Mulroney on Harper

[Big Guy]

I was watching my copy of this evenings news on CTV ( I pre record most news shows) and caught an interview by Don Martin of Brian Mulroney. I almost fast forwarded through (what I had anticipated) another political spin promoting whatever. It caught my interest and ended up being an eye opener for me.

It appeared that Brian Mulroney was expressing his honest and candid opinion on a few of the issues that have their own threads in this section. Rather than trying to find an existing stream I decided to create a new one for those wishing to comment on this particular interview.

Part one (about 10 minutes) can be found at;

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=432714

Part two (about 10 minutes) can be found at;

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=432721

That is a lot of viewing but those who consider themselves as serious political pundits may find the time well invested.

Personally, I found it eye opening and was surprised at what the most successful Progressive Conservative PM had to say about Harper and his policies.

[cybercoma]

Meh. Care to summarize?

[Argus]

Meh. Care to summarize?

Does it matter what Mulroney says? The man who took bags of cash then lied about it and sued the government to protest his innocence?

I have scant respect for the dull, plodding Harper, but at least he doesn't suffer graft or corruption.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Argus

[Big Guy]

Meh. Care to summarize?

The 20 minute interview covered fiscal policy, free trade, foreign policy, domestic policy. Justin Trudeau, Mulcair, law and order, etc. I do not have the ability to summarize and adequately describe Mulroney's surprising (to me) point of view.

I am a glutton for punishment and slaved through "Memoirs: Brian Mulroney" a self promoting tome that gave me an insight into the personality of the man. For that reason, I was surprised at his deviating from the Harper party line and expressing (what appears to be) his true feelings. Sorry, too many topics for me to summarize.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Big Guy

[On Guard for Thee]

Does it matter what Mulroney says? The man who took bags of cash then lied about it and sued the government to protest his innocence?

I have scant respect for the dull, plodding Harper, but at least he doesn't suffer graft or corruption.

Well maybe not so far, but don't be too hasty. The Duffy trial looms large.

I agree with the Mulroney comments.

[Bryan]

I'm not at all surprised that he deviated from the "party line", since he was never part of this party. The Reform movement that Harper came from was started as a rejection of Mulroney and the PCs. I'd be really surprised if his thoughts were in lockstep with Harper's.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm not at all surprised that he deviated from the "party line", since he was never part of this party. The Reform movement that Harper came from was started as a rejection of Mulroney and the PCs. I'd be really surprised if his thoughts were in lockstep with Harper's.

I kinda think Harper and Mulroney are cut from the same cloth. Harper may be just not as smart and just pushed things far enough to get a "contempt" on his record.

[cybercoma]

Does it matter what Mulroney says? The man who took bags of cash then lied about it and sued the government to protest his innocence?

I have scant respect for the dull, plodding Harper, but at least he doesn't suffer graft or corruption.

Not really, which is why I started with "meh."

[cybercoma]

The 20 minute interview covered fiscal policy, free trade, foreign policy, domestic policy. Justin Trudeau, Mulcair, law and order, etc. I do not have the ability to summarize and adequately describe Mulroney's surprising (to me) point of view.

I am a glutton for punishment and slaved through "Memoirs: Brian Mulroney" a self promoting tome that gave me an insight into the personality of the man. For that reason, I was surprised at his deviating from the Harper party line and expressing (what appears to be) his true feelings. Sorry, too many topics for me to summarize.

There wasn't even any highlights? Doesn't sound like something worth taking the time to watch.

[cybercoma]

Harper thoroughly destroyed anything progressive about Canada's Conservatives.

[On Guard for Thee]

Harper thoroughly destroyed anything progressive about Canada's Conservatives.

Apparently anything "progressive" translates into Liberal and therefore must be shunned.

Avert your eyes my dear.

[August1991]

Apparently anything "progressive" translates into Liberal and therefore must be shunned.

Avert your eyes my dear.

Agreed.

[August1991]

Harper thoroughly destroyed anything progressive about Canada's Conservatives.

Then vote for Trudeau Jnr, cybercoma.

=======

At this stage of the World Game, many Canadian voters - in Quebec and more critically in Ontario - are wondering whether "progressive" is a good word.

Edited September 5, 2014 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Then vote for Trudeau Jnr, cybercoma.

=======

At this stage of the World Game, many Canadian voters - in Quebec and more critically in Ontario - are wondering whether "progressive" is a good word.

I won't be voting for Trudeau Jr. You can be sure of that. For starters, I don't even live in his riding.

[Bryan]

Harper thoroughly destroyed anything progressive about Canada's Conservatives.

I wish.

[Accountability Now]

I'm not at all surprised that he deviated from the "party line", since he was never part of this party. The Reform movement that Harper came from was started as a rejection of Mulroney and the PCs. I'd be really surprised if his thoughts were in lockstep with Harper's.

My thoughts exactly. You definitely pick up that air of contention he has keeping in mind the PC versus Reform history. Other than that he doesn't bash Harper and gives a good polical answer to every question he was asked.

[Accountability Now]

Not really, which is why I started with "meh."

So I guess you don't really care about the part where Mulrooney says that Mulclair is the best opposition leader this country has had since Diefenbaker? I thought you'd have been all over that.

[Accountability Now]

Personally, I found it eye opening and was surprised at what the most successful Progressive Conservative PM had to say about Harper and his policies.

I didn't find it overly bashing. He gave a very political interview...backhanded compliments all across the board. He did make some very good points about change being required after 10 years. Whether you think JT or Mulclair can replace Harper, history has shown that people just want change for what ever option is available at that time. I'm fine with Harper leaving office....I just wish there were better replacement options.

[Mighty AC]

I didn't find it overly bashing. He gave a very political interview...backhanded compliments all across the board. He did make some very good points about change being required after 10 years. Whether you think JT or Mulclair can replace Harper, history has shown that people just want change for what ever option is available at that time. I'm fine with Harper leaving office....I just wish there were better replacement options.

I'm hoping Harper is replaced with a better option. After watching this interview I miss having a PC option. Wouldn't it be nice if the CPC were more progressive socially and more conservative financially?

[Accountability Now]

I'm hoping Harper is replaced with a better option. After watching this interview I miss having a PC option. Wouldn't it be nice if the CPC were more progressive socially and more conservative financially?

Yes. I can agree with that. Ultimately it would be nice to have two party choices on the right and two parties on the left. Or is more choices worse?

[Argus]

Harper thoroughly destroyed anything progressive about Canada's Conservatives.

And thoroughly destroyed anything conservative about the party, too.

The Conservatives today are a party without ideology existing merely to be in power, making decisions, when they make any, by public opinion poll. They're much like the Chretien Liberals in that respect.

[Mighty AC]

Yes. I can agree with that. Ultimately it would be nice to have two party choices on the right and two parties on the left. Or is more choices worse?

I like the idea of more choice if coupled with a proportional electoral system. However, I don't think there is enough support on the right for two parties at the moment. In the short term we'd be left with the Grits and Dippers battling over 70% of the vote with Reformers and Tories splitting the remainder. However given a little time, the rebirth of a strong PC party would take back some of the center. Unlike the current, directionless CPC, the right would have two parties that could better represent supporters.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Mighty AC

[jbg]

The 20 minute interview covered fiscal policy, free trade, foreign policy, domestic policy. Justin Trudeau, Mulcair, law and order, etc. I do not have the ability to summarize and adequately describe Mulroney's surprising (to me) point of view.

I am a glutton for punishment and slaved through "Memoirs: Brian Mulroney" a self promoting tome that gave me an insight into the personality of the man. For that reason, I was surprised at his deviating from the Harper party line and expressing (what appears to be) his true feelings. Sorry, too many topics for me to summarize.

I have on my "to read" list "On the Take."

[overthere]

And thoroughly destroyed anything conservative about the party, too.

The Conservatives today are a party without ideology existing merely to be in power, making decisions, when they make any, by public opinion poll. They're much like the Chretien Liberals in that respect.

From a purely mathematical viewpoint Mulroney was the guy responsible for taking the Conservatives from a 151 seat majority to 2 seats. 2 seats.

It is arguable that Harper took the Progressive out of PC, but it is indisputable that Mulroney took his Party out of the House of Commons.

[cybercoma]

So I guess you don't really care about the part where Mulrooney says that Mulclair is the best opposition leader this country has had since Diefenbaker? I thought you'd have been all over that.

I don't. Mulroney is more of a liability than an asset. People remember him fondly as one of the worst Prime Ministers in Canadian history. He retooled the Senate to push through GST after it was rejected. He lined his pockets during the Airbus Affair. And he's the reason the Bloc Quebecois ever existed. You will have to forgive me if I take every thing that man says with a grain of "meh" even if I would otherwise agree with him.

Edited September 5, 2014 by cybercoma