Harper's Bungle

[August1991]

For the past few days, I've been in southern Ontario on business. I'm astonished by the number of people who have told me they will vote Liberal.

I can understand Liberal voters in Quebec. It's a question of Canada. (In truth, I must wonder why the BQ has NO opposition and why federalists will vote for donkeys.)

But Ontario? Or ROC?

Harper has thrown this election away. Constantly, people in Ontario referred to abortion, gay rights, bilingualism as reasons not to vote Tory. These are social issues.

One Tory said to me, "If the Liberals don't lose this election, then they'll never lose any election."

Victory in this election was handed to Harper on a silver plate. What happened?

[cgarrett]

any chance that his local party candidates are pulling him down? he has been desperate to appear moderate and shake off any radical reform perceptions... but i have seen a couple of candidates on tv here in bc that were far from pulling the moderate party line! actually, i was quite surprised by a couple of these guys... don't they have any communication from party hq letting them know what harpers strategy is and to shut up and not scare people?

any of the party leaders could be saints and not get elected if their local candidates were off in some other field...

[takeanumber]

The Economy is good. Can't nail the Libs there.

It's about the social issues.

Too bad Harper is out of step with: Women, francophones living outside of Quebec, moderate 'l'iberal Canadians, most educated people (that means ppl who have more than a Grade 8 education), homosexuals, and liberal immigrants.

In other words: 70% of the population of Canada.

[Reverend Blair]

Here is a clue, August. ...

I'm an NDPer, always have been, and will be until something better comes along. By something better I mean something that more closely matches my beliefs.

Harper has some core support like that. You likely fit into that category. Mostly he's trying to cobble together support from a bunch of people who don't believe in what he does though. They might buy his business angle, but Martin offers that, so do the Greens. They might agree with his social/religious angle but the CHP and others offer that and aren't afraid to say so.

You might be a core supporter of Harper, but you seem to have this odd idea that you deserve to win...that you are somehow RIGHT.

Sorry, dude, that ain't how it works. What happens is that you and I go naked mud wrestling with the nearest Liberal and the people choose the one that disgusts them the least. The Liberal gets to keep his shorts on though, for reasons of hygiene and decency that only apply to him.

That is no way to represent people, or to make them terribly interested in being represented. It is one step up from bikers kicking the crap out each other...the US system...but it's a baby step at best.

[caesar]

I think Harper does quite well himself; letting enough of his radical ideas slip to let people see what he is really about. Those Canadians that like to just vote out a party in power for misdeeds or whatever need to take a look at what they are voting for. We are learning the hard way in BC. It is very expensive to keep switching back and forth. All this outgoing politicians leave with their pockets well lined as do all their friends in patronaged jobs.

I do not really like any of our choices but Harper and his admiration for Bush scares the H out of me. Mulroney sold us out enough already.

[cgarrett]

yeah, harper does seem to be relying solely on this 'liberal punishment' thing... his tactics show it and it could work.

this is just like a rerun of the bc provincial election where the liberals made like they were all moderates and that the bad ndp screwed up on the fast ferries. now gordon campbell has sold off bc rail to his biggest contributor, privatized hydro and liquor stores... anything thats profitable is gone! these items make fast ferries look like a spilt ice cream cone and then he went and sold the ferries back to the builders who were laughing hysterically at the great deal!

the electorate weren't punishing the ndp... they were punishing themselves!

[Argus]

For the past few days, I've been in southern Ontario on business.  I'm astonished by the number of people who have told me they will vote Liberal.

I can understand Liberal voters in Quebec.  It's a question of Canada.  (In truth, I must wonder why the BQ has NO opposition and why federalists will vote for donkeys.)

But Ontario?  Or ROC?

Harper has thrown this election away.  Constantly, people in Ontario referred to abortion, gay rights, bilingualism as reasons not to vote Tory.  These are social issues.

People in southern Ontario are fat, happy and stupid. They're sheep, easily led. The Liberals launched this campaign from the gutter, and went down into the sewers from there. Harper has tried to stick to the high road, even though we all know from the last 3 elections that muck raking, and dirt throwing works. Especially when the press is on your side.

Did you watch the interviews Peter Mansbridge did with the leaders? His interview with Harper looked like a police interrogation. His interview with Martin looked like two long time friends and buddies chatting about things they both believed in.

Harper needed to throw more dirt, and needed to do more to get his message out. He's been going from event to event with the same speech, doing nothing colourful to get him more media attention, getting less airtime than Martin. He should have concentrated on different aspects of Liberal corruption and patronage every day, on different policies, like their paranoid secrecy and destruction of the military.

What's wrong with going to a port in Montreal and pointing out that the Liberals eliminated the Ports police, making smuggling and theft easier? How about going down to the docks in Nova Scotia and showing navy and Coast guard ships tied up at dock for lack of funds? How about going to the airport in Toronto and pointing out that minimum wage security guards are still doing the screening? Go to Shawinigan and point out that federal money went to the hotel and the golf course - and the fountain and the art gallery, while health care deteriorated. The media wants to see colour, and if you don't provide it they'll find something of their own.

Of course the focus on the few big mouthed social conservatives hasn't helped. But I think the media eliberately sought out such statements. I don't see them, for example, going to known anti-abortion people in the Liberal Party and splashing their comments all over the front pages. I don't see them dogging the NDPs parachuted muslim candidate in Ottawa to demand her position on homosexuals.

Lazy people have short attention spans. This is the fourth election in a row the liberals have promised a national daycare program, yet you still see people in Ontario saying "Gee, that's a good idea. Maybe I'll vote Liberal!". This is the fourth election in a row the Liberals have wrapped themselves in the mantle of noble defender and guardian of health care, but people don't seem to rememer that, nor contrast that with what they'be done about health care after previous elections.

Abortion and gay rights are nonsense issues. They affect, at best, a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of Canadians, and nothing tangible is going to be done about those issues anyway, not in a minority government for sure. So anyone who votes on that basis is kind of stupid.

[takeanumber]

Harper failed.

Even yogurt has more culture.

Even a plastic monkey has more personality.

Even Kerry does less flip-flopping.

Anything short of a majority government should be treated as a personal failure and a personal humiliation.

[Argus]

Anything short of a majority government should be treated as a personal failure and a personal humiliation.

Without Quebec it is virtually impossible to get a majority. Harper would need to get virtually all Ontario seats, and such a mass reversal, from all Liberal to all Tory, is simply not possible in one election.

When this election began there was virtually no one who gave the tories a chance in hell of even coming close to the Liberals. Now they're almost sure to get more seats than the Liberals. They may even form a minority government. That's a hell of an achievement, especially given how many simpletons out there are buying the big scary fearmongering line from the Fiberals and Socialists.

[takeanumber]

If there was no substance to Liberal 'fearmongering', then it would it not have been effective.

(See:

Newfoundland Liberal Party tactics, 2004.

New Brunswick Liberal Party tactics, 1998.

Ontario Conservative Party tactics, 1995-2003.

Liberal Party of Canada tactics in Quebec, 2004. )

*ring* *ring*

Hello?

Hi, Mr. White? Yes, here's here.

Argus, it's for you. It's Randy White.

It seems that he agrees with you.

Why? With company like that, how can you go wrong?

[Reverend Blair]

Harper's whole campaign has been negative. The only real reason he gives why he should be PM is that the Liberals have had a scandal or two. Of course Harper is taking advice from Brian Mulroney, who also had a scandal or two.

Harper has been trying to silence the radicals in his party since he was a policy wonk working for Preston Manning. He hasn't tried to get rid of those radicals though. Since Harper is really a radical himself those are his core supporters.

The reason Harper is being painted as a scary man with a secret agenda is because he is a scary man with a secret agenda.

[idealisttotheend]

The Cons have only themselves to blame for not having any seats in Quebec. It was Mulroney's greed and ego that led to his courting of the soft seperatists like Bouchard (trying to get votes in Quebec the easy way instead of working to it the hard way) that created the Bloc and Mr. Bouchard. In fact the political reality may be that no one gets a majority government in this country for a very long time after this. I don't think that anyone in the Bloc has the same complete lack of honour and personal integrity that Mr. McKay did so I don't see a merger in the future. Plus the Bloc are probably to the left of the Liberals not the Right so that is also an interesting aspect, if the Cons make gains in Quebec it would be at the expense of the Liberals.

Interesting though that of the four major parties, three can be imagined to work together with each other and only one cannot count on any support in a minority. It tells you a lot about the political reality in this country and I wonder if Mr. Clark isn't laughing at his old capadres the same way Chretien is laughing at his old capadres.

[August1991]

Newfoundland Liberal Party tactics, 2004.

New Brunswick Liberal Party tactics, 1998.

Ontario Conservative Party tactics, 1995-2003.

Liberal Party of Canada tactics in Quebec, 2004.

TalkNumb, you're smart but everyone else is stupid.

Did you watch the interviews Peter Mansbridge did with the leaders?

Argus, that's the game. Harper knew this in advance. He could have gone over heads, as he did at the beginning. It worked then but later it didn't. What happened?

IMV, Harper and Layton played the game as honestly but as close to the edge as I know. PM PM is all over the map. What do ROC (Ontario) voters want?

If Harper wants to be PM because he thinks he can do good, then he should have done a Clinton. IOW, any damn fool can burn down a barn... but Harper should have screwed the sucker.

[PS. Why do Martin and Duceppe get "Get Out of Jail" cards?]

[idealisttotheend]

I though Mansbridge went pretty easy on Harper until the end where he did come after him a bit. But he went after Layton too and asked the key question of Martin (would you resign if you got fewer seats than Harper). The CBC does have some bias (more on Radio than television I think) but so do a lot of other media outlets and I think far to much is made of it.

[takeanumber]

Conrad Black was the king of Media Bias.

Oh well.

It won't be the media's fault if Harper loses.

It'll be Harper's fault.

Klein, White, and every other MP that has spoken their mind will also be to blame.

You know, Canadians should be really mad at the old Alliance, because you don't see old PC's going out there and making blunders.

It's no wonder that the West can never get in, especially with the gong show of a party they send.

[maplesyrup]

Harper must be laughing today about how he snookered those social conservatives into voting for him last June.

Don Newman interviewed the social conservative leader in Canada today, and he was practically foaming at the mouth about how let down he feels by the Harper Conservatives.

Then Janet Ecker (sp?) a conservative strategist, came on and completely contradicted what the social conservative rep said. Ecker said that Conservatives always lose when the get caught up in social conservative issues, that conservatives should stick to economic issues if they want to win. The upcoming conserrvative convention should be hilarious.

[Big Blue Machine]

At least the Cons will win more seats than the NDP, maplesyrup.

[Slavik44]

Harper must be laughing today about how he snookered those social conservatives into voting for him last June.

Don Newman interviewed the social conservative leader in Canada today, and he was practically foaming at the mouth about how let down he feels by the Harper Conservatives.

Then Janet Ecker (sp?) a conservative strategist, came on and completely contradicted what the social conservative rep said. Ecker said that Conservatives always lose when the get caught up in social conservative issues, that conservatives should stick to economic issues if they want to win. The upcoming conserrvative convention should be hilarious.

The moment the Conservatives drop social conservatism is the moment I vote liberal.

[maplesyrup]

Harper will do anything that he thinks will get him elected. Now that polls are out showing that the majority of Canadians support the NDP on missle defence or Star Wars:

Tories soften support of U.S. shield

But Harper refuses to spell out policy

SEAN GORDON

CanWest News Service

November 10, 2004

Sensitive to strong opposition to the project in Quebec and Ontario, Tory leader Stephen Harper has perceptibly nudged his party's position away from supporting Canada's adherence to a ballistic missile-defence shield.

"The goalposts are moving on this, because there's a recognition that missile defence just doesn't sell in Quebec or among urban voters in Ontario," said an informed Conservative organizer.

"Why would we jump in on something like this without knowing what's on the table?" said another party official. "I think you can expect us to oppose the plan unless there are jobs and other concrete results at stake."

Harper is famously loath to discuss strategy publicly, but Tories privately say there is a move afoot to soften the party's message, particularly on such Canada-U.S. issues as the missile shield.

After a caucus meeting last week, the party's defence critic said the Conservatives were "neutral" on the issue.

"I'm not saying that we won't sign on, I'm not saying that we will. I don't want to be difficult, but the government hasn't provided us with one iota of information," said Gordon O'Connor, a retired Canadian Forces brigadier-general.

In September, O'Connor wrote in the Ottawa Citizen that his party "supports Canada's continued co-operation with the U.S. in our shared continental defence."

But a defence white paper produced by the Canadian Alliance in the spring of 2003 - the foreword was penned by Harper - went further. It said, "We urge the Canadian government to commit itself to the maintenance of Norad and support the establishment of a missile defence system for North America."

The party also introduced a motion in May of last year calling for the House of Commons to "support giving Norad responsibility for the command of any system developed to defend North America against ballistic missiles."

The House adopted the motion 156 to 73. Prime Minister Paul Martin, who was a backbencher at the time, skipped the vote; Harper supported the motion.

And Conservative foreign-affairs critic Stockwell Day wrote an op-ed column in 2002 calling for a pact with the U.S. on missile defence. The party's most recent electoral platform is silent on the issue.

Despite insistent questions from reporters, Harper last week refused to set out the terms under which he would sign on to the missile shield.

"Our position is we're waiting to see what the government's proposed. We've always said we support Norad, we're open to modernizing that, but we're not going to take a position until the government makes a specific proposal," he said.

[Neal.F.]

Harper reminds many people of John Kerry, methinks.

I think he lost support when he would not take a firm stand against abortion, gay marriage legal pot etc.

It left most so-cons, except those with CHP candidates , with nobody to vote for. Some went and voted for socially conservative individual candidates without regard to party affiliation, since the Tories offered nothing but flip-flops.

It would not suprise me to learn that Liberals ended up winning some seats because so-cons either stayed home, (a possibility given the record low turnout) or held their noses and voted for a candidate vs. a party.

[Bakunin]

The Economy is good. Can't nail the Libs there.

It's about the social issues.

Too bad Harper is out of step with: Women, francophones living outside of Quebec, moderate 'l'iberal Canadians, most educated people (that means ppl who have more than a Grade 8 education), homosexuals, and liberal immigrants.

In other words: 70% of the population of Canada.

i agree with you,

You can't win an election by behing anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-progressive and anti-french

because if you add all those people you will get more than 50%.

has for conservative getting seats in quebec it will be very hard. The liberal supporters are mostly die hard fan and immigrant, the conservative can't steal vote from them, has for stealing vote from the bloc it will be hard because the bloc fan are mostly from the left and are sovreignist. there has never been a conservative government here since the 60's.

I don't understand harpers tactics, why does he try to get quebec's vote, maybe its just another proof that he never understood quebec. He would get a lot more vote by using the inverse tactic, he should be less friendly with quebecers to get more vote in the roc.

[Neal.F.]

The best thing for Canada would be to let Quebec go. Quebec is ultra-liberal and European in mindset.

Because of its 75 seats, the Libs can continue to ram quebec's agenda down the throats of the ROC. That's why our military is a shambles. That's why Canada US relations are in the dumper.

Time to end official bilingualism, a policy whereby most Canadians are disadvantaged, and gives the inside track for all federal jobs to Quebecers. Quebec's 75 seats virtually ensure that a Quebecer will always occupy the PMO. It has reached the point where the LPC has abandoned its practice of alternating between Quebec and non-Quebec leaders.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The best thing for Canada would be to let Quebec go. Quebec is ultra-liberal and European in mindset.

But that's one of the very reasons I want them to stay! Modern Quebec is a bastion of social sanity to counterbalance the pockets of self-deluded, mean-minded theocrats hiding in the woodpile of the ROC.

Cripes, without Quebec we might have Canadian soldiers right now dying on behalf of Bushista oil profiteering and Wolfowitzian geo-political follies.

[maplesyrup]

I hate to break it to ya, but PM Martin is from Windsor, Ontario.

The Liberal Party of Canada has had a policy, an unwritten rule I believe, of alternating between a francophone and an anglophone leader.

As far as civil servants go, you are promoted on merit. One important qualification is bilingualism. If more Quebeckers are going to be bilingual than others, then they will probably get more of the jobs. If you want to be a civil servant learn French, or English, as the case may be.

[Neal.F.]

Terrible Sweal,

Pierre Trudeau destroyed the moral fabric of this country. This is NOT the country my father and gradfather fought for in the two world wars.

Quebec is holding the rest of the country back. Canada should be showing the class and backbone of the UK and Australia & Poland not kowtowing to Islamofascistsand globalists in the spirit of France and Germany.

We have had a Quebec agenda foisted on us for too long. The country is becoming sissified, and i think the only to turn things around is to get rid of Quebec. Jean Charest's government is bent on making sure Quebec becomes the most socially liberal jurisdiction in North America.

I live in quebec, and my house is on the market so we can get out and watch Quebec leave, and watch the Liberal party go down with them. The Liberals have been blessed with a gift called the separatist movement. They are able to scare enough people to vote for them lest the nasty separatists come up the middle, so as to ensure enough of those 75 seats to guarantee at least a minority government.

BTW, Pierre Berton once said that 1967 was canada's last good year... since that time, 38 years we have had Quebec prime ministers (and the Quebec agenda) for all but 13 months.

(7 months of Joe Clark, 4 months of Kim Campbell, 2 months of John Turner)