Harper Government: Honest

[Wild Bill]

There's a healthy amount of revisionism going on in the old Reform camp. I suppose, in part, they're regretting selling their souls for the promise of success east of Manitoba. But if anyone is pretending that the vast bulk of Alberta and many British Columbia Reform MPs weren't social conservatives, then they're full of crap. I respect Manning, and he was probably more moderate than many of his MPs, but the Reform Party was filled with social conservatives. How could it not be, considering they all despised Mulroney and the Red Tories. Harper has certainly sublimated a lot of that, and I don't know if I buy into the conspiracy theories, but we know enough of Harper's views to know that he falls to the right of Manning.

I don't recall anyone despising Mulroney because he wasn't doing social conservative things. We all despised him for what he did with our tax moneys and the debt of the country. We despised him for making one set of promises in French in Quebec and making different ones when he spoke to the rest of us in English!

Where did you get the information to formulate your premise? Did you personally poll the Reform membership? Where you a member of your local riding association and whenever you went to a meeting you saw giant banners crying "Damn Mulroney For Not Imposing Social Conservative Values on Our Country!"

Did you spend the rest of your time at the meeting being schooled in the "secret agenda"?

[Smallc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Canada

Wild Bill has me on ignore, but the rest of you can scroll down to the section entitled social policy to see exactly how revisionist he is being when he talks about Reform. If most Canadians were more aware when voting, these facts on their own would have probably lowered Reform support by 10 points.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Canada

Wild Bill has me on ignore, but the rest of you can scroll down to the section entitled social policy to see exactly how revisionist he is being when he talks about Reform. If most Canadians were more aware when voting, these facts on their own would have probably lowered Reform support by 10 points.

I'll pay attention to this post, Smallc. It's a lie!

This is Wikipedia, for Pete's Sake! A very biased source! Look at the scandal going on where they censored any scientist who disagreed with global warming. Wiki is an amateur run source. THIS a a source that demands to be peer reviewed. It's run by politically correct, left wing university students with pre-conceived notions.

Show me a piece of Reform literature that confirms those points and I might concede, if it's not taken out of context. Cite the source, NOT Wiki's OPINION!

Besides, it's all moot anyway! Reform was the party that believed an MP should represent his constituents wishes and not his own or that of his party's. A Reform MP could have been a gay basher or gay himself, what did it matter? He still would have been legally and not just honour bound to vote as the people of his riding wanted him to vote. His personal beliefs didn't matter.

That policy WAS written down in black and white! It was such an integral part of Reform policy that for any MP to break it would have been political suicide for him!

Contrast this with the FIRST same sex marriage debate, where Liberal MP's were whipped by their party to vote the party line, even though some of them had publicly stood against it during the debates and promised their constituents they would stand against it!

Don't tell me this is just my opinion! The cameras showed their faces! I saw Liberal MP's crying with tears down their faces as they toed the party line at the expense of their own integrity! No doubt the CBC and CPAC still have the tapes!

So you and others thump a drum that Reform had some social conservative secret agenda, 'cuz they had Christians in their party, even though The Reform policy forced their MP's to vote as their constituents believed, no matter if they themselves were "Jimmy Baker" clones.

Meanwhile you ignore the actions of the Liberal Party that ALSO had MP's who were against same sex marriage, promised constituents that they would vote against the Bill then at the last minute IGNORED the wishes of their constituents and their own promises to vote their Party line!

Furthermore, you make the blatant assumption that being against same sex marriage is equivalent to being biased against gays!

This is WHY I have an ignore list! I don't mind people disagreeing with me. That's often how I can learn new things and correct some of my false assumptions! However, there has to be SOME logic and consistency to an opposing argument! When it gets to be just a waste of time I tune out. Life is just too short.

Sometimes my DOG has a more logical argument!

Edited December 28, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I'll pay attention to this post, Smallc. It's a lie!

This is Wikipedia, for Pete's Sake! A very biased source! Look at the scandal going on where they censored any scientist who disagreed with global warming. Wiki is an amateur run source. THIS a a source that demands to be peer reviewed. It's run by politically correct, left wing university students with pre-conceived notions.

Show me a piece of Reform literature that confirms those points and I might concede, if it's not taken out of context. Cite the source, NOT Wiki's OPINION!

Besides, it's all moot anyway! Reform was the party that believed an MP should represent his constituents wishes and not his own or that of his party's. A Reform MP could have been a gay basher or gay himself, what did it matter? He still would have been legally and not just honour bound to vote as the people of his riding wanted him to vote. His personal beliefs didn't matter.

That policy WAS written down in black and white! It was such an integral part of Reform policy that for any MP to break it would have been political suicide for him!

Contrast this with the FIRST same sex marriage debate, where Liberal MP's were whipped by their party to vote the party line, even though some of them had publicly stood against it during the debates and promised their constituents they would stand against it!

Don't tell me this is just my opinion! The cameras showed their faces! I saw Liberal MP's crying with tears down their faces as they toed the party line at the expense of their own integrity! No doubt the CBC and CPAC still have the tapes!

So you and others thump a drum that Reform had some social conservative secret agenda, 'cuz they had Christians in their party, even though The Reform policy forced their MP's to vote as their constituents believed, no matter if they themselves were "Jimmy Baker" clones.

Meanwhile you ignore the actions of the Liberal Party that ALSO had MP's who were against same sex marriage, promised constituents that they would vote against the Bill then at the last minute IGNORED the wishes of their constituents and their own promises to vote their Party line!

Furthermore, you make the blatant assumption that being against same sex marriage is equivalent to being biased against gays!

This is WHY I have an ignore list! I don't mind people disagreeing with me. That's often how I can learn new things and correct some of my false assumptions! However, there has to be SOME logic and consistency to an opposing argument! When it gets to be just a waste of time I tune out. Life is just too short.

Sometimes my DOG has a more logical argument!

Reform was loaded with good ideas and great intentions. They ran into a wall at the Ontario border.

[Smallc]

I'll pay attention to this post, Smallc. It's a lie!

This is Wikipedia, for Pete's Sake! A very biased source! Look at the scandal going on where they censored any scientist who disagreed with global warming. Wiki is an amateur run source. THIS a a source that demands to be peer reviewed. It's run by politically correct, left wing university students with pre-conceived notions.

If you don't like what it says, you can go change it. Of course, the information there now is cited, so the people who found the information and wrote it put it there will probably replace it, being as it is based on something.

Show me a piece of Reform literature that confirms those points and I might concede, if it's not taken out of context. Cite the source, NOT Wiki's OPINION!

The sources are cited. Go buy the books.

Contrast this with the FIRST same sex marriage debate, where Liberal MP's were whipped by their party to vote the party line, even though some of them had publicly stood against it during the debates and promised their constituents they would stand against it!

It was decided that marriage was a human rights. I completely supported Paul Martin's decision to whip the vote. Reform wouldn't have cared if it was a right or not...because it's what people think that matters, and if people don't like the rights of others, then those rights don't matter.

So you and others thump a drum that Reform had some social conservative secret agenda, 'cuz they had Christians in their party, even though The Reform policy forced their MP's to vote as their constituents believed, no matter if they themselves were "Jimmy Baker" clones.

Paul Martin and Jean Chretien were Christians too. That has very little to do with being socially conservative.

Meanwhile you ignore the actions of the Liberal Party that ALSO had MP's who were against same sex marriage,

There were social conservatives in every party...there still are. Reform had the most though, and the CPC has the most today.

Furthermore, you make the blatant assumption that being against same sex marriage is equivalent to being biased against gays!

It isn't? Show me the distinction.

Sometimes my DOG has a more logical argument!

Probably sometimes. I have a special dislike for Reform. Not only were they filled with social conservatives, but they wished to tear apart so many of the institutions that have built this country. They fed fear of government in the west. They did so much to undermine the principles of peace, order, and good government that it isn't even funny, and we still suffer the results today. Canadians didn't really distrust government before. Now, too many do, and it isn't a healthy distrust.

[Smallc]

Oh, and even if something isn't official policy, that doesn't mean it isn't something that's not going to happen anyway...or that the policy can't change. You said it yourself. Reform is about what the people want. I'm not sure how far that goes, but it scares the hell out of me if it goes too far.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Smallc

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If you don't like what it says, you can go change it. Of course, the information there now is cited, so the people who found the information and wrote it put it there will probably replace it, being as it is based on something.

The sources are cited. Go buy the books.

It was decided that marriage was a human rights. I completely supported Paul Martin's decision to whip the vote. Reform wouldn't have cared if it was a right or not...because it's what people think that matters, and if people don't like the rights of others, then those rights don't matter.

Paul Martin and Jean Chretien were Christians too. That has very little to do with being socially conservative.

There were social conservatives in every party...there still are. Reform had the most though, and the CPC has the most today.

It isn't? Show me the distinction.

Probably sometimes. I have a special dislike for Reform. Not only were they filled with social conservatives, but they wished to tear apart so many of the institutions that have built this country. They fed fear of government in the west. They did so much to undermine the principles of peace, order, and good government that it isn't even funny, and we still suffer the results today. Canadians didn't really distrust government before. Now, too many do, and it isn't a healthy distrust.

The current batch of CPC representatives have far more social conservatives than Reform ever had.

[Smallc]

More - possibly. A higher percentage - probably not.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

More - possibly. A higher percentage - probably not.

Numbers matter more than you think. Further to this the positions of those individuals matter as well. There are sects within all of these partisan groups and I will suggest that the social conservatives are a very large and powerful sect within the CPC.

[Pliny]

I have a special dislike for Reform. Not only were they filled with social conservatives, but they wished to tear apart so many of the institutions that have built this country. They fed fear of government in the west. They did so much to undermine the principles of peace, order, and good government that it isn't even funny, and we still suffer the results today. Canadians didn't really distrust government before. Now, too many do, and it isn't a healthy distrust.

A social conservative is one that approves of government intervention in society, social justice and welfare. They are basically moderate liberals with perhaps a conservative fiscal viewpoint.

Reform, in your eyes, may have wished to tear apart so many of the institutions that built the country but true Reformers, for the most part, wished to make government smaller and less intrusive.

You imply that peace, order and good government are simply products of government. Reform knew that people are at the core of peace and order, it is individual responsibility that make it a fact and government is only there to ensure justice which, if maintained will lead to peace and order. Good government ensures justice prevails, the people will then be peaceful and orderly.

Don't mistake "social justice" for justice. Social justice is a pro-active policy to ensure equality. Justice is about ensuring fairness and not about ensuring equality. Social justice has become a perverse rallying cry for government redistribution of wealth and of government acting to promote equality and policies designed for that vague concept - the collective good. Policies that always seem to undermine someone or something in favour of someone or something else and somehow becomes confused with justice.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Pliny

[KeyStone]

You won't read this in the MSM but Harper's Cabinet and caucus are honest.

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.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it happened. Maybe it will happen. But compared to the years before 2006, the personal financial, spendthrift scandals have fallen silent.

Is Harper getting a free ride because the MSM is now impoverished? IMV, the MSM would love to find a scandal incriminating Harper's government. (The CBC loves stories of right wing hypocrisy.) Either the MSM is incompetent (very possible) or Harper's government spend public money the way Harper's father spent his family's money.

Call me naive but I suspect that Harper's father is behind this lack of scandal. Harper's Dad, an accountant, was a typical tightwad WASP.

Wow,

It's amazing how limiting freedom to information, can create honest politicians.

[Wild Bill]

Oh, and even if something isn't official policy, that doesn't mean it isn't something that's not going to happen anyway...or that the policy can't change. You said it yourself. Reform is about what the people want. I'm not sure how far that goes, but it scares the hell out of me if it goes too far.

I'm sure it does! What you are really saying is that you are happy with the status quo but are aware that many citizens don't agree with you. It's possible that they may be a majority. For this reason you don't want any party or system that might give the majority of citizens what they want!

You either believe in democracy or you don't. Anything else is simple elitism.

Or as P T Barnum once said "Makers, takers and fakers. There are NO other kinds!"

[Pliny]

Numbers matter more than you think. Further to this the positions of those individuals matter as well. There are sects within all of these partisan groups and I will suggest that the social conservatives are a very large and powerful sect within the CPC.

Social conservatives should be called what they are - moderate liberals.

In that NY run off with Scuzza..., whatever her name was, running as a Republican, she was more liberal than the Democratic candidate.

That's the problem with labels. She could only be described as a "social conservative" running under the Republican banner. She was really Liberal.

[Smallc]

You either believe in democracy or you don't. Anything else is simple elitism.

That's pretty narrow. I believe in limited democracy. That's what we have. That's what you don't like. Canadians on the other hand don't seem to mind all that much and aren't nearly so upset as you seem to think....if they were, we would have had a reform government, and we didn't. The ones that are upset often have concerns that are trivial or even non existent (believe me, I know, almost half of my family belonged to Reform). Canadians are now happier with their positions and happier with their country than ever before. The time to scream REFORM has passed - at least, as far as Canadians seem to be concerned. I'm sure it will happen again some day, but, not today.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Social conservatives should be called what they are - moderate liberals.

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.

[bloodyminded]

Frankly, I am anxiously waiting for Harper to show that he is dishonest. I tend to believe that all politicians are dishonest. I am impressed that so far, Harper appears to be honest.

Finally! Canada has elected a politician who is...not a politician....

???

[Molly]

Wiki looked pretty darned accurate about Reform social policy. It's very nearly word-for-word bits from your own link of their policy, Bill. And it fairly reflects my own recollection of the birth of reform.

Social Conservatism was not Reforms raison d'etre-- not even close. The policy link spells that part out fairly well, too: Folks west felt outright abused by the Trudeau Liberals, and betrayed by the Mulroney Conservatives, and had no other alternatives.

Social Conservatives were numerous within Reform, but social policy was a very low priority, and those motivated by social policy were considered to be a serious problem by the party. They are proportionally fewer, but signifigantly more influential within the CPC.

I have a whole lot more respect for Reform than I could ever drum up for the CPC.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Molly

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Wiki looked pretty darned accurate about Reform social policy. It's very nearly word-for-word bits from your own link of their policy, Bill. And it fairly reflects my own recollection of the birth of reform.

Social Conservatism was not Reforms raison d'etre-- not even close. The policy link spells that part out fairly well, too: Folks west felt outright abused by the Trudeau Liberals, and betrayed by the Mulroney Conservatives, and had no other alternatives.

Social Conservatives were numerous within Reform, but social policy was a very low priority, and those motivated by social policy were considered to be a serious problem by the party. They are proportionally fewer, but signifigantly more influential within the CPC.

I have a whole lot more respect for Reform than I could ever drum up for the CPC.

Whatever Reform was it is no more, and that in more ways than one. Social Credit was the birthplace of the Reform party concept, but not where it went. It always desired to become mainstream, they did not understand that they could never get there hanging onto their ideology. It evolved into the Alliance Party, which desolved into the merger with the Progressive Conservatives. At every turned coat, they both lost something and gave something away in the pursuit of that elusive handle of mainstream politics. Sadly it was another failed attempt to "unite" the right. Last spring the first moves of a unite the left were made, that caused the demise of Dion. The extreme ends of the political spectrum seek to own the turf but what Canadians really want is a movement to seek the balance between both ands and occupy the middle in so doing.

The left and the right are neither right or wrong, they simply never agree. That isn't what citizens want, they want their elected representatives to do what is best and sometimes that will be a righty solution and sometimes it will be a lefty solution.

[ironstone]

Are they? Really? How many promises has Harper broken? Too many to be considered honest. He's a good manager, and a good spokesman, but he doesn't seem like much of a good man.

As for Liberals, what did Martin do that was so dishonest?

I personally didn't mind Martin too much as Liberals go.But Chretien was another story.There are things that I think indicate he was a dishonest man,certainly in political life.Consider:his lies on the GST,shutting down the Somalia inquiry and the biggest of all,his claimed lack of knowledge into the inner workings of the Quebec sponsorship program(his brainchild!).How about calling a federal election for the sole purpose of keeping Martin at bay?I guess Chretien was certainly a petty man as well as a dishonest one.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I personally didn't mind Martin too much as Liberals go.But Chretien was another story.There are things that I think indicate he was a dishonest man,certainly in political life.Consider:his lies on the GST,shutting down the Somalia inquiry and the biggest of all,his claimed lack of knowledge into the inner workings of the Quebec sponsorship program(his brainchild!).How about calling a federal election for the sole purpose of keeping Martin at bay?I guess Chretien was certainly a petty man as well as a dishonest one.

What of Mulroney?

[Smallc]

I personally didn't mind Martin too much as Liberals go.But Chretien was another story.

I agree. But Chretien, like Harper, seemed to be a good political manager.

[ToadBrother]

I personally didn't mind Martin too much as Liberals go.But Chretien was another story.There are things that I think indicate he was a dishonest man,certainly in political life.Consider:his lies on the GST,shutting down the Somalia inquiry and the biggest of all,his claimed lack of knowledge into the inner workings of the Quebec sponsorship program(his brainchild!).How about calling a federal election for the sole purpose of keeping Martin at bay?I guess Chretien was certainly a petty man as well as a dishonest one.

And probably the most successful political leader since Trudeau. The GST I'm willing to forgive him for because the initial promise to kill it was foolish, and it's very likely that Martin had a lot to do with keeping it. As to Somalia, well, I see parallels between that and the Afghan prisoner transfer scandal. The Sponsorship scandal, of course, ultimately must be considered his disaster, though he set up enough patsies and fall guys to assure he never got touched. Whether it began as a mechanism to line the pockets of Liberals and friends of Liberals we may never know.

[ToadBrother]

What of Mulroney?

Well, Peter C. Newman certainly has given us a window on a rather vicious and arrogant man. But then again, I wonder, the odds of achieving power if you're not vicious and arrogant seem rather slim.

I doubt there's much in the way of ethics of any person who achieves high office. The kinds of compromises, back-stabbing and just general Machiavellian plotting is such that I think most truly decent people either fail early on in the quest or look at it all and don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.

Anyone who thinks Harper is purer than Chretien or Mulroney has their blinders on. The show may be cleaner, 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. 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.

Harper has managed for some time now to portray himself as some sort of latter-day Cincannatus. A load of BS a mile wide has been written about how he never wanted to Prime Minister, but only way Canadian Conservatism required his near-messianic qualities of leadership did he unwillingly put down his figurative plow and come to the rescue of Canada. 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.

[Molly]

Spot on. good post.

[bloodyminded]

Well, Peter C. Newman certainly has given us a window on a rather vicious and arrogant man. But then again, I wonder, the odds of achieving power if you're not vicious and arrogant seem rather slim.

I doubt there's much in the way of ethics of any person who achieves high office. The kinds of compromises, back-stabbing and just general Machiavellian plotting is such that I think most truly decent people either fail early on in the quest or look at it all and don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.

Anyone who thinks Harper is purer than Chretien or Mulroney has their blinders on. The show may be cleaner, 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. 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.

Harper has managed for some time now to portray himself as some sort of latter-day Cincannatus. A load of BS a mile wide has been written about how he never wanted to Prime Minister, but only way Canadian Conservatism required his near-messianic qualities of leadership did he unwillingly put down his figurative plow and come to the rescue of Canada. 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.

Very nicely said.