Harper=Problem, Not Solution

[tml12]

I know, I know...you've heard it all before that Harper can't be PM, he has a hidden agenda, etc.

But the facts speak for themselves. Keep two things in mind:

Since 2004, when the sponsorship scandal became public:

1) The Liberals have never polled above 40% in safe majority waters.

2) They have, however, almost always been ahead of the Conservatives.

This means that whether or not Harper is a right-wing Bush ass-kisser or whatever the Liberals want to call him, the people don't like him.

His feel-good summer tour did nothing. In fact, the Liberals had almost a fifteen-point lead at the end of the summer. All while Canadians are tired of scandal and want chance.

I am a Canadian who feels the same way, yet Harper hasn't proven himself a credible alternative. I know he wants to be PM and that he will cut my taxes but other than that, what?

To his defence, Harper is a policy guy, not a politician. But at this point, Canadians don't care. And the fact is, if the Conservatives can't hold a lead for more than a week in a two-year period during one of the biggest scadals in Canadian history then we have to look at the leader.

Has Harper worn out his welcome yet or what?

[Yaro]

Actually he is a policy guy, a moronic policy guy. Its his history of policies that have alienated so many. We need a REAL conservative at the head of the conservative party, not some Bush wanna be.

[shoop]

Keep two things in mind:

Since 2004, when the sponsorship scandal became public:

1) The Liberals have never polled above 40% in safe majority waters.

2) They have, however, almost always been ahead of the Conservatives.

This means that whether or not Harper is a right-wing Bush ass-kisser or whatever the Liberals want to call him, the people don't like him.

Has Harper worn out his welcome yet or what?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, let's use your arbitrary 40% safe majority level as a starting point.

In the last FIFTY years only two Conservative leaders have ever polled over forty percent in the only poll that counts .... election day.

Diefenbaker. Once in FIVE elections as leader and Mulroney both times.

Harper is building slowly. He saw the mistakes of Stockwell Day in trying to swing for the fences. Slow and steady wins the race. As long as the election is about Liberal corruption and arrogance people will drown out the pathetic 'scary, scary, scary' cries.

Your unsophisticated analysis of the situation is telling of a deeper bias.

[Riverwind]

Harper is building slowly. He saw the mistakes of Stockwell Day in trying to swing for the fences. Slow and steady wins the race. As long as the election is about Liberal corruption and arrogance people will drown out the pathetic 'scary, scary, scary' cries.

I believe we are at a tipping point and the electorate could swing to a majority for libs or cons depending on the election campaign because many people are tired of the rhetoric and instability that comes with a minority parliment. I believe this desire for stability will trump and concerns about 'corruption' or 'scariness' and the winner will be the one who can build the most positive momentum.

[shoop]

I believe we are at a tipping point and the electorate could swing to a majority for libs or cons depending on the election campaign because many people are tired of the rhetoric and instability that comes with a minority parliment. I believe this desire for stability will trump and concerns about 'corruption' or 'scariness' and the winner will be the one who can build the most positive momentum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Touché, but therein lies the conundrum. I completely agree there will be a majority next time around, i.e. in the spring of 2006. I also believe both outcomes (CPC or fliberal majority) are equally as likely at this point. The results from the latest decima poll are essentially a draw.

This is a very exciting election for political junkies. There hasn't been an election this open going in since 1984. For Conservative partisans we can only hope the results mirror 1984. The debates will TRULY count this go round.

[tml12]

Keep two things in mind:

Since 2004, when the sponsorship scandal became public:

1) The Liberals have never polled above 40% in safe majority waters.

2) They have, however, almost always been ahead of the Conservatives.

This means that whether or not Harper is a right-wing Bush ass-kisser or whatever the Liberals want to call him, the people don't like him.

Has Harper worn out his welcome yet or what?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, let's use your arbitrary 40% safe majority level as a starting point.

In the last FIFTY years only two Conservative leaders have ever polled over forty percent in the only poll that counts .... election day.

Diefenbaker. Once in FIVE elections as leader and Mulroney both times.

Harper is building slowly. He saw the mistakes of Stockwell Day in trying to swing for the fences. Slow and steady wins the race. As long as the election is about Liberal corruption and arrogance people will drown out the pathetic 'scary, scary, scary' cries.

Your unsophisticated analysis of the situation is telling of a deeper bias.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shoop,

I think we agree generally on many issues so I will be frank: yes I don't like Harper. I never have and although I may shut my eyes and vote for him I really think the Conservative Party needs a less polarizing leader.

Many of my Conservative friends (and I am sure you would agree) refute my argument saying that we don't need Liberal lite in the Party. I agree but I think there are people out there who would be better for the Conservative Party.

I do disagree that my analysis is unsophisticated. But if mine is, then certainly your argument that the Conservatives should simply keep hammering away at government corruption is telling. Do you suggest that Mulrooney was not corrupt and that only the Liberals are? Furthermore, are you insinuating that only by hammering away at current Liberal corruption will the Conservatives win? If so, you back up my "unsophisticated analysis" by saying that if the Tories win it will be because Canadians are voting against Liberal corruption and not for Harper.

[fellowtraveller]

This is a long argument based on a false premise.

Harper may not be the solution, but he is certainly and most definitely not the problem.

The problem is the utter corruption of the Liberal party.

[fellowtraveller]

On second thought, perhaps the utter corruption of the Liberals is not the problem. They are only doing what comes naturally to them.

Perhaps the problem is that our system of governance allows such disasters, like the crisis that is unfolding in front of us.

Who will speak for Canada?

[tml12]

On second thought, perhaps the utter corruption of the Liberals is not the problem.  They are only doing what comes naturally to them.

Perhaps the problem is that our system of governance allows such disasters, like the crisis that is unfolding in front of us.

Who will speak for Canada?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Generally I am in agreement with you, although I still think the Conservatives would have done better under a different leader.

[I Miss Trudeau]

This is a long argument based on a false premise.

Harper may not be the solution, but he is certainly and most definitely not the problem.

The problem is the utter corruption of the Liberal party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the problem is that there are as yet no parties that can gain greater support than a party that is alledgedly "utterly corrupt." What does that tell you? Perhaps there is something wrong with Harper or his party, in the minds of the elctorate?

Sorry. Canadians just don't see the NCC as a desirable government for Canada, even given the alternatives.

[tml12]

This is a long argument based on a false premise.

Harper may not be the solution, but he is certainly and most definitely not the problem.

The problem is the utter corruption of the Liberal party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the problem is that there are as yet no parties that can gain greater support than a party that is alledgedly "utterly corrupt." What does that tell you? Perhaps there is something wrong with Harper or his party, in the minds of the elctorate?

Sorry. Canadians just don't see the NCC as a desirable government for Canada, even given the alternatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you Trudeau, this is what I have been trying to convey.

[FTA Lawyer]

This is a long argument based on a false premise.

Harper may not be the solution, but he is certainly and most definitely not the problem.

The problem is the utter corruption of the Liberal party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the problem is that there are as yet no parties that can gain greater support than a party that is alledgedly "utterly corrupt." What does that tell you? Perhaps there is something wrong with Harper or his party, in the minds of the elctorate?

Sorry. Canadians just don't see the NCC as a desirable government for Canada, even given the alternatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you Trudeau, this is what I have been trying to convey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I won't argue that Harper is charismatic and outwardly approachable...he isn't. But frankly his biggest problem is that he is intelligent and Canadian voters don't want intelligence...they want smoke blown up their collective asses as hard and as fast as it can be blown.

And when you try to be intelligent in front of a television camera and say anything of substance...you look bad, because the guy spouting mindless puffery and rhetoric gets a way better "sound-bite".

As a result, Harper has been raked over the coals for articles he wrote while running the NCC...on no intelligent basis mind you...but on the surgical removal of select quotes out of context combined with solid fear-mongering.

For all the people who say the Liberals want to stay Canadian and the Conservatives want to make us more like the U.S., consider the campaign style put forth by the Liberals with things like their website:

http://www.stephenharpersaid.ca

Now, I know, the CPC responded in kind with a site of their own, and it is equally as embarrassing...I don't want to sidetrack this thread on whose got worse campaign tactics...

But to continue with my point on quotes attributed to Harper...if anyone actually took the time to READ his articles, they would see he's not nearly as 'scary' as so many Liberals would have you believe.

What his articles demonstrate is simply a person who favours more Provincial control rather than Federal dominance. When he wrote the infamous "Alberta Firewall" comments, he was lobbying the Alberta government to take steps to prevent a repeat of the NEP...and even Paul Martin strongly states what a mistake that was.

In one of the quoted articles, Harper criticises the stifling effects of an overbearing national government on the ability of the Provinces to prosper. The Liberal party pulls a two-line quote about Canada being content to be second-rate and spins that as meaning that Harper hates Canada.

Of course, the firewall quote is equally out of context...and Liberals say it means that Harper is a seperatist in sheep's clothing. But consider this quote which comes later on in one of Harper's letters:

"...we should not mimic Quebec by lunging from rejection into the arms of an argument about separation. As that province has shown, separation will simply divide our population in a symbolic debate while, still part of the country, it isolates us from any allies.

Separation will become a real issue the day the federal government decides to make it one.

Neither should Albertans shun federal politics, but we must carefully guard our interests. Much about the Canadian Alliance is worthy of support, and a large number of Canadians do support it. But the CA will be under considerable pressure to rid itself of any tinge of a Western agenda or Alberta control. This we must fight. If the Alliance is ever to become a party that could be lead by a Paul Martin or a Joe Clark, it must do so without us. We don't need a second Liberal party.

Westerners, but especially Albertans, founded the Reform/Alliance to get "in" to Canada. The rest of the country has responded by telling us in no uncertain terms that we do not share their "Canadian values." Fine. Let us build a society on Alberta values."

Let's see:

1)Don't argue Alberta should separate;

2)Don't alienate other provinces;

3)Don't shun federalism;

4)Continue to work at getting your views "in" to the national stage;

5)But don't compromise your values and your principles.

Wow...that's bone-chilling craziness from a lunatic seperatist...better just stick with the guys who steal from us...

The problem is, voters have to either take 1.3 minutes and read 4 paragraphs to actually see the message Harper is giving or just swallow the 2 second "soundbite" that Harper wants to build "firewalls" around Alberta and be misinformed.

And the smoke up the asses gets thicker and thicker...

FTA Lawyer

[newbie]

FTA, it's statements like the ones below, in context, that bother me most about Mr. Harper. He supports an illegal invasion and war, and wants Canada to be a full participant. Afghanistan is one thing, but Iraq IS NOT OUR FIGHT.

Montreal Gazette, April 2, 2003

Source: CP

Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper lashed out at the defence minister yesterday, calling him an "idiot" and a "clown" over the government's position on Iraq.

Harper started his verbal assault on John McCallum by shouting "idiot" during heckling in the House of Commons.

Outside the House, Harper acknowledged that frustration with the federal government got the better of him. But he then went on to insult McCallum further.

"It was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win," Harper said.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA, it's statements like the ones below, in context, that bother me most about Mr. Harper. He supports an illegal invasion and war, and wants Canada to be a full participant. Afghanistan is one thing, but Iraq IS NOT OUR FIGHT. 

Montreal Gazette, April 2, 2003

Source: CP

Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper lashed out at the defence minister yesterday, calling him an "idiot" and a "clown" over the government's position on Iraq.

Harper started his verbal assault on John McCallum by shouting "idiot" during heckling in the House of Commons.

Outside the House, Harper acknowledged that frustration with the federal government got the better of him. But he then went on to insult McCallum further.

"It was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win," Harper said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Newbie,

Thank-you...you get my point.

Rather than make some flippant rhetorical "he's scary" comment, you've stated that Harper's position on the Iraq War (which is accurately reflected in the quote you cite) bothers you.

Hooray for valid dialogue!!

FTA Lawyer

[Argus]

FTA, it's statements like the ones below, in context, that bother me most about Mr. Harper. He supports an illegal invasion and war, and wants Canada to be a full participant. Afghanistan is one thing, but Iraq IS NOT OUR FIGHT. 

You don't know that. You really don't know what the purpose behind the Iraq war is. I don't know it either, although it's possible I give Bush and Blair more credit than they're due.

Did Bush get into this hugely expensive and damaging war for no reason at all? The man isn't a complete idiot, despite how some have chosen to portray him, and his advisors, though crass, ruthless, and corrupt, are not idiots either. This war is damaging to the Republicans and to Bush and to the US. It is also hugely expensive, too expensive to justify the "war for oil" argument, especially in light of the fact the US will only control Iraq's oil for a very few years, like, maybe one more, until the new government is in place. And it doesn't explain Tony Blair's strong partnership, either. He gets no benefit from this, and has taken quite a bit of political damage. Nor has anyone ever accused him of being stupid.

So the only thing which makes sense to me is an effort to remake the sick, if not dead political landscape of the Arab world. Only, of course, you can't say that. Or at least, there's no way the US or UK governments can say that's their intent, or even one of their intentions. It would outrage too many "friendly" Arab governments. And it would confirm the suspcion that this is not a war on Saddam but on Arabs in general. Which, of course, I believe it is.

I believe the US and UK decided, at some point after 911, that the only way to combat the rise of Islamism as the only alternative to the present hodgpodge of tyrannies in the Arab world was to introduce democratic values. But the Arab world is a harsh and blasted landscape for democracy, so to have any hope of success the US was going to have to be very forceful indeed. It may not work, but I believe that is their intent, and I believe that is in our interests, because as it stands it's only a matter of time before one of them goes nuclear and starts flinging missiles around. I mean, a culture which says dying in Allahs' name is great, and people who really, really believe that, well, that's not a place we want with nuclear weapons.

[Guest eureka]

FTA:

I get your point and reject it.

Harper also firmly stated that the CA must retain its "Western Agenda" and "Alberta control." That is a party for Canada?

He also expressed his frustration at the "stifling" by the federal givernment. That though, as I have pointed out on thread after thread, the Provinces of Canada have greater control over the nation and their individual actions than in any other country of the world.

The constant repetition of the claim to intelligence for Harper amuses me. I see no evidence of it. I see a man blinded by his self important self regard. I see a man with absolutely no understanding of national interest. A petty, angry man who aims to tear the country apart with his parochialism: a man who would tear the social fabric of the country apart with his "pass on the other sode" approach to social needs.

Harper did, BTW, write the Reform Party Caucus Statement on Healthcare. In that, he advocated means tested access and different levels of access according to the wealth of the needy. He also advocated the end of National Healthcare and provincial control.

He is no intellect but a small minded, vindictive, and angry man. At lests Manning, who held similar views, was a certifiable nutcase.

[tml12]

FTA:

I get your point and reject it.

Harper also firmly stated that the CA must retain its "Western Agenda" and "Alberta control." That is a party for Canada?

He also expressed his frustration at the "stifling" by the federal givernment. That though, as I have pointed out on thread after thread, the Provinces of Canada have greater control over the nation and their individual actions than in any other country of the world.

The constant repetition of the claim to intelligence for Harper amuses me. I see no evidence of it. I see a man blinded by his self important self regard. I see a man with absolutely no understanding of national interest. A petty, angry man who aims to tear the country apart with his parochialism: a man who would tear the social fabric of the country apart with his "pass on the other sode" approach to social needs.

Harper did, BTW, write the Reform Party Caucus Statement on Healthcare. In that, he advocated means tested access and different levels of access according to the wealth of the needy. He also advocated the end of National Healthcare and provincial control.

He is no intellect but a small minded, vindictive, and angry man. At lests Manning, who held similar views,  was a certifiable nutcase.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There doesn't seem to be a party now that speaks for Canada, just look:

BLOC speaks for Quebec and some of Montreal.

LIBERALS speak for most of the East.

TORIES speak for most of the West.

NDP speaks for small left-wing minority.

Do we have a national party???

[I Miss Trudeau]

There doesn't seem to be a party now that speaks for Canada, just look:

BLOC speaks for Quebec and some of Montreal.

LIBERALS speak for most of the East.

TORIES speak for most of the West.

NDP speaks for small left-wing minority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Instead of looking at seat counts, look at distribution of support. The regional differences are not nearly as large as they appear.

[tml12]

There doesn't seem to be a party now that speaks for Canada, just look:

BLOC speaks for Quebec and some of Montreal.

LIBERALS speak for most of the East.

TORIES speak for most of the West.

NDP speaks for small left-wing minority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Instead of looking at seat counts, look at distribution of support. The regional differences are not nearly as large as they appear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then we HAVE a democratic deficit.

Certainly, regional support isn't nearly as black and white as our first-past-the-post system suggests.

As I am sure you know, the Liberals and the NDP received nearly 40% of the vote in the last Alberta provincial election, yet won 40 less seats than the PCP which won 47% of the vote.

Will proportional representation be the first step in reducing provincial alienation?

[fellowtraveller]

Will proportional representation be the first step in reducing provincial alienation?

Doubt it. Interesting to note that in the two provinces that have NDP governments -Saskatchewan and Manitoba - do not have proprep initiatives underway. Also interesting that a search of NDP official websites shows that these 2 NDP governed are the only two NDP p[rovincial and federal official party sites that DO NOT have proprep as policy. In both provinces, both NDP governments would likely lose their majorities if proprep were implemented.

One can only come to one conclusion: they are unprincipled, power hungry swine.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Will proportional representation be the first step in reducing provincial alienation?

Doubt it. Interesting to note that in the two provinces that have NDP governments -Saskatchewan and Manitoba - do not have proprep initiatives underway. Also interesting that a search of NDP official websites shows that these 2 NDP governed are the only two NDP p[rovincial and federal official party sites that DO NOT have proprep as policy. In both provinces, both NDP governments would likely lose their majorities if proprep were implemented.

One can only come to one conclusion: they are unprincipled, power hungry swine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kind of like every other majority government, eh?

[fellowtraveller]

Will proportional representation be the first step in reducing provincial alienation?

Doubt it. Interesting to note that in the two provinces that have NDP governments -Saskatchewan and Manitoba - do not have proprep initiatives underway. Also interesting that a search of NDP official websites shows that these 2 NDP governed are the only two NDP p[rovincial and federal official party sites that DO NOT have proprep as policy. In both provinces, both NDP governments would likely lose their majorities if proprep were implemented.

One can only come to one conclusion: they are unprincipled, power hungry swine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kind of like every other majority government, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, no. The BC government is actively looking into other forms of governance, it is not NDP, and they are a majority.. Other governments don't have the charade of pretending to support proportional representation except where it isn't convenient to them. Only the NDP have that 'honour'.

[tml12]

Will proportional representation be the first step in reducing provincial alienation?

Doubt it. Interesting to note that in the two provinces that have NDP governments -Saskatchewan and Manitoba - do not have proprep initiatives underway. Also interesting that a search of NDP official websites shows that these 2 NDP governed are the only two NDP p[rovincial and federal official party sites that DO NOT have proprep as policy. In both provinces, both NDP governments would likely lose their majorities if proprep were implemented.

One can only come to one conclusion: they are unprincipled, power hungry swine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kind of like every other majority government, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, no. The BC government is actively looking into other forms of governance, it is not NDP, and they are a majority.. Other governments don't have the charade of pretending to support proportional representation except where it isn't convenient to them. Only the NDP have that 'honour'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BC is setting the precedent for democratic reform in Canada. They have fixed election dates, etc.

One could argue, however, that the BC Liberals are looking for ways to take support away from the Vancouver area which I believe to be were most of the provincial NDP voters are.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA:

I get your point and reject it.

Harper also firmly stated that the CA must retain its "Western Agenda" and "Alberta control." That is a party for Canada?

He also expressed his frustration at the "stifling" by the federal givernment. That though, as I have pointed out on thread after thread, the Provinces of Canada have greater control over the nation and their individual actions than in any other country of the world.

The constant repetition of the claim to intelligence for Harper amuses me. I see no evidence of it. I see a man blinded by his self important self regard. I see a man with absolutely no understanding of national interest. A petty, angry man who aims to tear the country apart with his parochialism: a man who would tear the social fabric of the country apart with his "pass on the other sode" approach to social needs.

Harper did, BTW, write the Reform Party Caucus Statement on Healthcare. In that, he advocated means tested access and different levels of access according to the wealth of the needy. He also advocated the end of National Healthcare and provincial control.

He is no intellect but a small minded, vindictive, and angry man. At lests Manning, who held similar views,  was a certifiable nutcase.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Harper does have a Masters degree in Economics. He may not be street smart in figuring out how to play the game in Ottawa, and in the media, but unless you contend that Masters degrees get handed out unmeritoriously at Canadian universities, I submit that you need no further evidence of his intelligence.

And to dismiss Preston Manning as a "certifiable nutcase" demonstrates your clear partisanship over substance. Agree with him or not, but Preston Manning created a political party and took it to status of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition...not a bad footnote for a resume.

Many of the most esteemed members of each political party, Liberal, NDP, Bloc included will give far more credit to the successes of Manning than you do.

It's okay that people do not agree with your views...it doesn't mean they are therefore "small-minded, vindictive and angry."

FTA Lawyer

[I Miss Trudeau]

Harper does have a Masters degree in Economics.  He may not be street smart in figuring out how to play the game in Ottawa, and in the media, but unless you contend that Masters degrees get handed out unmeritoriously at Canadian universities, I submit that you need no further evidence of his intelligence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given that it is an economics degree from the UofC, I would suggest that its suspect for obvious reasons - sheer hackery would (and does) earn a person a masters in economics from that school.

And to dismiss Preston Manning as a "certifiable nutcase" demonstrates your clear partisanship over substance.  Agree with him or not, but Preston Manning created a political party and took it to status of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition...not a bad footnote for a resume.

The only real question is if Manning actually believed the mythology that he milked to accomplish that feat.