Harper's Political Career In Tatters!

[PatM]

he Liberals and the media are so powerful in this country that it is almost impossible to counter the slander and demonization they have done to the man.

The National Post, Calgary Herald and GlobalTV is liberal?

This martyrdom of Saint Harper is wearing thin.

------------

If you love Bush, Klein and Harris, you'll love Harper.

If you want Canada to resemble those regimes, then there's no changing your mind: you'll vote for Harper.

If you want a different vision, minus the corruption, you gotta vote for a Lib-NDP-Green coalition.

Those are the two visions of the country. Make no mistake about it.

Moreover, none of the resident conservatives on this board have stepped forward to challenge this assessment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is (IMHO) a better choice. The Canadian Action Party http://www.canadianactionparty.ca

They're the only party that want to take on the power base behind the corporatization of Canada - the Bank of Canada and the major banks.

Unless, and until, the current economic policies are replaced with FAIR ones, you can forget any recovery of social programs. Taxation will continue to fall off the rich and on to the middle class and poor.

We need capitalism working for ALL Canadians, not just for banks and their corporate partners.

[Newfie Canadian]

I don't think Harper's career wil be over unless/until he loses the next election, whenever that is.

First of all, the budget bill has only passed second reading and goes to committee, where the BQ/CPC opposition has 6 members and the Liberal/NDP coalition has 6 members. It's still possible that they suggest ammendments to the budget and so forth:

The Standing Committee on Finance contributes to the budget-making process by holding pre-budget consultations prior to the preparation of the federal budget and by examining the budget’s provisions after it has been tabled in Parliament.

So while it is unlikely that anything will happen there, I doubt the opposition will give it a free ride.

What he may have to do though, is look ahead to upcoming legislation, like SSM and the Pot bill, two very devisive issues. If he can't make any headway with getting those watered down (from a consecvative point of view) or eliminated, Harper's leadership will be in serious trouble.

[bigdude]

Article

While Harper was deemed the big loser from Thursday's confidence vote, Jack Layton was widely seen as the big winner.

The NDP leader rose above the mudslinging, demonstrating a more civil and constructive approach to minority government. He gave his 19-seat party new clout and relevance, forcing Martin to add $4.6 billion in social spending to his budget in return for NDP support.

For Martin, the outcome was mixed.

Relief at his razor-thin victory did not obscure the cost.

The prime minister's reputation as the fiscally prudent finance minister who tamed the country's deficit took a beating when he started spending money like water to buy the NDP's support and win back voter favour.

And he has opened himself to charges that he will sell his principles, his budget and cabinet posts in order to cling to power.

Does a leopard change his spots - I hardly think so!

Harper has been branded and we all know what he represents. Fortunately most Canadians don't want any part of his meanness and intolerance.

[bigdude]

Harper's Big Gamble Turns Up Snake Eyes

The man who prides himself on his skill as a political tactician lost the biggest gamble of his political career last night. And, at least according to some, it didn't need to be that way.

After his defeat on a vote designed to force a spring election, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper finds himself today with a chunk of his political capital spent, a temperamental image with the Canadian public, and some members of his party sniping at him for what they believe was the frittering away of the massive advantage given to him by the sponsorship scandal.

"He lost sight of the big picture," one senior Tory said.

"You get so consumed by what's going on in Parliament, sometimes you forget what it looks like from the outside."

Tories and other observers call the loss of former leadership foe Belinda Stronach to the Liberals the ultimate mistake. But Mr. Harper was also blamed for taking the heat off the Liberals by bringing controversy on himself. And, ultimately, he miscalculated that independent MP Chuck Cadman, an old Reformer like him, would hold fast to the views of his constituents when voting on whether to keep the government alive.

It is obvious that Harper's political career is over.

It is now just the matter of the Conservatives going through the motions of losing another election, and then he will sulk away!

Why don't these political parties have the smarts to dump a leader when he is an albatross around their necks?

[geoffrey]

Harper is a great leader. I am curious to know how many of you have actually met him. I have. And I must say I am far more impressed with the great amount of principles this man carries, than any other politican I have spoken with.

I would be delighted to see Harper as PM. It is really too bad that Canadians are so liberalised by the media that they have let themselves be coerced into believing he is an American focused cowboy. Couldn't be further from the truth. I feel that the only weakness in his leadership comes from his principled nature not to strike back with equal lies about the liberals.

Thats truly the sad state of it all, people love the liberals and they are obviously (and I'd love to see anyone counter this) corrupt and criminal. And then when the Liberals say the conservatives are all 'big business' and 'anti-health care' our nation believes every word, and keeps the corrupt people in power.

I'm starting to believe that Canada is just simply to ignorant to be involved in politics in general, and another election of the Liberal party will go to prove that further.

Now I must say that another leader would benifet the party in the East, but really, that would be unprincipled of the conservatives to remove a great leader and visionary for Canada from the party in order to gain a few votes. For once in Canada we have a party that isn't merely about political gain, and we reject them as being too idealist or whatnot.

It is only the ignorance of Canadians that make Harper anything short of one of the greatest leaders Canada has seen.

[I Miss Trudeau]

It is only the ignorance of Canadians that make Harper anything short of one of the greatest leaders Canada has seen.

Harper is far short of being a good leader, let alone one of Canada's greatest. He suffers from a horrible lack of charisma and maturity, not to mention credibility. I realize he'd like to wipe away his years of service to the NCC as soon as it became politically expedient to do so. Fortunatly, he can't.

[bigdude]

Spoken like a true elitist. Words right out of the Fraser Institute. You know better than the average Canadian, don't you? What a bunch of unmitigated crap!

Harper is a small, petty, angry and mean-spirited man. I am no fan of Mulroney however he had enough sense to keep his MPS happy. All Harper has done so far is aleniate himself from both Cadman and Stronach. And yesterday that cost him big time.

[bigdude]

Bumbling Harper not ready for prime time

The beginning of the end for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper came when he summoned Belinda Stronach to his office a bit more than a week ago and read her the riot act.

The former policy wonk reamed out the millionaire auto parts heiress and demanded she toe the party line from now on. He was tired of the contrary positions being taken by the woman he had beaten in his party's leadership contest.

He was the boss and she had to understand that.

A confidante of Stronach said later Harper yelled and berated Stronach, but another Conservative who attended the meeting said it wasn't that bad.

Regardless, Harper apparently doesn't subscribe to the notion in politics that you hold your friends close, but your enemies even closer.

Within hours, a shaken Stronach attended a social function in Toronto where she confided in former Londoner David Peterson that she was unhappy in the Conservative fold and was thinking of leaving politics. The former Ontario premier and London North MPP spoke with Stronach several times in the next few days and suggested she instead cross the floor to the Liberals. He played mediator.

Stronach became a Liberal Tuesday, two days before the crucial budget vote, assuming the post of minister of human resources development.

When Thursday's vote came, however, Harper was already in a pickle. His handlers had persuaded him to try to topple the government because Tory chances had never been so promising. The man who accused Stronach of political opportunism had already succumbed to the same sin.

The same day, new public opinion polls showed the Liberals and Conservatives held the same support they had a year ago when the Liberals won a minority government. Things hadn't changed despite Gomery inquiry revelations about Liberal corruption in Quebec and Harper's efforts to capitalize on them. The Conservatives were well behind the Liberals in Ontario, a province the Tories must capture to have any hope of governing the country. And public opposition to an election remained strong.

Harper had been throwing mud, only to lose ground.

The sooner Conservatives lose this loser, the better off they and all of Canada will be.

[PocketRocket]

Harper by far has the most integrity of any of the leaders.

That may or may not be the case. But in politics, you need to be more than honest. Unfortunately, you must also be saleable.

If the Cons had someone who APPEARED to be more reasonable and less inflammatory, I'd probably vote for them.

But Harper strikes me as extreme. I don't like extremists.

Why do people think he's mean spirited or has a 'secret agenda'? Because the Liberals, who have a proven track record of being pathological liars, said so.

Again, it's all about perception. That is how people see Harper, and that's all the reason they need.

That fact that the Liberals hate harper so much is reason enough to vote him in as PM. If a party so corrupt hates him that much, he must be exactly what the country really needs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that depends on two things. One is whether an individual is such a sheep that he'll vote for someone based on the thoughts of others. Second is whether an individual considers a party with thousands of members and hundreds of representatives, to be corrupt because of the actions of a few people within that party.

I do not happen to be one of these people.

But, like I said earlier, I will not vote for a party led by Harper.

Put Preston Manning in charge, and you'll get my vote.

Harper is a great leader. I am curious to know how many of you have actually met him. I have. And I must say I am far more impressed with the great amount of principles this man carries, than any other politican I have spoken with.

I have no doubt about the man's intelligence. You don't get voted into party leadeship by being stupid.

Someone with TOO many principles, however, scares me a bit.

When your personal principles are so strong, you can be perceived as having your own agenda, which is exactly what seems to be happening.

  I feel that the only weakness in his leadership comes from his principled nature not to strike back with equal lies about the liberals.

His forte leans more towards extreme hyperbole. He has, on a few occasions, chosen his words badly when criticizing PMPM et al.

That has worked against him.

  What's truly the sad state of it all, people love the liberals and they are obviously (and I'd love to see anyone counter this) corrupt and criminal.

Again, you're painting all the folks in the Liberal party with the same brush. I don't believe everyone in the party had some sort of secret vote to agree to rip off the country.

SOME liberals are corrupt, just as SOME Conservatives are hard-headed.

As for the "criminal", well, charges have yet to be laid.

  I'm starting to believe that Canada is just simply to ignorant to be involved in politics in general, and another election of the Liberal party will go to prove that further.

I think the problem lay elsewhere to a larger degree. In discussions prior to past elections, I have so often heard the phrase "To vote for (fill in the blank, as long as it's NDP, Green, Reform or any smaller party) is to waste your vote, because they'll never get elected".

So many people think that way. It's like thair mind frame is set around the mistaken belief that your vote is only useful if the recipient of your vote wins.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Each and every vote sends a message.

But, unfortunately, that old hackneyed train of thought still exists, and for those people, there is only one clear party to vote for if they want their vote to "count".

Sad, but true.

Now I must say that another leader would benifet the party in the East, but really, that would be unprincipled of the conservatives to remove a great leader and visionary for Canada from the party in order to gain a few votes.

Under the democratic system, a party's main goal is to get voted into power.

Again, I must use the words "sad but true".

To get elected, you have to sell your party to the people.

I huge part of selling the party is selling the leader.

Harper is not, to a larger portion of the population, saleable.

Under this premise, it would strongly behoove the Conservatives to look at other options for leadership of the party.

If Harper is such a "visionary", he would have no problem stepping aside and letting someone else take the reins to carry out this "vision".

For once in Canada we have a party that isn't merely about political gain, and we reject them as being too idealist or whatnot.

Not about political gain?? I think Harper's incessant attacks over the past few weeks trying to force an election when one has been promised upon completion of Gomery gives lie to this statement.

Personally, I think a post-Gomery election is a great idea. Then all the dirt will be out in the open for all to see.

It is only the ignorance of Canadians that make Harper anything short of one of the greatest leaders Canada has seen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The ignorance of Canadians has nothing to do with whether or not Harper is a great leader.

If he is a great statesman and politician, he will convince Canada to vote for him.

As for being a great leader, well, a great leader would have more control over those he is leading.

Evidently, Belinda did not feel he was so great, either as statesman, or as leader.

[bigdude]

Even the right wing press want Harper to step down:

Stephen Harper should step down

The stark reality is that Stephen Harper, although he is an intelligent man, simply lacks the leadership skills necessary to form the next government. His lack of these skills became obvious when the February budget was introduced. When the budget was first tabled, Harper quickly said it was a good "conservative budget" and supported it. He and his Tories then announced that they would vote against the budget and try and bring the Martin government down. A couple of days before the vote, Harper again changed his mind and announced that his party would support it. The reason for his last flip flop was that there was pressure from Newfoundland and hints that his Newfoundland members might cause the non confidence vote to be lost. A person with political smarts would have foreseen this and supported the budget all along. The end result of his wavering was that had the Conservatives initially supported the budget that they ultimately voted for, Paul Martin would have had no reason to make a deal with Jack Layton. Harper, as much as Martin, is responsible for the $4.6 billion dollar "NDP budget" that ultimately passed by one vote.

On the matter of Belinda Stronach, Harper said he had seen her defection coming. It is simply not enough for a leader to see something happening. A true leader has to act. Although Harper could not have prevented Stronach from crossing the floor, he could have tried to keep her in line, failing which he, not Tim Murphy and David Peterson, could have determined the timing of her departure from the Tory ranks.

If Canada is ever to have a functioning multi-party democracy, Stephen Harper has to go. He simply lacks the skills necessary to win. And if he won’t step aside and truly thinks that he has what it takes to be the prime minister of Canada, perhaps he should try to win over Ontario by leaving his Alberta cocoon and running for a seat in that province in the next election. We hear the riding of Newmarket-Aurora is available.

How about that Mr. Harper?

[willy]

I personally support Harper. He has led the party to unity, and through many mile stones. The party has challenges, and is at risk of having the Liberals create their brand.

Now aside from my personal view what does the future hold? Most influence campaigns in the corporate world expect 24 months before they shift the prevailing opinion. Right now the politically engaged (like those on forums) flip and flop and tend to pay a lot of attention to every detail. If the Conservatives are to be successful they need to stay the course.

The operations of the party are just now starting to function after the change during the merger. With continuity the party will gain strength. Though out the 90's the opposition was in a constant state of change and was never able to present a viable option.

Harper has the skills, and support of the caucus. A week from now when a new focus is presented this level of criticism will dissipate and the Liberals will become the story again.

Just think Martin was a senior minister in a corrupt government, under his leadership the party lost 10 points in the polls, and the sovereignty movement has gained 10 points in the polls. If a leader should go it is the Liberals. They need a fresh face and a new front bench so Quebec can move past the party’s criminality. With no clear accountability the country is running a big risk of becoming ever increasingly more volatile.

And many on this forum are focused on the opposition leader because he lost one vote a week after he won three votes.

Don't be a hater!

[bigdude]

`Dump Harper' bid on the rise

Slowly, quietly, a "Dump Stephen Harper" movement is emerging in small pockets of the Conservative fold, and the Tory leader can ignore it only at the risk of his political future.

Harper's performance over the past five weeks — taking the Tories from a healthy lead in the polls to forcing an ill-fated parliamentary showdown with Paul Martin and now once again trailing the Liberals in public opinion — has only fuelled this stealth effort to oust him as party leader.

Sound crazy?

Maybe, but the signs are growing — and there's a history within the conservative wing of Canadian politics of parties slaying their own.

Think back to the early 1980s.

Back then, Joe Clark was the embattled leader of the Progressive Conservative party. His minority government had fallen in late 1979 on a non-confidence motion, and he subsequently led the Tories to defeat in the 1980 election that saw the return of Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals to power.

Clark had enemies within the party, none bigger than Brian Mulroney.

Mulroney had lost the 1976 leadership race to Clark, but he never gave up. And neither did his cronies.

Every morning, some of them held court in the West Block cafeteria on Parliament Hill. Any member of the Ottawa press gallery could stroll over to the Hill, get some bacon-and-eggs, sit down and listen to Mulroney's pals stab Clark in the back, telling stories and spreading gossip that always put their party leader in a bad light.

Personally I think he is finished. It may happen quickly, or it may happen slowly, it doesn't really matter. Harper will never become PM now and it is time for some one else who is more moderate, not a clone of the NCC, or the Fraser Institute, or George Bush, for that matter, to lead the Cons.

[willy]

To bolster their argument, they point to a column by David Asper, chairman of the National Post, considered the media voice of the Conservative party.

"Harper has damaged the Conservative brand far more than he seems to realize," Asper wrote. "Through miscue after miscue, the party has shone a light on the alienation felt by moderates such as Ms Stronach."

Here is another quote from this story. Spin by amateurs. Asper is and always has been a Liberal. When the Southham News started the Post, their was no doubt it was a Conservative paper but not any more. Some of the columnists are more supportive like Andrew Coyne but he is also on the CBC and you wouldn't call them Conservative would you.

The Liberal party spin machine is at work and trying to take advantage of a perceived weakness.

Stronach was the background noise in the party that still sought leadership and now she is spent.

We will not have an election this spring, and we don't have a leadership review for another year and a half. So it might make the any body but a Conservative crowd excited but don't get your hopes up.

Most Conservative realize that not only does the party need unity but the country needs an alternative.

[bigdude]

Canada has lots of political alternatives to the Liberals but it seems that fewer and fewer Canadians want Harper and the snake oil that he is selling.

Editorial: Harper strikes out for the third time

Why was last night's squeaker of a vote Harper's third strikeout?

Because he also has failed to persuade Canadians generally to put their faith in his party or to get them to share his zeal for an election now.

Harper made Parliament's rafters ring denouncing the Liberals' tawdry wrongdoing. Yet the Tories continue to trail in the polls. Most voters remain unpersuaded that the Martin team is fatally tainted.

Voters fault the Liberals on ethics, of course, and rightly so. But most feel Canada-U.S. relations, managing the economy and health care are higher priority matters. And they give the Liberals higher marks on these issues.

Given his dismal batting record, Harper should have the sense to stop swinging, for now at least. While Canadians punished the Liberals last June 28 by denying them a majority, the voters did not give the Tories carte blanche to bring Parliament to a standstill. The Liberals should now be allowed to govern until Mr. Justice John Gomery reports. Martin promises to call an election within 30 days of the report being released.

Though Harper will have more opportunities before Parliament's summer recess to force another confidence vote, he would be wise to refrain. He seems too eager to oust people who have more support than he does.

The time has come to cool the fury in Parliament, to ease the pressure on Martin to resort to seedy vote buying, and to let him deliver on his many promises, including ethical promises. Martin has vowed, for example, to bring in tough, transparent rules for advertising contracts. While important steps have been taken, Gomery suggested this week more must be done. Martin should follow up.

Harper, too, can make good use of the coming months to hold Martin to account for clean, competent government, and to reposition his Tories as a credible, moderate alternative.

Canadians were repelled by sponsorship wrongdoing. Liberals are still paying a price. But the Tories alienated some federalists by teaming up with the separatist Bloc Québécois to make Parliament unworkable, and to deny Canadians a budget that does well by cities, Atlantic Canada, child care, affordable housing, higher education and the environment.

And while Martin's manoeuvring to retain power wasn't a pretty sight, it was Harper who triggered the unsavoury bidding war. He pushed for a non-confidence vote the moment his party edged up in the polls. And he rejected Martin's offer to buy peace in Parliament by promising an election once Gomery reports.

The Conservative leader now finds himself today back where he would have been, had he accepted that offer. Only weaker.

Belinda Stronach defected to the Liberals, dealing Harper a devastating blow. Stronach brought the Tories credibility in Ontario, where they must do far better to form a government. Her defection suggests Harper does not understand Central Canada, cannot keep moderates in the party and is too willing to make deals with separatists. All this has rekindled concern about the Tories' fitness to govern.

Harper must try to reverse this damage before Gomery reports. He can begin by accepting a truce and letting Parliament get on with its work.

[Argus]

Canada has lots of political alternatives to the Liberals  but it seems that fewer and fewer Canadians want Harper and the snake oil that he is selling.

It must really gall you, then, that no matter who is the leader on the right, no matter what mistakes they make, no matter how frenzied the fearmongering is from the media and the lunatic left the people STILL prefer him to the NDP.

And always will.

[Argus]

The beginning of the end for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper came when he summoned Belinda Stronach to his office a bit more than a week ago and read her the riot act.

Losing Stronach can hardly be seen as Harper's fault. It was not any chastisement from Harper that led to her jumping, it was the situation she found herself in, where she could get a major payoff for her betrayal - much as Scott Brison did. From a nobody back bencher of no accomplishment to a major cabinet minister. Bang. Just like that. Hell, the fastest way for mediocre people to reach the top of the Liberal cabinet these days seems to be to become Tories and then defect!

In reality, Stronach was an opportunist the moment she entered the Tory leadership race. From all accounts I've heard she really has NO conservative beliefs, social or fiscal. The leadership was open, and she saw an opportunity to take it and become Prime Minister. But in all aspects of her political beliefs, so far as I can see, she is a small-l liberal. So now she is in the party where she can be most comfortable, and has the big office with the big desk and the big car which make her feel important. That she is a person of little substance or accomplishment won't exactly set her apart from most of the rest of her cabinet colleagues or her prime minister.

Harper's parting shot was probably the best. Stronach said Harper didn't understand how complex Canada was. Harper responded that he had never noticed complexity to be Stronach's strong point. Very nice.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Harper by far has the most integrity of any of the leaders.

The evidence suggests differently. Harper has promulgated more blatant falsehoods than either Martin or Layton. And Duceppe confines his lies to promoting separatism.

Why do people think he's mean spirited

People see rightwing ideology as mean spirited. Harper is a rightwing idealogue.

or has a 'secret agenda'?

Poorly disguised, not 'secret'.

Because the Liberals, who have a proven track record of being pathological liars, said so.

Where is this proof?

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is really too bad that Canadians are so liberalised by the media that they have let themselves be coerced into believing he is an American focused cowboy.

Is there no limit to the utter nonsense the Right will propound? Harper's own positions and comments during the Iraq lead-up were all that were needed to establish this. No media spin was needed.

Couldn't be further from the truth. I feel that the only weakness in his leadership comes from his principled nature not to strike back with equal lies about the liberals.

Can you demonstrate EVEN ONE lie the Liberals have told about Harper?

Thats truly the sad state of it all, people love the liberals and they are obviously (and I'd love to see anyone counter this) corrupt and criminal.

I think you're lying.

[bigdude]

This most certainly is NOT going to do Harper any good:

Belinda Stronach is the coverwoman for Time magazine this week!

[Argus]

This most certainly is NOT going to do Harper any good:

Belinda Stronach is the coverwoman for Time magazine this week!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You meant to say "covergirl" didn't you? Go on. Admit it.

Stronach has great appeal to the shallow.

She is one of them, after all.