Would you vote CPC?

Argus · July 3, 2005

Exactly, when you are the Prime Minister of Canada you have to be a brilliant tactician, you need to either make no mistakes, or minimize the damage of those mistakes

Depends how. Chretien made many mistakes. His way of "minimizing" them was to never admit it. No matter what he did, no matter what his ministers did, he and his pet "ethics councillor" found nothing objectionable about their conduct and simply stonewalled all calls for resignations, punishments, inquiries, etc. That is not a particularly appealing tactic, nor healthy for democracy and political responsibility. Even today Chretien refuses to take responsibility for any errors or anything which went wrong during his tenure as Prime Minister.

because Canada, due to it's small population is always teetering on the brink of obscurity.

And why would that matter except to your pride? In point of fact Canada is already pretty much a non-entity on the world stage. We take no chances, we blather on about principals, but don't observe them. We strut around like the world's great peacekeeper but we have no military to back it up and are actually something like the 27th best when it comes to supplying the UN with peackeepers. We talk about helping other countries but sock our money away into ad agencies and Liberal Party payola schemes instead.

Quite Simply Canada would either be completely irrelivant, or a "yes man" for the United States of Dubya were Harper to become Prime Minister.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Having influence with the United States would be better than the complete irrelevence we have now. Who do we have influence with? No one. No one cares what we think or what we want or what we do. Not the US, not NATO, Not the UN, not the Asians, nobody. There was a time when, prior to the G8 summits, you would see other national leaders stopping by to see Mulroney to try and make their opinions known in hopes he would pass it in. Nobody bothers now because the only reason Canada has no influence with the other G8 members. Chretien reduced our foreign policy to corporate shilling and pompous moralizing. The only reason we're still in the G8 is the others think it would be rude to kick us out.

Argus · July 3, 2005

Harper may have a lot of anger at the Liberals. More importantly, from my observation of him, is that he is a seething cauldron of repressed anger. Harper is angry at everthing and everone that does not follow his illogic.
He has no leadership skills and is a tyrant in waiting. I wonder what some in his party really think of him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is so much twaddle, with no substance or basis. Jean Chretien was long known as a cold and vengeful man who never forgot a slight and would use any lever of power at his disposal to punish his enemies. That included having the RCMP hound the former Business Development Bank head with raids and trying to smear him in the press - among other things. He also used his influence to let his rapist son out of prison on two occasions. By all accounts Paul Martin Junior is of a similar mentality, and was long known among his staffers for red-faced screaming rages when something displeased him, rages which would end with his subordinate's face wet with spittle from Martin screaming in his face. Nice guy.

But you don't care about that of course.

Argus · July 3, 2005

I will admit it is a pain in the ass when governments collect taxes for one thing and then spend it on another, like here in N.S. the Tories brought in Gas taxes saying the money would go to roads first. Word of advice, if your driving down to Nova Scotia make sure you have good shocks on your car. Otherwise you'll be bouncing around like a plate of jellow in an 9.4 earthquake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's nothing. Dalton McGuinty not only promised not to raise taxes he signed a document, flourishing the pen before the cameras, promising not to raise taxes without first calling a referendum. He ran his whole campaign on the slogan "I won't raise your taxes, but I won't lower them either". Then he introduced an enormous new health care premium, ignoring his written promise. He promised every cent of it would go to health care. Guess what? It isn't.

Liberals. You can't ever trust them.

Argus · July 3, 2005

If the Liberals had not bribed Belinda to cross the floor, Harper in all likelihood would now head a minority government - and people would say Harper is a smart tactician.

First of all, she wasn't bribed she came to them

Of course. And they immediately recognized that this high school graudate and fashion plate with virtually no political experience would be ideal to run one of the country's largest ministries and take over remaking corporate accountability. Uhmm.... okay.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. After all, it's not like intelligence, education, experience or knowledge are important criteria when consideration is given to cabinet posts in Liberal governments. Belinda does have a pretty face, after all. What more could be needed?

cybercoma · July 3, 2005

I'm angry about it too, the difference is I UNDERSTAND it wasn't the whole Liberal party who did it. I'm not into this whole "Guilt by association" thing the Conservatives are throwing around, otherwise I'd believe all Americans are idiots because Dubya is an idiot, I know that's not true, and I feel for the poor Liberals down in the States who have to see their country be destroyed by the far right, and prey to God each and every day it doesn't happen here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your arguments are so ignorant it's difficult to even post a serious reply to you. The kickbacks were used as campaign funds and deposited into the bank accounts of friends and families all the way up every rung of the Liberal ladder. This game of "it was only a few rogue MPs involved" is about as asinine as saying the mob boss is innocent because he didn't pull the trigger or organize the activities of the mafia. Like the Teflon Don, I expect Chretien and Martin to get off smelling like roses after this entire thing pans out too.

Your comparison to the president of a country's intelligent being an indicator of the intelligence of ALL americans is plainly stupid and has no parrallel to the situation we're talking about. And to even suggest that the Conservative Party is anything even remotely resembling the Republican Party in the United States is equally asinine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, since you're obviously living in the land of make believe I'll send you a copy of Mr. Rogers on DVD. Lets wait until Gomery issues his report and then we'll find out who's really responsible, and if you had bothered to read my post you would know I was saying I DIDN'T D-I-D-N-'-T think everyone in the states was an idiot because Bush is their President. And like it or not pal your party is exactly like the Republicans, the only difference is the Bush Administration comes right out and tells you how ignorant they are, the Conservatives are trying to hide it to obtain power and then we'll all know and be repulsed by how many simularities there are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just stop with the ridiculous trolling bud. We've all seen the trial and read the newspapers, unless you were living under a rock.

I'm well aware you weren't saying that about americans; however, you were implying that that's what my opinion of the Liberal scandal is like. I was referring to that comparison as being completely idiotic, since the liberal scandal and your defense of it is more like the mafia. If I were to go by your comparison, I'd think all Canadians were ok with stealing taxpayers money. Actually, when I look at the new budget (The Jack Layton Amendment) it would appear that I'm not very far off the mark.

And how is the Conservative Party "my party"? Have I come out and said that I vote Conservative in the elections? If I did, then I'm a liar because I've never voted for the conservative candidate in my riding, he's a complete fool whom I wouldn't piss on if he were on fire.

Argus · July 3, 2005

Harper may have a lot of anger at the Liberals. More importantly, from my observation of him, is that he is a seething cauldron of repressed anger. Harper is angry at everthing and everone that does not follow his illogic.
He has no leadership skills and is a tyrant in waiting. I wonder what some in his party really think of him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In another thread you say you're objective, then in this post you toss around labels like "tyrant" as if it's an undeniable truth. Harper is angry that the Canadian public is giving their money to criminals that are squandering it for their own personal benefit. That should make more than just Stephen Harper angry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm angry about it too, the difference is I UNDERSTAND it wasn't the whole Liberal party who did it.

Just the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, most cabinet ministers, every Quebec MP, and probably the entire non-elected senior leadershp of the Liberal Party.

Or maybe Martin and the Quebec MPs and cabinet ministers were just complete blithering imbeciles who had no clue about what was going on in their party all those years.

Argus · July 3, 2005

And like it or not pal your party is exactly like the Republicans, the only difference is the Bush Administration comes right out and tells you how ignorant they are, the Conservatives are trying to hide it to obtain power and then we'll all know and be repulsed by how many simularities there are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is what flatulence looks like in writing, I suppose.

The comparisons I often see to the US Republican party is done either out of sheer malice or total ignorance. Just as Canada as a whole is to the left of the US as a whole, so too is Canada's conservative party considerably to the left of the US conservative party. In some respects the Tories are actually to the left of the US Democratic party. Certainly they have more in common with centrist Democrats than the US Republican party.

cybercoma · July 3, 2005

I will admit it is a pain in the ass when governments collect taxes for one thing and then spend it on another, like here in N.S. the Tories brought in Gas taxes saying the money would go to roads first. Word of advice, if your driving down to Nova Scotia make sure you have good shocks on your car. Otherwise you'll be bouncing around like a plate of jellow in an 9.4 earthquake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's nothing. Dalton McGuinty not only promised not to raise taxes he signed a document, flourishing the pen before the cameras, promising not to raise taxes without first calling a referendum. He ran his whole campaign on the slogan "I won't raise your taxes, but I won't lower them either". Then he introduced an enormous new health care premium, ignoring his written promise. He promised every cent of it would go to health care. Guess what? It isn't.

Liberals. You can't ever trust them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please Argus, don't leave out the best part. He pulled OHIP coverage from some of the most basic services people use, like eye exams. So not only did he raise taxes (to the tune of damn near $100/month for some people) he also reduced services.

kimmy · July 3, 2005

Exactly, when you are the Prime Minister of Canada you have to be a brilliant tactician, you need to either make no mistakes, or minimize the damage of those mistakes because Canada, due to it's small population is always teetering on the brink of obscurity. Quite Simply Canada would either be completely irrelivant, or a "yes man" for the United States of Dubya were Harper to become Prime Minister.

"Brilliant tactician"? Paul Martin? I keep trying to encourage PMPM boosters to give me some examples of this brilliance in action, and have seen precious little in the way of evidence presented.

First of all, she wasn't bribed she came to them and as a member of the shadow cabinet was placed in an equal position on the other side, secondly it was Harpers own idiocy that CAUSED her to leave in the first place.

Let's keep in mind that Stronach's shadow cabinet area was international trade critic, not human resources development. Let's also keep in mind that Lucienne Robillard has more years of experience in public service than Belinda Stronach has years on Planet Earth. Do you really feel that Stronach's qualifications, cabinet shadow or not, were comparable to Robillard's? And if not, do you think that there might have been some other motive for Martin to boot one of his veteran MPs from such a prominent position to make way for an inexperienced newcomer?

-k

Riverwind · July 3, 2005

Let's keep in mind that Stronach's shadow cabinet area was international trade critic, not human resources development. Let's also keep in mind that Lucienne Robillard has more years of experience in public service than Belinda Stronach has years on Planet Earth. Do you really feel that Stronach's qualifications, cabinet shadow or not, were comparable to Robillard's? And if not, do you think that there might have been some other motive for Martin to boot one of his veteran MPs from such a prominent position to make way for an inexperienced newcomer?

When have qualifications ever been a issue when it comes to appointing cabinet ministers? Cabinets are always an exercise in political posturing that follow quite strict rules regarding regional representation - even if the talent pool from the region in question is pretty weak. Putting Belinda in a senior position is a politically useful move because be theoretically 'represented' a group of Tory voters that the Liberals want to attract. I also find the argument that she was 'bought' to be partisan sour grapes because there was still a real possibility that the Liberals would go down to defeat and she would end her political career. If anything, Stronach deserves credit for making such a risky move - which suggests that reward could not have been her primary motivation.

August1991 · July 3, 2005

Putting Belinda in a senior position is a politically useful move because be theoretically 'represented' a group of Tory voters that the Liberals want to attract.

Putting Belinda in Cabinet saved this minority government. Point final. Harper should have defeated Martin's government in April but he didn't because Belinda crossed the floor and Cadman voted Liberal. Apparently, Harper lost. Really?

I have read through this thread and it is really a practical examination of Stephen Harper's abilities as a politician, as perceived very critically by English-speaking Canadians.

Since IMV Canadian politics are at a critical stage now, there is something far more important at stake. My question is: "Who speaks for English-Canada?"

I think Stephen Harper is a good, honest, WASP English Canadian. For the future, English Canada doesn't need a good lawyer, it needs a typical English Canadian. ROC needs a good spokesman.

July 3, 2005

You may find some volunteers for that job in Baghdad!

Fortunata · July 4, 2005

Stephen Harper is a good, honest, WASP English Canadian

Oh puleese. He is no more honest than any other; he is an opportunist (as are they all) and a hypocrite to boot. He hasn't been caught with his hand in the cookie jar because he hasn't had a chance to yet.

Example: An honest, ethical man would not accuse one party or another person of "buying" votes, when that same man offered an MP an uncontested riding if only he would vote his way.

What a joke.

Argus · July 5, 2005

Stephen Harper is a good, honest, WASP English Canadian

Oh puleese. He is no more honest than any other; he is an opportunist (as are they all) and a hypocrite to boot. He hasn't been caught with his hand in the cookie jar because he hasn't had a chance to yet.

Example: An honest, ethical man would not accuse one party or another person of "buying" votes, when that same man offered an MP an uncontested riding if only he would vote his way.

What a joke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find it a joke that you would think accusing the Liberals of vote buying was wrong when they've added billions and billions worth of promises to their previous budget since their government became jeapordised.

Offering MPs smooth passage to nominations, or even offering non MPs a guaranteed riding nomination to convince them to run for your party is an internal party matter, and one done by all parties. Using my money to convince me to vote for you is vote buying.

Now what's the word for taking packets of bribe money from people in exchange for government contracts which accomplish nothing? Oh yes, Bribery. And what's the term for selling judgeships in exchange for getting free legal services? Judicial corruption, perhaps? And what's the name for getting your campaign workers put on the payroll of companies - under the table - and getting free printing services, etc. from companies? Election Fraud.

Glad to help you with your vocabulary.

Fortunata · July 5, 2005

Yep, it's OK if the COnservatives do it but not ok if anyone else does it.

Just for your information, Argus, I don't think corruption is good in any form be it by Liberal, Conservative or whoever. I just don't happen to think that the Cons are any more ethical than the Liberals that's all. And Harper is of the same political stripe as any other politician that has the want of power. Self serving.

Hawk · July 5, 2005

Yep, it's OK if the COnservatives do it but not ok if anyone else does it.
Just for your information, Argus, I don't think corruption is good in any form be it by Liberal, Conservative or whoever. I just don't happen to think that the Cons are any more ethical than the Liberals that's all. And Harper is of the same political stripe as any other politician that has the want of power. Self serving.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just went in a total circle, you say you dont think corruption is good but you support a proven corrupt deity rather than allow another not-yet-proven-one-way-or-the-other deity into power.

Sorry, but your argument doesn't fly. You are just paranoid of anything right of center, like a typical socialist.

Hawk · July 5, 2005

Harper drove Belinda from the CPC. A huge error on his part in more ways than one. Not a good leadership move.

Martin bought Belinda, and she was more than willing to go. She cared more about her personal career than representing her riding, she deserves every nasty word or bad publicity that gets thrown her way.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with leadership.

See, thats the thing about the CPC. They portray themselves as the honourable, ethical, honest party when so much of what they do and have done show the exact opposite. If they didn't sit under their halos looking down at everybody it wouldn't matter that they act just like any other politician (or party) but they do. Can they not see they do as they accuse others of doing? It makes them look like extreme hypocrites.

Refer to my earlier post on media portrayals, and how they oftentimes are wrong =p As for doing as they accuse others of doing, explain how exactly they could be responsible for the scandals and money-laundering they are currently accusing the Liberals of?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I've seen Stephen Harper doing a lot of work for Calgary West since he's been making wild stabs at power. I wonder if he's even been to his riding since he's been elected. And since we're on the subject of buying Harper bought MacKay, he was more than willing to sell and only wanted to be part of a larger party and someday be it's leader.

Of Course media portrayls are sometimes wrong, I mean Hell we can't have all Liberal media! The Conservatives wouldn't be able to launch massive misinformation campaigns! Where would the fun in that be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Harper should certainly be around his riding more... it seems he is never there, always trying to get votes in the East. Its sad that any political party HAS to be center or left-wing just to survive in Eastern Canada, it completely alienates the rest of the country. I personally am not nearly so supportive of the current CPC as I was when Day was running it, simply becase Day had balls.

Add to that the fact Harper is slowly but surely going to simply turn the CPC into the next Liberal party, they can't win without being at least centrist. When that happens they wont be the right-wing alternative anymore.

As for media bias for the Cons, agreed it exists out West but unfortunately that makes no difference in elections =) Not to mention our media outlets are primarily privately owned and operated, not funded by the ruling dictator.

Leader Circle · July 5, 2005

Harper drove Belinda from the CPC. A huge error on his part in more ways than one. Not a good leadership move.

Martin bought Belinda, and she was more than willing to go. She cared more about her personal career than representing her riding, she deserves every nasty word or bad publicity that gets thrown her way.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with leadership.

See, thats the thing about the CPC. They portray themselves as the honourable, ethical, honest party when so much of what they do and have done show the exact opposite. If they didn't sit under their halos looking down at everybody it wouldn't matter that they act just like any other politician (or party) but they do. Can they not see they do as they accuse others of doing? It makes them look like extreme hypocrites.

Refer to my earlier post on media portrayals, and how they oftentimes are wrong =p As for doing as they accuse others of doing, explain how exactly they could be responsible for the scandals and money-laundering they are currently accusing the Liberals of?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I've seen Stephen Harper doing a lot of work for Calgary West since he's been making wild stabs at power. I wonder if he's even been to his riding since he's been elected. And since we're on the subject of buying Harper bought MacKay, he was more than willing to sell and only wanted to be part of a larger party and someday be it's leader.

Of Course media portrayls are sometimes wrong, I mean Hell we can't have all Liberal media! The Conservatives wouldn't be able to launch massive misinformation campaigns! Where would the fun in that be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Harper should certainly be around his riding more... it seems he is never there, always trying to get votes in the East. Its sad that any political party HAS to be center or left-wing just to survive in Eastern Canada, it completely alienates the rest of the country. I personally am not nearly so supportive of the current CPC as I was when Day was running it, simply becase Day had balls.

Add to that the fact Harper is slowly but surely going to simply turn the CPC into the next Liberal party, they can't win without being at least centrist. When that happens they wont be the right-wing alternative anymore.

As for media bias for the Cons, agreed it exists out West but unfortunately that makes no difference in elections =) Not to mention our media outlets are primarily privately owned and operated, not funded by the ruling dictator.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right Hawk! The CPC will lean towards the center to gain support from Ontario. As leader of the CPC, he doesn't spend much time in Calgary, but most westerners understand that to win an election, it has to be done in Onartio!

The reason most of Ontario still supports the Libranos is that they are afraid that Harper is only pretending to be centrist until he gets elected! Also, the Libs have painted him to be such a Hitler clone, that his own mother couldn't trust the man they portray.

Cartman · July 5, 2005

With such a blatantly biased Liberal media in Canada, how did Mulroney ever get elected twice?

August1991 · July 5, 2005

With such a blatantly biased Liberal media in Canada, how did Mulroney ever get elected twice?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pierre Trudeau, and Mulroney spoke colloquial French.

Argus · July 5, 2005

Yep, it's OK if the COnservatives do it but not ok if anyone else does it.

Did I say that? Did I even hint that? Are you arguing with some other argus?

Just for your information, Argus, I don't think corruption is good in any form be it by Liberal, Conservative or whoever. I just don't happen to think that the Cons are any more ethical than the Liberals that's all.

Because....... ?

And Harper is of the same political stripe as any other politician that has the want of power. Self serving.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So all politicians are the same, so there's nothing wrong with supporting a party which is obviously made up of liars, cheats, thieves and mafios? Except not all parties are the same. And what you're saying amounts to "All of them are horrible so I don't care." Except you obviously do care or you wouldn't be here. So you can vote for someone who has already stolen from you, or you can vote for someone you suspect might steal from you. And you've chosen the former.

Why?

Riverwind · July 5, 2005

So all politicians are the same, so there's nothing wrong with supporting a party which is obviously made up of liars, cheats, thieves and mafios? Except not all parties are the same. And what you're saying amounts to "All of them are horrible so I don't care." Except you obviously do care or you wouldn't be here. So you can vote for someone who has already stolen from you, or you can vote for someone you suspect might steal from you. And you've chosen the former.
Why?

Argus, you keep trapped getting in to useless CPC argument that goes roughly like 'the liberals are bad so you have to vote for us and if you don't you are stupid'. People who don't want to vote CPC even though the Liberals have proved themselves in need of a serious timeout do not make such a decision lightly. Different people have different reasons but utlimately it comes down to what they believe a Liberal or CPC gov't would do in the future and past bad behavoir, although distasteful, is in the past. The sooner the debate can move onto meaningful policy issues the better.

Fortunata · July 5, 2005

Yep, it's OK if the COnservatives do it but not ok if anyone else does it.

Did I say that? Did I even hint that? Are you arguing with some other argus?

Just for your information, Argus, I don't think corruption is good in any form be it by Liberal, Conservative or whoever. I just don't happen to think that the Cons are any more ethical than the Liberals that's all.

Because....... ?

And Harper is of the same political stripe as any other politician that has the want of power. Self serving.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So all politicians are the same, so there's nothing wrong with supporting a party which is obviously made up of liars, cheats, thieves and mafios? Except not all parties are the same. And what you're saying amounts to "All of them are horrible so I don't care." Except you obviously do care or you wouldn't be here. So you can vote for someone who has already stolen from you, or you can vote for someone you suspect might steal from you. And you've chosen the former.

Why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahem.....you presume to know how I vote? It's too typical of the right-wing CPC supporters that if you are not a mindless Con fan you are automatically cast into the Liberal pool. Altho, I hear that the Lib pool has a (progressive) filter instead of the Con's state of stagnation.

Argus · July 6, 2005

So all politicians are the same, so there's nothing wrong with supporting a party which is obviously made up of liars, cheats, thieves and mafios? Except not all parties are the same. And what you're saying amounts to "All of them are horrible so I don't care." Except you obviously do care or you wouldn't be here. So you can vote for someone who has already stolen from you, or you can vote for someone you suspect might steal from you. And you've chosen the former.
Why?

Argus, you keep trapped getting in to useless CPC argument that goes roughly like 'the liberals are bad so you have to vote for us and if you don't you are stupid'. People who don't want to vote CPC even though the Liberals have proved themselves in need of a serious timeout do not make such a decision lightly.

I disagree. I think it is defeatism, and defeatism is not something people generally put a lot of intellectual effort into.

Different people have different reasons but utlimately it comes down to what they believe a Liberal or CPC gov't would do in the future and past bad behavoir, although distasteful, is in the past. The sooner the debate can move onto meaningful policy issues the better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Past bad behaviour? We're talking about present bad behaviour. As for the "past" bad behaviour, the people who engaged in it are, for the most part, all still senior members of the Liberal Party and government.

Argus · July 6, 2005

So all politicians are the same, so there's nothing wrong with supporting a party which is obviously made up of liars, cheats, thieves and mafios? Except not all parties are the same. And what you're saying amounts to "All of them are horrible so I don't care." Except you obviously do care or you wouldn't be here. So you can vote for someone who has already stolen from you, or you can vote for someone you suspect might steal from you. And you've chosen the former.

Why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahem.....you presume to know how I vote? It's too typical of the right-wing CPC supporters that if you are not a mindless Con fan you are automatically cast into the Liberal pool. Altho, I hear that the Lib pool has a (progressive) filter instead of the Con's state of stagnation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You appeared to be defending the Liberal government. Else why respond as you did? This 'progressive" filter appears to involve finding people who can cheerfully lie through their teeth, have no principals, and will at the very least look the other way as their party steals hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers and hands it out to their friends. This is your idea of progessive?

Seriously. What exactly does this term mean, anyway? I take it to mean "We're better than you!, Na na na na naaa naa!" or something equally mature, usually ladled with heaping portions of self righteous moral superiority. Was Hitler Progressive? Stalin? I mean, they had a lot of ideas on how to change their society. Is that what makes you progressive?