Who is worse: Ignatieff or Harper?

[bloodyminded]

That is providing socialistic/commie talk is your bag.

And it sounds like it is.

Yes, August's repeated demand for fiscal conservatism is a hallmark of the commies. I"m glad you've uncovered this baleful Red in our midst.

[Battletoads]

How anyone can justify voting for either of them is beyond me.

[lictor616]

How anyone can justify voting for either of them is beyond me.

in our ochlocracy (politely called a "democracy") we as voters can only vote for the least damaging candidate... that's what happens when a nations operates under the insane notion that every welfare featherless biped has some divine right to a vote so that he can sell that vote to the highest bidder...

[Leafless]

Yes, August's repeated demand for fiscal conservatism is a hallmark of the commies. I"m glad you've uncovered this baleful Red in our midst.

August was praising Rene Levesque, the traitor, who he says unlike Mr. Harper is charismatic and able to communicate.

August said this about Mr. Harper:

Why can't we have a charismatic figure, or at least someone capable of communicating, who defends basic principles of smaller government, and a smaller federal government? Someone who can explain - less and better government spending, less and better regulation.

IMV, Stephen Harper can't connect with French Canadians, or women - key, uh, voting groups. (To coin a phrase, Conservatives in Canada deserve better.) With this $1 billion dollar boondoggle in Toronto, Harper has lost any credibility he may have had when he speaks in French to explain $15 million cultural spending cuts, or among women when he tries to explain any government spending cut.

Sadly, Ignatieff - for other reasons - is no more capable of getting his message out either.

Even back in 2008 the Washington Times has nothing but praise for Mr. Harper relating to fiscal conservatism:

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is proof that fiscal conservatism works. In fact, he almost single-handedly revived the fortunes of a previously fragmented conservative movement. In elections held on Oct. 14, Canada's Conservative Party won a second, consecutive minority government.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/canadas-new-conservatism/

August should very well know, that if it was not for federal handouts to Quebec, that province would cease to exist in it's current form.

[Argus]

I want (and think that among 30 million Canadians that it is possible to find) someone who can explain to women, Quebecers, readers of the Toronto Star and voters in the Maritimes that the federal government should spend less money, and spend it differently

Oh stop it already. We get that you want someone charismatic. Unfortunately, there's absolutely NO evidence that charismatic people are any more likely to be honest, capable or even sane than those who aren't. Hitler was charismatic. Would you vote for Hitler because he could communicate to women? There have been lots of charismatic wack jobs in politics.

I want someone who is competent at running government. I think that's just a tad more important than having someone who can kiss babies and act like a jovial guy next door.

Lest you forget. One of the principal failures of the modern era in politics is that we, at least here and in the US, have opted for the charismatic guy in most every election.

The problems of this are most evident down south. Bush was elected because he was a more abler communicator than the two deadheads the democrats put up against him. Was he smarter? No. Was he more honest? No. Was he more capable? No. But was a folky guy in front of a camera.

Obama won because his opponents, in the primary and in the election, were stiff, unnatural speakers. Clinton won because he was folksy and charming. So did Mulroney. So did Trudeau. So did Chretien (more folksy and charming anyway, than the stiffs the Tories ran).

All you're saying is you want a prime minister like George Bush.

Hey, he's not doing anything lately. Maybe he'll come north if you ask.

[August1991]

Oh stop it already. We get that you want someone charismatic. Unfortunately, there's absolutely NO evidence that charismatic people are any more likely to be honest, capable or even sane than those who aren't. Hitler was charismatic. Would you vote for Hitler because he could communicate to women? There have been lots of charismatic wack jobs in politics.

Uh, Reagan?

Argus, because someone can communicate, or move people, because thay are like - Hitler, Obama or Reagan - is not a reason to suspect them. One should not confuse the ability to deliver a message with the message itself.

My point is that Stephen Harper cannot deliver a message, and neither can Michael Ignatieff.

I want someone who is competent at running government. I think that's just a tad more important than having someone who can kiss babies and actis foolishing like a jovial guy next door.

I too want someone who can "run government" (as you say) but before we get there, I want someone who can explain what the "government runners" are doing.

----

Must I explain myself further?

First -Stephen Harper spent a billion dollars of taxpayer money on a stupid summit in Toronto and Huntsville Ontario of no import and now has lost all credibility when he asks ordinary Canadians in Quebec or Newfoundland to accept small federal spending cuts of several hundred thousand.

Second -Harper can't speak or connect in French or to women or explain f**k all to key voter groups in Canada.

Third -Harper apparently thinks suddenly, at 49, that international affairs matter more than Canadian domestic political affairs - despite having never been abroad before becoming PM.

----

Argus, I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. IMV, Stephen Harper is incapable of delivering my message, or organizing my tax money. He has lost my vote.

Can I make this any more plain?

Edited July 10, 2010 by August1991

[Topaz]

Harper is 51 and Iggy is 61 and in those ten years differences comes more life experiences for Iggy than Harper. While Harper was in Canada, Iggy was experiencing the world and its people which does come in handy when you are PM. Harper has more time in politics than Iggy but Harper experiences isn't that much better then Iffy's. by some of the mistakes and the way he wants to run the PMO. The only way to really judge these two is for Iggy to have his turn at a minority government. Perhaps both leaders need to be replaced.

[Leafless]

First -Stephen Harper spent a billion dollars of taxpayer money on a stupid summit in Toronto and Huntsville Ontario

It was Canada's turn to host the summit and that is the cost of doing this sort of business:

-snip-

Actual security costs for the G20 summit in Toronto will cost about the same as the G8 Summit in Italy leaving about $800 million in over costs. What is different with the Toronto Summit and all other Summits? The attending diplomats are demanding and getting kickbacks from the Canadian government just for appearing at the G20 Summit.

The Canadian government has allocated and intends on giving $800 million in Canadian Tax dollars to the attending diplomats - including Mr Harper. The money will be held in trust until after the visiting diplomats and the hosting diplomat leave their respective offices.

http://nbgazette.com/index.php?entry=entry100612-122628

Argus, I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

What a weird, incompatible combination.

[capricorn]

Harper is 51 and Iggy is 61 and in those ten years differences comes more life experiences for Iggy than Harper.

And at age 61, Ignatieff thinks his Canadian summer tour might kill him.

Starting today we’re going to get on a bus and go to every province and territory between July and September, if it doesn’t kill me first.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/07/10/14672976.html

He offered another gem.

The Liberal leader said his party is the only one that owns the centre of Canada’s political spectrum, noting Canadians can “smell the whiff of sulfur coming off” of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who he said, is on the extreme right.

The smell of sulfur? Hmmm. That's what Hugo Chavez said about George Bush.

Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez has called US President George W Bush "the devil" in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly.

"The devil came here yesterday," he said, referring to Mr Bush's speech on Tuesday. "It still smells of sulphur today," he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5365142.stm

Sounds to me like Ignatieff is saying Harper is the devil incarnate. What a fine way of getting Canadians to know you up close and personal.

While Harper was in Canada, Iggy was experiencing the world and its people which does come in handy when you are PM. Harper has more time in politics than Iggy but Harper experiences isn't that much better then Iffy's.

Iffy? Typo or Freudian slip?

[Shakeyhands]

What a weird, incompatible combination.

I think the majority of Canadians would classify themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal....

[Jack Weber]

I think the majority of Canadians would classify themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal....

Pretty much...

Only a hardline ideologue would think that's incompatible...

[msdogfood]

All things considered, all Canadians have to choose between these candidates.

So, what do you think?

both are bad

[Wild Bill]

While Harper was in Canada, Iggy was experiencing the world and its people which does come in handy when you are PM.

Well, I guess you're right, assuming you believe that Ignatieff living and teaching in an ivory tower university to be "experiencing the world and its people."

I will agree that most ivory tower academics believe that they DO know a lot about the world and its people but I've never found one yet that actually seemed to, once I got a chance to talk and listen to them.

[nicky10013]

Well, I guess you're right, assuming you believe that Ignatieff living and teaching in an ivory tower university to be "experiencing the world and its people."

I will agree that most ivory tower academics believe that they DO know a lot about the world and its people but I've never found one yet that actually seemed to, once I got a chance to talk and listen to them.

He didn't just teach at Harvard and Oxford, he was also a journalist for the BBC for years. He covered a lot of things, including the war in Yugoslavia where he championed the responsibility to protect. Even taking away his teaching experience, he still has ages more experience than Harper ever did with the politics of the world.

Also, why the harsh anti-intellectualism? I hate to break it to you, but the stuff you learn in university, all those theories that have nothing to do with the real world, are based on what happens in the real world. There are some people who graduate from University who can extrapolate those theories to what's going on today and there are some who can't, but the requisite of being someone who teaches the material is that you have to understand. I never had one professor who didn't. Which makes me think that you've never met any or you simply didn't understand what they were talking about. What professors talk about seems overly complicated because the world is overly complicated. Things are never black and white yet the people who claim that university professors don't know anything seem to be the people who can only understand simple dichotomies to begin with.

[ToadBrother]

Well, I guess you're right, assuming you believe that Ignatieff living and teaching in an ivory tower university to be "experiencing the world and its people."

I will agree that most ivory tower academics believe that they DO know a lot about the world and its people but I've never found one yet that actually seemed to, once I got a chance to talk and listen to them.

And just how much time has Harper ever spent among the people? He's been a political hack since he was a teenager, save for a stint in a think tank after he and Manning fell out. Maybe Iggy lived in an ivory tower, but Harper can hardly claim better, being and out and out political animal.

All that being said, I don't think Iggy's problems relate to his academic career. I think he's a piss poor political manager, while Harper, whatever else his flaws, is a disciplined one who can focus his party when needed and

drive them forward.

Still this bizarre anti-intellectualism always amazes me. People really do believe that all academics are ivory tower types. Strikes me that this is just the plebs demonstrating their jealousy of the patricians. Iggy should be judged on his merits or lack thereof, not on his career before entering politics.

Edited July 11, 2010 by ToadBrother

[badactor]

Tim, do you know how pathetic that line of argument is?

----

Overall, I want a smaller Federal State. I think provincial governments should manage more.

I want a federal politician who can speak to me, my children, in our languages, and travel across Canada and speak to Canadians, and their children. (Accents are accepted.) I want a federal politician who can explain how she/he spends Canadian taxpayer money for all of Canada.

A $1 billion summit in Toronto is a waste of federal money. A federal Canada deserves better.

[bloodyminded]

Still this bizarre anti-intellectualism always amazes me. People really do believe that all academics are ivory tower types. Strikes me that this is just the plebs demonstrating their jealousy of the patricians.

Not even that, as so many of these critics are themselves university graduates with unverifiable claims about "leftist elitists," claims which by some bizarre twist of fate are identical to one another...having been plagiarized from anti-academics like the (proven) charlatan David Horowitz, perhaps.

Also, Business and Economics professors (the former of which are a monumentally substantial sector of the academic community) are given a free pass...evidently, they're of the "common man" and speak simple wisdom and unalterable truths.

It's only the Liberal Arts and, increasingly, Science professors who are held under the microscope of caricature.

[TimG]

Strikes me that this is just the plebs demonstrating their jealousy of the patricians.

So how do you describe the visceral hatred of Sarah Palin on the part of many of the elites? Seems to me the tribalism goes both ways. Edited July 11, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

So how do you describe the visceral hatred of Sarah Palin on the part of many of the elites? Seems to me the tribalism goes both ways.

There's a lot more than just "elites" who dislike Palin.

[Argus]

My point is that Stephen Harper cannot deliver a message, and neither can Michael Ignatieff.

I would actually go further and say that the Conservatives, as a party, are hopelessly, ridiculously, appallingly incompetent in terms of getting out any kind of public message. They are the people that advertising students, publicists and public relations people should study so they know what not to do.

First -Stephen Harper spent a billion dollars of taxpayer money on a stupid summi

Really? I hadn't heard that. You should have mentioned it before if it concerned you.

and now has lost all credibility when he asks ordinary Canadians in Quebec or Newfoundland to accept small federal spending cuts of several hundred thousand.

And you assume that the people of Quebec and Newfoundland would be receptive to such a message otherwise? If God himself came down from teh sky and told Quebecers they needed to cut back they'd riot and throw things at him and begin worshiping Satan. There has never been a man charismatic enough in any language to convince Quebecers or Newfoundlanders of the wisdom of smaller government and lower government spending.

Must I remind you the Tories got precisely ZERO seats in Newfoundland last time around? Must I remind you that after years of sucking up to Quebec, granting them distinct people status, pouring billions and billions into the province in extra spending, the entire province rebelled in horror and fury when it learned that the feds were cutting a few pennies from a few previously unknown art grants?

I don't know how a man can live in Quebec his entire life and yet seemingly know absolutely NOTHING about his fellow Quebecers. I'm starting to suspect you've actually never been to Quebec, or perhaps live in an underground bunker somewhere waiting for the end of times.

Second -Harper can't speak or connect in French or to women or explain f**k all to key voter groups in Canada.

No Anglo will ever connect with the French. That's because the French in Canada are a paranoid group of sniveling cultural bigots and racists who place their votes primarily based on the race of the potential leader. If the leaders is anything but French they will at best, tolerate him, grudgingly and suspiciously. This has been the case there for a century and there is no indication it will change.

As for women, the tories have always been considered "backwards" on womens issues. They're more a party of bean counters than touchie-feelie baby huggers.

Mind you, the Liberals embracing of "female issues" has always been, at best, for show. The Liberals don't care about women any more than they do about anyone else. But they'll act very righteous and caring whenever the cameras are on.

Third -Harper apparently thinks suddenly, at 49, that international affairs matter more than Canadian domestic political affairs - despite having never been abroad before becoming PM.

Actually, what he said was that the international economy now has so much influence and affect on ours (hard to argue) that what can be done independent of the international economy is limited. When the world goes into recession, so do we. And so more effort has to be put into ensuring the world economy is on the right track.

Argus, I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. IMV, Stephen Harper is incapable of delivering my message, or organizing my tax money. He has lost my vote.

Can I make this any more plain?

Well, you call yourself a fiscal conservative, but if your indignation about the G20 causes you to vote for the Bloq - which is anything but fiscally conservative, then I question your dedication to that particular ideology.

Then again, the Bloq might not be fiscally conservative, but at least they're French, right? And that's considerably more important.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

So how do you describe the visceral hatred of Sarah Palin on the part of many of the elites? Seems to me the tribalism goes both ways.

I wouldn't say there is any visceral hatred for her - especially compared to the real visceral hatred of Clinton by the Right.

There is contempt, rather.

[Argus]

Also, Business and Economics professors (the former of which are a monumentally substantial sector of the academic community) are given a free pass...evidently, they're of the "common man" and speak simple wisdom and unalterable truths.

It's only the Liberal Arts and, increasingly, Science professors who are held under the microscope of caricature.

Business and Economics professors generally don't talk about much other than business and economics, and in boring ways no one wants to hear. It tends to be the liberal arts types who see it as their mission to save mankind despite what mankind might think, to prove to us the errors of our narrow minded ways and force us to accept the wisdom and purity of thought and nobility only they can envision.

[Handsome Rob]

I smell a CPC plant.

lets see... 12+B Surplus to begin with, and with good fiscal discipline we now have an 85+B deficit. Yeah, great.

I also the coalition boogeyman is being dragged out of the closet. Good work.

Tell that to post 2008 tax revenues. And don't pull 2% GST cut, it's peanuts in the grand scheme.

The world isn't black and white so much as we would like it to be.

[bloodyminded]

Business and Economics professors generally don't talk about much other than business and economics, and in boring ways no one wants to hear.

But they're prone to ideology just the same. Still, I take your point, but my point was that "the university" and "academics" and "the ivory tower"are comprised of a whole lot more than humanities professors.

It tends to be the liberal arts types who see it as their mission to save mankind despite what mankind might think, to prove to us the errors of our narrow minded ways and force us to accept the wisdom and purity of thought and nobility only they can envision.

This is mostly a myth, and is taken up by screechy losers who worry incessantly about how the youth are being "indoctrinated" into Marxism, Islamism, and (gasp!) anti-Americanism.

The problem with such ideas is that, if the universities are brimming with these radicals (who were somehow magically absent from the two universities I attended), their attempts at indoctrination are self-evidenly failing...so there's no big issue anyway.

[Argus]

I think the majority of Canadians would classify themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal....

They might or might not. What is indisputable is they would be mistaken.

Canadians are NOT fiscally conservative. They just think they are. What they really mean is, presuming the government continues to fund all these huge social programs, and continues to offer fat subsidies to all major industries, and continues to offer fat grants and subsidies to every artistic, ethnic, cultural and sporting enterprise in existence, and continues to keep everyone happy - then they would be pleased if it did it all for less money so they can have all that and still have tax cuts.

Oh, and save the environment too please.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Argus