the left of the true conservative. What you are saying is Liberals have moved to the right.

[Smallc]

That's not what a social conservative is at all. I think you might need to brush up on your accepted definitions.

[August1991]

Even as it starts using a Reserve Power as a regular way to escape the notion of the Supremacy of Parliament.

Let me repeat this: from Bryce Mackasey to Sinclair Stevens, Stephen Harper and his government, since 2006, have been remarkable for their honesty

For the first time in a very long time, we have a federal prime minister who is not subject to innuendo. Moreover, we have an honest federal cabinet.

Harper is not honest because he is rich. He is honest by upbringing, like Pearson and St-Laurent.

I dunno. Maybe Desmarais will seduce Harper's wife. Maybe Harper will decide that his kids' future matters more.

But for the moment, we have an honest federal government.

----

"Honest" government does not mean a government with total agreement among all the various people living on the territory of Canada. Many, many people disagree with Harper and his government and what this federal government is doing. Fortunately, we live in a civilized society where intolerance is tolerated.

IMV, Harper is honest because he doesn't steal. That was the point of my OP.

Edited December 31, 2009 by August1991