Harper Just Lost the Election

[Riverwind]

It appears Harper is anxious to let the Liberals win the next election since he has not figured out that even mentioning the same sex issue will lose him votes in places where he desperately needs votes: the large cities. See:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...alDecision2006/

Harper should know better. The people who care about SSM are going to vote for him anyways but by trying to play to this audience he just paints himself as a bush-style religious extremist.

[shoop]

I feel he would have been better off leaving this alone. That being said, he has made a very strong case. For those people who are concerned about the issue let it be known they should ask their local candidates how they would vote in a free vote of parliament.

When it gets down to it, would anybody whose most important issue in an election is favouring SSM vote Conservative? Ever?

I can't get one thing though. Are the Liberals attacking Harper for not saying what he will do when governing OR for saying what he will do when governing?

It appears Harper is anxious to let the Liberals win the next election since he has not figured out that even mentioning the same sex issue will lose him votes in places where he desperately needs votes: the large cities.

Harper should know better. The people who care about SSM are going to vote for him anyways but by trying to play to this audience he just paints himself as a bush-style religious extremist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[CoachCartman]

I think Harper did the right thing bringing "it" up when he did. Minutes later, Liberals were already talking about his hidden agenda.......Hardly hidden, when he explains excactly what he would do. The Liberals would have brought this up eventually. Better to do what he did and get tit out of the way, then try to defend his postion late in the election and let the media go nuts with it.

It's the Liberal way to ignore something and hope it will go away. Harper took charge, met it head on, on his terms.

[normanchateau]

Harper should know better. The people who care about SSM are going to vote for him anyways but by trying to play to this audience he just paints himself as a bush-style religious extremist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure that Harper had much of a choice. His party has been infiltrated by a large number of one-issue, religious zealot candidates who were nominated in ridings from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. In British Columbia there are anti-abortionists running for CPC and even a CPC candidate who opposes stem cell research, a position he shares with George Bush. There are four CPC candidates with links to Focus on the Family running in British Columbia. The religious right are well-organized, well-financed and make no pretence of where they want Harper to stand on the issues that are important to them. In West Vancouver, after John Reynolds announced he would not be riunning again, CPC picked as their candidate Mr. John Weston, who runs a "Christian Law Firm." Count on Harper to pander to candidates like this.

[scribblet]

I think Harper did the right thing bringing "it" up when he did. Minutes later, Liberals were already talking about his hidden agenda.......Hardly hidden, when he explains excactly what he would do. The Liberals would have brought this up eventually. Better to  do what he did and get tit out of the way, then try to defend his postion late in the election and let the media go nuts with it.

It's the Liberal way to ignore something and hope it will go away. Harper took charge, met it head on, on his terms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So do I, the biggest problem with the issue was how it was done, a lack of democratic procedure. This way it should put it to rest, unless of course, only conservatives are allowed a free vote. I'm not sure how that works, can the other parties insist their members toe the party line even if the CPC says its a free vote?

He has to play his cards right as the liberals will play dirty, he can't give them any reason so say there's a 'hidden agenda' the only agenda they have is the one up front.

He's done a remarkable job of uniting two parties, keeping a lid on the radicals, and keeping the party more to the centre right. (in fact, some people think it is now just 'liberal lite'.

There is really nothing for the liberals to base their accusations and 'labels of religious right wing extremists' on etc. etc. One think I'll say about Harper, he keeps his religion and views private, and is a solid fiscal conservative. A real policy wonk actually.

Time for a change !

[normanchateau]

There is really nothing for the liberals to base their accusations and 'labels of religious right wing extremists'  on etc. etc.    One think I'll say about Harper, he keeps his religion and views private

Oh really? Then why did Harper and his party vote against C-250?

And why has he promised to revisit C-38? And why does the party have a huge number of religious zealots, anti-abortionists and Focus on the Family types running in this election? See:

http://www.valleysceptic.com/conservatives...by_zealots.html

[shoop]

True enough.

Harper has presented a clear, legitimate alternative to the government.

This is a page out of 1988 and will work for the Conservatives no matter what. The most optimistic estimates for the pro-SSM side was 55% of the country in favour of SSM. If this election becomes a referendum on the issue the Liberals, NDs and Bloc are left to fight over that 55% while the Conservatives are in easy majority territory with the remainign 45%.

If it doesn't become the central issue of the campaign Harper has defined himself on the issue. Better that than the charge of scary, scary, scary. You may not agree with him on this issue, but his stance is far from scary.

One-issue posters like normanchateau should really post links to credible sources if they want to be heard.

This way it should put it to rest, unless of course, only conservatives are allowed a free vote. I'm not sure how that works, can the other parties insist their members toe the party line even if the CPC says its a free vote?

[normanchateau]

He's done a remarkable job of uniting two parties, keeping a lid on the radicals, and keeping the party more to the centre right.  (in fact, some people think it is now just 'liberal lite'.

Remarkable indeed. In British Columbia in 1997, the Reform Party picked up 43% of the vote and the PCs 6-7%. In British Columbia in 2000, the Alliance Party picked up 49% of the vote and the PCs 6-7%. In British Columbia in 2004, after the two parties united under Harper's leadership, the Conservatives picked up 36% of the vote. And if an election were held today, somewhere between 25 and 35% of British Columbia voters are projected to vote for the Conservatives and the Conservatives are expected to lose at least half of their BC seats. Not only has Harper failed to retain most of the PC voters, he even seems to have alienated many former Reform and Alliance voters who are migrating to the Liberals and NDP.

Preston Manning was a fiscal conservative but he managed to distance himself from the religious zealots and Focus on the Family types now so prevalent in CPC. I can't imagine Manning saying he would revisit C-38 if elected. And I can't imagine Manning leading a campaign to exclude gay bashing ftom hate crimes legislation.

Time for a change in leadership CPC!

[shoop]

Let's look at the numbers that really count.

1997 Election - 25 Reform MPs, 6 Libs, 3 NDs

2000 Election - 27 Reform, 5 Libs, 2 NDs

2004 Election - 22 CPC MPs, 8 Libs, 6 NDs, 1 Ind

Hmmm, if the CPC stays at their mid 30s support level in BC they still have at least 60% of the MPs in BC. So much for the historic Liberal breakthrough.

Remarkable indeed.  In British Columbia in 1997, the Reform Party picked up 43% of the vote and the PCs 6-7%.  In British Columbia in 2000, the Alliance Party picked up 49% of the vote and the PCs 6-7%.  In British Columbia in 2004, after the two parties united under Harper's leadership, the Conservatives picked up 36% of the vote.  And if an election were held today, somewhere between 25 and 35% of British Columbia voters are projected to vote for the Conservatives and the Conservatives are expected to lose at least half of their BC seats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[southerncomfort]

True enough.

Harper has presented a clear, legitimate alternative to the government.

This is a page out of 1988 and will work for the Conservatives no matter what. The most optimistic estimates for the pro-SSM side was 55% of the country in favour of SSM. If this election becomes a referendum on the issue the Liberals, NDs and Bloc are left to fight over that 55% while the Conservatives are in easy majority territory with the remainign 45%.

If it doesn't become the central issue of the campaign Harper has defined himself on the issue. Better that than the charge of scary, scary, scary. You may not agree with him on this issue, but his stance is far from scary. 

One-issue posters like normanchateau should really post links to credible sources if they want to be heard.

This way it should put it to rest, unless of course, only conservatives are allowed a free vote. I'm not sure how that works, can the other parties insist their members toe the party line even if the CPC says its a free vote?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent post shoop. Now, back to the campaign, I took time off work to do this.

Good luck

[Guest eureka]

If the CPC has taken a page out of 1988, we can only pray that the rest of the book is lost.

Shall we look just at a few of the things that the government ruling from those pages wrought?

Betwee 1986 and 1993, the poorest 10% of Canadian families lost 86% of the income earned: that's right, 86%.

The next 10%, the working poor, lost 45%.

Since this period enfolded the depression, everyone was hurt: even the top 10% lost 9% of their income.

The wealthy got it back in spades later while the poor did not.

This is not an endorsement of the Liberals who prevented the recovery of the poorer with such measures as the new EI rules. It does, though, show at which party's door to lay the increasing inequalities and poverty in Canada.

It is the party that dares to wrap itself in a cloak of many colours that it parades under the title of "democratic deficit." The party of inequality and therefore of anti-democrats: the CPC

[Albertabound]

It appears Harper is anxious to let the Liberals win the next election since he has not figured out that even mentioning the same sex issue will lose him votes in places where he desperately needs votes: the large cities. See:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...alDecision2006/

Harper should know better. The people who care about SSM are going to vote for him anyways but by trying to play to this audience he just paints himself as a bush-style religious extremist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Albertabound]

It appears Harper is anxious to let the Liberals win the next election since he has not figured out that even mentioning the same sex issue will lose him votes in places where he desperately needs votes: the large cities. See:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...alDecision2006/

Harper should know better. The people who care about SSM are going to vote for him anyways but by trying to play to this audience he just paints himself as a bush-style religious extremist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a load of Bravo Sierra. Harper was answering a question put to him by a reporter. If you do not think that the pro-Lib media are planting loaded questions designed to generate responses like yours, you are a bigger fool than you sound. Take the time to investigate the question and Harper's actual response before you consign him to the dung heap.

[August1991]

Stephen Harper was asked a question and he answered by stating party policy which has been known since the party convention. There is nothing new here, or even anything radical. A Conservative government will allow a free vote in the Commons about a proposal for defining marriage. If it passes, the government would introduce legislation - again subject to a free vote. The Conservative Party is a big tent.

This issue was bound to arise and it's probably best to raise it sooner rather than later.

The Liberals have issued a press release about this; the chicken little routine is going to be tedious in two weeks, let alone two months. If this is the best that the Liberals and gay activists can muster in calling Stephen Harper a really scary guy, then I guess he really isn't.

[Riverwind]

This is a page out of 1988 and will work for the Conservatives no matter what. The most optimistic estimates for the pro-SSM side was 55% of the country in favour of SSM. If this election becomes a referendum on the issue the Liberals, NDs and Bloc are left to fight over that 55% while the Conservatives are in easy majority territory with the remainign 45%.

SSM is a non-issue for the majority of voters (meaning they will not change their vote simply because of that issue). The opposition and support for SSM is driven by extremists on both sides that represent no more that 25% of the population.

What makes Harper's stand on SSM dumb is:

1) He more or less proves that Martin was right to call him a 'neo-con' - Harper should playing the middle trying to show that Martin is wrong.

2) The people who care enough about SSM that they would change their votes are already vote for the CPC. There are no new votes to be gained by championing this issue.

3) The SSM is symbolic of other things. Many Canadians may find the idea of two men getting married may be distasteful to many Canadians but they will support it simply because the Americans don't like it.

[August1991]

What Harper said:

"It will be a genuine free vote when I'm prime minister," Harper said, while guaranteeing that currently married gay couples would not be affected should the majority of Parliament want to revisit the issue. "I would simply ask the House of Commons in a motion whether they want to table legislation on the marriage issue to change the definition of marriage. If the motion is defeated, we won't proceed."

CanWest

[Albertabound]

This is a page out of 1988 and will work for the Conservatives no matter what. The most optimistic estimates for the pro-SSM side was 55% of the country in favour of SSM. If this election becomes a referendum on the issue the Liberals, NDs and Bloc are left to fight over that 55% while the Conservatives are in easy majority territory with the remainign 45%.

SSM is a non-issue for the majority of voters (meaning they will not change their vote simply because of that issue). The opposition and support for SSM is driven by extremists on both sides that represent no more that 25% of the population.

What makes Harper's stand on SSM dumb is:

1) He more or less proves that Martin was right to call him a 'neo-con' - Harper should playing the middle trying to show that Martin is wrong.

2) The people who care enough about SSM that they would change their votes are already vote for the CPC. There are no new votes to be gained by championing this issue.

3) The SSM is symbolic of other things. Many Canadians may find the idea of two men getting married may be distasteful to many Canadians but they will support it simply because the Americans don't like it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This legislation was rammed down the throats of the majority of Canadians that did not support it. It is an election issue and Harper is being open and honest about how he as Prime Minister would manage it. For being open and honest you liberals ridicule and call him dumb. That is the trouble with most liberals, the truth is so "scarey" they would prefer to listen to Bull Sh*t.. Harper has the guts to deal with the issue. Even though Martin had previously voted and spoke out against SSM, he did not have the guts to follow his conscience.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...age-050410.html

[scribblet]

What Harper said:

"It will be a genuine free vote when I'm prime minister," Harper said, while guaranteeing that currently married gay couples would not be affected should the majority of Parliament want to revisit the issue. "I would simply ask the House of Commons in a motion whether they want to table legislation on the marriage issue to change the definition of marriage. If the motion is defeated, we won't proceed."

CanWest

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting how something gets spun isn't it?

Your right, Harper has not proposed legislation to change the law now, he has only proposed that a question be put to Parliament as to whether MPs want to revisit the issue or not.

Considering it is the duty of Parliament and all MP's to represent us and write the laws, on serious issues such as this, which changes the standards of our society as a whole, we need a free vote. The liberals allowed the courts to dictate those standards, not the people. We can write to our MP's and make our views, known, we cannot influence the court.

Our fragile democracy has been eroded under the Liberal regime. Its time for change.

[Guest eureka]

The foundation of democracy is equality. Without that, there is no democracy. The avowed intent of the CPC under Harper is to exacerbate the situation of growing inequality in Canada.

Harper is not a democrat.

[shoop]

The foundation of democracy is majority rule with respect for minority rights. For the small percentage of Canadians who will vote on the basis of this issue Harper is giving them a choice to decide. Unlike the Liberals who never mentioned the issue in 2004.

As much as the CBC *says* a government would have to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the charter to return to the traditional definition of marriage, there is not gurantee that is so. The Supremes have been quiet on this and Harper said (in French so I might not have gotten this 100% correct) that he will not invoke the notwithstanding clause in this case.

The foundation of democracy is equality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[politika]

Harper should know better. The people who care about SSM are going to vote for him anyways but by trying to play to this audience he just paints himself as a bush-style religious extremist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's wrong with that?

[Guest eureka]

Without equality, there are no rights, majority or minority.

[Riverwind]

Harper should know better. The people who care about SSM are going to vote for him anyways but by trying to play to this audience he just paints himself as a bush-style religious extremist.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing if he wants to be leader of opposition. However, hell will freeze over before a bush style extremist gets elected as PM. If Harper wants to win he has to become a moderate.

[sharkman]

The foundation of democracy is equality. Without that, there is no democracy. The avowed intent of the CPC under Harper is to exacerbate the situation of growing inequality in Canada.

Harper is not a democrat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When a situation exists where certain special interest groups get protection above the rest of Canadians, there is no equality. If someone gets murdered because he's hated for being gay, how it that any worse than a straight guy getting murdered because someone hates him. Hate is hate. Both crimes are just as wrong.

When a situation exists where a certain group will not be considered for hiring because of their skin colour, and others will be considered because of their skin colour, there is no equality. This was a recent headline in Canada and was only reversed because an election was coming.

[kimmy]

If the question here is whether Harper should answer questions about this issue directly, or whether he should try to evade the question, well, I think the former is better. He ought to make reference to the fact that the policy was stated at the CPC policy convention in Montreal, just to reinforce the point that this is not anything new or radical.

I think Harper's position on the issue-- allowing equal status civil unions for gay couples, while reserving the name "marriage" for traditional marriages-- was quite acceptible to the silent majority of Canadians. Those who demand the use of the word marriage, as well as equal status, are people who would never vote Conservative anyway.

-k