Selling Harper? Thanks But No Thanks

[THELIBERAL]

This guy has been on the scene for how long now and the Conservatives think Canadians don't really know the man?

Isn't that stating they think Canadians are stupid?

I've never seen so many idiots occupying the opposition seats in our parliament!

HINT: The truth is Harper is a dud. Why are Conservatives so slow in realizing this fact?

Could you just imagine this bunch running the country and trying to make decisions! It took them how long to figure out they had to do a ""selling job"" on Harper?

Amasing it really is amasing!

[Newfie Canadian]

Isn't that stating they think Canadians are stupid?

Hardly, and this is where you've got to give the Liberal party machine some credit. They've done a good job of portraying Harper in a negative way (whether they are right or wrong I'm not saying). They sensed that Canadians were dubious of Harper and yes, even a little afraid of what he may do as PM and they jumped on it, especially at the right times.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Conservative's problems are not really centred on Stephen Harper's personality. Recent Conservative leaders' deficiencies have been symptoms of their party's infirmity rather tahn causes of it. Stockwell day was a ridiculous candidate for PM, but don't blame him. Ask instead who chose him and why.

Harper will be made to wear the coming defeat, but he didn't fail because he can't tell a joke. He failed because his party's choices are consistently shot thru with basically flawed worldviews.

This problem leads to things that look sometimes like strategic mistakes. And sometimes they are, but no planners can make a decent strategy when they don't let themselves acknowledge the nature of the terrain.

[Argus]

This guy has been on the scene for how long now and the Conservatives think Canadians don't really know the man?

Isn't that stating they think Canadians are stupid?

I've never seen so many idiots occupying the opposition seats in our parliament!

HINT: The truth is Harper is a dud. Why are Conservatives so slow in realizing this fact?

Could you just imagine this bunch running the country and trying to make decisions! It took them how long to figure out they had to do a ""selling job"" on Harper?

Amasing it really is amasing! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm curious. Are you a volunteer or do you get paid to post this dull-witted propaganda?

[Argus]

The Conservative's problems are not really centred on Stephen Harper's personality.  Recent Conservative leaders' deficiencies have been symptoms of their party's infirmity rather tahn causes of it.  Stockwell day was a ridiculous candidate for PM, but don't blame him.  Ask instead who chose him and why.

Would Day have done a better or worse job than the clown the Liberals chose - Jean Chretien? I think he was more intelligent than Chretien (almost anyone would have been), but didn't have his sly, weasily political smarts.

Harper will be made to wear the coming defeat, but he didn't fail because he can't tell a joke.  He failed because his party's choices are consistently shot thru with basically flawed worldviews.

Nonsense. People make these kinds of sweeping statements all the time, but try to pin them down to specifics and they sputter about things like gay marriage and abortion. But the Tories don't have any real policy on abortion, exept to have nothing to do with it, and their policy on SSM is supported by the majority of the electorate. So what world view do you suggest the tories are lacking? Their desire for lower taxes? Their desire to fix the broken health care system?

The problem with Harper is perception, and nothing more. He is smarter than Martin, but he isn't seen as personable. And I've said before, in the television age, politics are generally very shallow. Sound happy, make upbeat statements, and people will like you. Frown and look grumpy and people will be turned off. Why do you think Chretien, a vicious, cutthroat politician if ever there was one, was always cracking jokes? Because he was such a good natured fellow?

Take all of the present tory policies and have the front man be someone who is seen as pleasant, aka, Belinda Stronach, and the tories popularity will rocket upwards. The only problem with stronach was she was so shallow and lacking in media ability that her dumbness would quickly have been exposed in any kind of extended spotlight. If it weren't for that, though, she could hae won the leadership and would have led them to a majority government last election.

With the same platform, the same policies, the same team.

[Cartman]

I do not find Harper particularly charismatic, but I certainly do not think he is entirely to blame for his current situation. He had no choice but to demand non-confidence votes and he probably knew this was not the best time to call them, all things considered. Had he chosen not to call the votes, he would have looked weak and ineffective in the eyes of his party. Even worse, had he actually won one of these votes, he knew Liberal support was still too strong to gain a majority for his party. With a minority government, who could he rely upon to make government work? Would the Bloc be an ally? I doubt the NDP would be very supportive of much legislation. The Liberals would also not be particularly helpful. This was an impossible situation and he probably was somewhat happy with the result.

Perhaps Harper is not the greatest leader, but he is not the most serious problem Conservatives face. The problem is that Canadians are simply not yet willing to embrace the direction they suspect the Conservatives want to take. And please, let us avoid the excuse that the Liberals have some sort of all-powerful, mysterious, brain-washing, fear mongering machine that the other parties cannot get their hands on.

[THELIBERAL]

RE::I'm curious. Are you a volunteer or do you get paid to post this dull-witted propaganda?

No I just support the Liberals over the alternative.

I could ask you the same question because of YOUR Conservative ranting but I'll be a gentleman and not bother!

[JerrySeinfeld]

RE::I'm curious. Are you a volunteer or do you get paid to post this dull-witted propaganda?

No I just support the Liberals over the alternative.

I could ask you the same question because of YOUR Conservative ranting but I'll be a gentleman and not bother!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Harper is an Academic.

In their very fabric, academics have great ideas with little people skills!

Canadians are much more comfortable with theifs and liars at the helm.

And somehow, and honest academic is "scary". Go figure.

[cybercoma]

This guy has been on the scene for how long now and the Conservatives think Canadians don't really know the man?

Isn't that stating they think Canadians are stupid?

I've never seen so many idiots occupying the opposition seats in our parliament!

HINT: The truth is Harper is a dud. Why are Conservatives so slow in realizing this fact?

Could you just imagine this bunch running the country and trying to make decisions! It took them how long to figure out they had to do a ""selling job"" on Harper?

Amasing it really is amasing! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The truth is Paul Martin exemplifies the Peter Principle.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Canadians are much more comfortable with theifs ...

That's a false and digraceful accusation.

[Sir Chauncy]

Reform was slowly making progress in Ontario under their original leader and party former. Then they dropped him like a hot potatoe and put that moron Day in his place. That killed them in Ontario.

Harper isnt much better then Day was so Ontario gains are limited under him.

Any party needs to get a goodly number of Ontario seats if they want the power in Canada. That isnt bragging, it is common sense of population. They wont gain those seats with Harper, period.

Changing the party name every couple of years simply shows how simple minded the elite of the party is in thinking that idiotic move will gain them votes,as if people forget overnight.

Now they swallowed up the old PC party and become one as Conservative party, but with that no sell Harper as leader.

Too much religion in the party that frightens people off here.

They need a strong, non religious leader who can show he cares about National issues, issues affecting everyone. They cannot continue to be a Western party and hope the central and East simply votes them in because we want change.

We do want change, but change that we trust, that is good for all of us and not just the West. That party does not give us that feeling and probably their leaders have no idea how to do that.

Too bad really, because I used to like the original party. I sat in on their first meetings when they were trying to form in Ontario from the west and I supported them big time back then. But their first leader was their greatest asset then. They threw their best asset out, and that made me and lots of others her misstrust them completely after that.

Sir Chauncy

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Conservative's problems are not really centred on Stephen Harper's personality.   Recent Conservative leaders' deficiencies have been symptoms of their party's infirmity rather tahn causes of it.  Stockwell day was a ridiculous candidate for PM, but don't blame him.  Ask instead who chose him and why.

Would Day have done a better or worse job than the clown the Liberals chose - Jean Chretien?

Our question demonstrates exactly what I'm saying -- You're missing the point. Day DID do worse... he failed.

But he also had no hope of succeeding, so how did Cons ever get the idea he could? Answer: flawed worldview.

The problem with Harper is perception, and nothing more.

There you go again. Deny deny deny.

[Argus]

Reform was slowly making progress in Ontario under their original leader and party former. Then they dropped him like a hot potatoe and put that moron Day in his place. That killed them in Ontario.

Harper isnt much better then Day was so Ontario gains are limited under him.

People have short memories. Manning might be looked back on now as a semi-respected elder statesman, but when he was leader he was reviled by the Ontario media in the same way Day and Harper were and are reviled; as a western bumpkin, a religious fanatic, and a leader of a party full of hatemongers.

Too much religion in the party that frightens people off here.

What you mean is that there are some members who are religious and who embrace conservative social issues. Any small-c conserative party would have the same feature.

We do want change, but change that we trust, that is good for all of us and not just the West.

Funny. We've had leaders who only cared about what was good for Quebec for the last forty years, and that does'nt seem to bother many people. What exactly is it you think Harper is pushing which is good for the West and bad for the rest of the country?

[Argus]

The Conservative's problems are not really centred on Stephen Harper's personality.   Recent Conservative leaders' deficiencies have been symptoms of their party's infirmity rather tahn causes of it.  Stockwell day was a ridiculous candidate for PM, but don't blame him.  Ask instead who chose him and why.

Would Day have done a better or worse job than the clown the Liberals chose - Jean Chretien?

Our question demonstrates exactly what I'm saying -- You're missing the point. Day DID do worse... he failed.

If you consider that the only job a party leader has is to get elected you are quite correct. If you believe that a party leader, once succesfully elected to government has a duty to lead the country in a wise and responsible - and honest way, then Chretien failed utterly.

But he also had no hope of succeeding, so how did Cons ever get the idea he could?  Answer:  flawed worldview.

Why do you believe he had no hope of succeeding? He had his flaws, but since the country saw no problem voting for an incompetent, barely literate liar and thief who's to say they wouldn't have embraced Day?

The problem with Harper is perception, and nothing more.

There you go again. Deny deny deny.

Perhaps you could point to what other flaws he has, other than the obvious for you; conservative beliefs.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why do you believe he had no hope of succeeding?

You want me to recite all of Stock's faults here again? Just look at the record.

He had his flaws, but since the country saw no problem voting for an incompetent, barely literate liar and thief who's to say they wouldn't have embraced Day?

Cretien was not incompetent, nor barely literate, and the evidence of thievery didn't come to the public's attention until later.

The polls say they wouldn't embrace Day.

The problem with Harper is perception, and nothing more.

There you go again. Deny deny deny.

Perhaps you could point to what other flaws he has, other than the obvious for you; conservative beliefs.

My point (which you insist on blinding yourself to) is that to keep on losing, Harper doesn't need any other flaws than the attitudes, perspectives, and beliefs that he and his party represent.

[mona]

True True! harper is a big dud. Why they voted that weenie in i will never know. He isn't a strong leader. He is very inarticulate and gives the impression of a canadian George W. Bush. Need I say more?

[kimmy]

A Canadian Dubya?

In terms of politics, Harper might be "right" by Canadian standards, but he's a liberal compared to his US counterparts.

In terms of speaking ability, Harper is certainly not inarticulate. If anything, his problem is that he's too far to the opposite extreme from Dubya. He's too composed, too icy, too calculated, too precise. He seems to lack passion.

Dubya was certainly exposed as an inept debater in the 2004 election, but as a speaker he is actually quite effective-- goofy malapropisms and all. Bush's inept turn of a phrase added to a sort of "regular folks" type appeal that a lot of voters connect with, and Bush can bring an emotional aspect to his performance that's so convincing you'd almost swear he's sincere. Harper has none of that ability.

Bush's strength as a speaker is something that Canadians should be able to relate to. We don't like polished, precise, almost robotic speakers like Harper or John Kerry. We like folksy regular-guy types like Dubya and Ralph Klein and Jean Chretien. Surely there can't have been a more inarticulate political figure in our country's history than Jean Chretien... he wasn't just inarticulate, he was practically incomprehensible. And yet, he was quite popular for a long time. Why? Because he came across like a regular guy, somebody you could relate to. Perhaps even your neighbor... (if your neighbor had suffered some kind of massive head injury, at least).

-k

[Sir Chauncy]

If Western Canada wants more voice through the Conservative party in Ottawa they need a leader for the party Ontario will embrace.

Ontario has embraced Westerners before, re: Diefenbaker and Clark. Dief has always been my favorite PM.

Instead of whining about things, common sense should dictate that any leader not accepted by Central Canada should be dumped until one is found we will accept and are willing to vote for.

Harper nor Day sure are/were not that person.

Instead of loyalty to one man, try loyalty to your political needs and be willing to "fire" those in power who dont suit them, like Harper. He is unable to gain that power in Ottawa so get a new leader, period.

In racing you dont keep running a horse who loses continually. You try another horse.

Owl

[Cartman]

Bush's strength as a speaker is something that Canadians should be able to relate to. We don't like polished, precise, almost robotic speakers like Harper or John Kerry. We like folksy regular-guy types like Dubya and Ralph Klein and Jean Chretien.

I dunno. What about Trudeau? Was he not polished and precise? Would you consider Mulroney "a regular guy"? Is McGuinty folksy? What about Campbell, Filmon and Doer?

[Guest eureka]

Should all leaders practise saying "it's hard work; we are working hard" then? Is that the litmus test for leadership?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Canadians are much more comfortable with theifs ...

That's a false and digraceful accusation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you been watching Gomery? Yet still the Libs top the polls. Explain that to me. Obviously Canadians would rather elect a theif than an honest politician.

[kimmy]

Should all leaders practise saying "it's hard work; we are working hard" then? Is that the litmus test for leadership?

I think we were talking about stage presence and personality, not a litmus test of leadership. As much as it might be nice to say that the two have nothing to do with each other, I think we're all realistic enough to recognize that stage presence and personality are factors in politics in our age of television and radio.

I dunno. What about Trudeau? Was he not polished and precise? Would you consider Mulroney "a regular guy"? Is McGuinty folksy? What about Campbell, Filmon and Doer?

Trudeau and Mulroney, from what I've seen from old footage, had tremendous amounts of charm. I can't say anything at all about McGuinty; I couldn't even pick him out of a police lineup. Ditto Filmon, Doer, and Campbell (any of them.)

If you don't have the charm of a Trudeau or Mulroney, "reg'ler folks" appeal in the style of Bush Jr or Klein or Chretien seems to work a lot better than Harper's clone/droid syndrome, or Day's fake youth and energy. I think Paul Martin has also had success despite his public persona, not because of it.

-kimmy

[Sir Chauncy]

Have you been watching Gomery? Yet still the Libs top the polls. Explain that to me. Obviously Canadians would rather elect a theif than an honest politician.

_________________

If you are comparing Libs to Harper the Harper image is that of a Bush/Washington azz kisser.

We centrists and I suspect the East Coast dont trust Harper nor Conservatives under him to protect Canadas future against American takeover.

If he were elected as PM I would be sore afraid that Canada simply wouldnt exist as a soverign Country much longer. He would "give" everything away to American interests.

I may be wrong, but I sure dont intend to cast a vote for him to find out the hard way I am not wrong.

Liberals are crooks, yes, but better the crook then the sellout. At least under the crooks we still have a country.

Canada needs political reforms badly, and a system inplaced to force honesty in politics.

Owl

[Sir Chauncy]

I think Paul Martin has also had success despite his public persona, not because of it.

_________________________

People were hearing about the theft and still voted Martin in. That should tell all that needs telling about Harpers chances in Central Canada, about the misstrust we hold for him.

It also says heaps about Canadians limited view on partys of choice and how badly they ignore "other" choices like the NDP.

Only one real choice existed during the election, to re-elect the known crooks.

That is a sad sad commentary about our country.

Owl

[The Terrible Sweal]

Canadians are much more comfortable with theifs ...

That's a false and digraceful accusation.

Have you been watching Gomery? Yet still the Libs top the polls. Explain that to me. Obviously Canadians would rather elect a theif than an honest politician.

Repeating vicious, unsupported character assassination is part of wha blew it for Harper a few weeks ago. And yet you carry on the same way here. Tsk.

The answer to your question is that the evidence of wrongdoing does not substantially touch on the government leaders we haein office NOW. In short, voters don't (or didn't) see a thief when they were voting. And they see that calling someone a thief without foundation is the behaviour of a scoundrel.