Harper Speech

[Kiraly]

I'm with Slim...

...I thought it was a great article.

Won't win him alot of votes in this country, but a good read nonetheless.

[canuckcat]

This speech was to Americans?!?...

it's not good thing that he would ever do that.... even eight years ago...

maybe if he was eight years old...

He's putting Canada down... to Americans... Republicans, no less!!!

Even before this revelation,

it was generally accepted that he hated Canada... or didn't love it... whatever...

[err]

But when Harper keeps his actual positions so close to his vest, or obviously waters them down to appear more electable

Why is this bad? It could mean that he has learned to appreciate the virtues of the Canadian system in the last few years. It could also mean that, as a politician, he realizes that the wishes of the voter trump the wishes of the politician everytime. Harper's recent statement on abortion in his Washington Post letter was pretty unequivocal: he would stick with the status quo no matter what his personal position.

The unequivocal position on abortion.....

last election it was:

We're going to stop the abortions....

and in response to the strong negative public reaction, changed it to:

We're not going to put forth a bill to ban abortions, but if one of our private members wants to, we'll vote on it... (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

and when the public reaction to this was still very negative,

We're not going to ban abortions.

It would appear he'll adjust his "convictions" to whatever it takes to get elected... like acting like a Liberal... But we can all see that a wolf in granny's dress is still a wolf... and they won't fool Liberal Red Riding Hood.... or very many educated Canadians....

[CoachCartman]

I thought the speech was quite funny, especially to a group of right wing Republicans.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Quote:

We're going to stop the abortions....

and in response to the strong negative public reaction, changed it to:

We're not going to put forth a bill to ban abortions, but if one of our private members wants to, we'll vote on it... (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

and when the public reaction to this was still very negative,

We're not going to ban abortions.

If you could actually reference these quotes we would all be ever so greatful.

[normanchateau]

Well that sinks him... he is un-electable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was un-electable before that speech was brought to our attention. I don't think any Canadian has forgotten that he wanted us to join the Coalition of the Willing

and went to the US media to say so just a few short years ago. Or that he wanted us to exclude gay bashing from hate crimes legislation. Or that he wants to jail people for simple possession of marijuana. Or that he made a homophobic comment in the House of Commons for which he later apologized.

The media have been bending over for Harper in this campaign, letting him choose his agenda. It's time the lazy media started reminding Canadians about Harper's beliefs...and not just Harper's stated beliefs during the current campaign. Given the media's dazed inattention, you'd think every hateful position he had ever expressed had suddenly evaporated into thin air.

[scribblet]

Quote:

We're going to stop the abortions....

and in response to the strong negative public reaction, changed it to:

We're not going to put forth a bill to ban abortions, but if one of our private members wants to, we'll vote on it... (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

and when the public reaction to this was still very negative,

We're not going to ban abortions.

If you could actually reference these quotes we would all be ever so greatful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's nothing to stop a liberal or any other party member from putting forward a bill, a couple of Liberals come to mind right awayl

[daniel]

He was un-electable before that speech was brought to our attention.  I don't think any Canadian has forgotten that he wanted us to join the Coalition of the Willing

and went to the US media to say so just a few short years ago.

People have been defending him by re-stating his original position from what we all knew as wanting to send troops to Iraq to just giving the US moral support. Well, it's easy to say anything in opposition because that's his job. But if he were to be Prime Minister, he's going to have to make real decisions without any hindsight to backtrack his position (note Bush's latest admission of intelligence errors).

Eventhough Chretien's "a proof is a proof" speech wasn't well worded, the message was clear and the evidence of WMDs, the link to Al-Qaeda/911 just wasn't convincing. In the end Chretien made the right decision in light of the proof presented.

The media have been bending over for Harper in this campaign, letting him choose his agenda.  It's time the lazy media started reminding Canadians about Harper's beliefs...and not just Harper's stated beliefs during the current campaign.  Given the media's dazed inattention, you'd think every hateful  position he had ever expressed had suddenly evaporated into thin air.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. The media has already been reporting on Harper's past only because it was Harper's recent statements that prompted the appropriate research. If the media on its own accord just starts to dig out Harper's past, they'll be accused of media-bias harder than they are already now.

Harper already has overwhelming coverage and Layton, almost none. The only coverage the Liberals get is the gaffes and the controversies. If I had the time, I would clock the coverage each party gets in a one-week period.

[Leafless]

normanchateau

You wrote- " He was un-electable before that speech was brought to our attention."

Your statement is false and has nothing to do with leadership qualities but rather an electoral system and political management that has been abused by the Liberals creating a corrupt political stranglehold concerning federalism itself.

What Canadians want has never been detirmined by referendum but rather than politically orchestered polls that work in favour of a predetirmined reply.

Is this is democracy in Canada along with a Charter that individual Canadians never received a chance to vote on?

Stephen Harper's speech I thought reflected reality rather then viewed by the Liberals institutionilized version of what Canada is.

There is a major difference between Conservative and Liberal management and hopefully voters will wake up and stop voting towards the destruction of all of Canada by voting Liberal and realize also that the potentially loss of Quebec has nothing do do with the CPC and that burden is soley Quebec's to contend with and not the ROC.

[cybercoma]

Well that sinks him... he is un-electable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was un-electable before that speech was brought to our attention. I don't think any Canadian has forgotten that he wanted us to join the Coalition of the Willing

and went to the US media to say so just a few short years ago. Or that he wanted us to exclude gay bashing from hate crimes legislation. Or that he wants to jail people for simple possession of marijuana. Or that he made a homophobic comment in the House of Commons for which he later apologized.

The media have been bending over for Harper in this campaign, letting him choose his agenda. It's time the lazy media started reminding Canadians about Harper's beliefs...and not just Harper's stated beliefs during the current campaign. Given the media's dazed inattention, you'd think every hateful position he had ever expressed had suddenly evaporated into thin air.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, like he said in the Washington Times, the intelligence community had pointed to a whole different set of circumstances surrounding the invasion of Iraq. And we're not just talking about US intelligence, we're talking about sources from around the world.

Now that the war with Iraq serves a different purpose (The United States is now responsible for getting them back on their feet after overthrowing the murderous dictator that was ruling them) he is making it quite clear that he supports them but our mission is in Afghanistan.

The view of Iraq was entirely different a few short years ago. The view of the middle east altogether was not the same 5 years ago.

[scribblet]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. The media has already been reporting on Harper's past only because it was Harper's recent statements that prompted the appropriate research. If the media on its own accord just starts to dig out Harper's past, they'll be accused of media-bias harder than they are already now.

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you are right, although he has been getting a bit more favourable coverage than recently, probably because he has taken the CPC more to the centre, and modified many of his previous positions.

There's a link here in media coverage:

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/media/artic...3_117742_117742

Running for coverage

Analysis of newspaper reports on the campaign's earliest days shows Stephen Harper fighting the same old image problems

JOAN BRYDEN

Just because the Conservatives are paranoid about reporters doesn't mean the media isn't out to get them.

An analysis of newspaper coverage in the opening days of this campaign concludes Stephen Harper received the most negative coverage of the four main party leaders, even more negative than the coverage he got in the disastrous final week of the 2004 election.

Initial coverage of Paul Martin was not only less negative, it was more positive than the waning days of the last campaign, when the Prime Minister rebounded to pull out his narrow victory. "The findings are rather striking," said Stuart Soroka, co-director of McGill University's Observatory on Media and Public Policy (OMPP), which conducted the analysis. "Martin has been doing progressively better in the media over time and Harper has been doing progressively worse."

Soroka pointed out that the initial findings reflect coverage that tended to rehash conventional wisdom on the parties and leaders as they entered the campaign. That would include criticism of Harper as an angry politician with a hidden agenda of social conservatism -- an image the Liberals exploited in 2004. Choosing to kick off this campaign with a promise to re-open the same-sex marriage debate prompted more such coverage. Despite heavy emphasis on Liberal party corruption in the opening days, Martin appears to have benefited from the fact that he was personally exonerated by Justice John Gomery's inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.

The analysis is the first stage of the OMPP's 2006 Federal Election Newspaper Analysis project, to be carried in Maclean's throughout the campaign. It found New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton received the most positive coverage of all the leaders in the opening days. Still, Soroka cautioned against reading too much into the initial results. The sample sizes are small, especially with respect to the separatist Bloc Québécois, and the findings are based on reports and opinion pieces published before any major policy announcements had been made, including Harper's blockbuster pledge to reduce the hated GST.

While Tories will be tempted to claim the analysis proves they can't get a fair shake from the press, Soroka said the monitoring is not intended to measure media bias. Rather, it's intended to measure how well or poorly the parties' are faring, as reflected in the coverage.

http://www.ompp.mcgill.ca/pages/2006election.htm havn't read it yet so can't comment.

[Slim MacSquinty]

I am in the middle of a book written by a former American arms inspector about Iraq, if what this guy says is true, saddam makes Stalin look like a sunday school teacher.

[cybercoma]

I am in the middle of a book written by a former American arms inspector about Iraq, if what this guy says is true, saddam makes Stalin look like a sunday school teacher.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Title? Author?

[canuckcat]

Well that sinks him... he is un-electable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was un-electable before that speech was brought to our attention. I don't think any Canadian has forgotten that he wanted us to join the Coalition of the Willing

and went to the US media to say so just a few short years ago. Or that he wanted us to exclude gay bashing from hate crimes legislation. Or that he wants to jail people for simple possession of marijuana. Or that he made a homophobic comment in the House of Commons for which he later apologized.

The media have been bending over for Harper in this campaign, letting him choose his agenda. It's time the lazy media started reminding Canadians about Harper's beliefs...and not just Harper's stated beliefs during the current campaign. Given the media's dazed inattention, you'd think every hateful position he had ever expressed had suddenly evaporated into thin air.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

normand,

I think you are exactly right. But most of us didn't realize the depth of his hatred toward Canada and Canadians. :angry:

He glibly sells us out to the Americans... if he says things like this in public, would he commit treason in private?...

This election may well spell the death of the Conservative Party... again...

[daniel]

As I've stated in another place and time, I don't look forward to having Prime Minister Harper campaigning for the "No" side in the next Quebec Referendum on separation.

It'll be hard for him to sound sincere when he tries to convince Quebecer why they should stay in Canada.

[Slim MacSquinty]

I don't think he said anything particularly out of line, especially when you keep it in context.

How to you expect to make improvements to this country if you refuse to see anything is wrong? Maybe wrap yourself in the flag pick a fight with your neighbour and bury your head in the sand.

quote:

But most of us didn't realize the depth of his hatred toward Canada and Canadians.

He glibly sells us out to the Americans... if he says things like this in public, would he commit treason in private?...

Hatred toward Canada, sell out to Americans, treason. Not prone to exaggeration are we!

Wouldn't it be treason to steal say 1 to 10 million dollars from the government?

[cybercoma]

Saying that the leader of a federal party, or anyone who goes into politics for that matter, "hates Canada" is patently absurd. He hates Canada so much he has devoted his life to the country and making it a better place for Canadians. What a stupid argument to be used against Harper, Martin or Layton. Now Duceppe on the otherhand...

[Riverwind]

Saying that the leader of a federal party, or anyone who goes into politics for that matter, "hates Canada"  is patently absurd.  He hates Canada so much he has devoted his life to the country and making it a better place for Canadians.

I may not agree with Harper's opinions on all issues but I don't question his love for country. What his opponents really mean when they say "Harper does not love Canada" is "if you don't share our political opinions then you must hate Canada". It is exactly the same tactic that Bush republicans use to dismiss people who seek to criticize the war on terror.

[canuckcat]

The speech can be found here: http://www.policycounsel.org/18856/39901.html

It is not a 'tongue-in-cheek' remarks, but a serious policy speech. 

Here is the CP article:

Ottawa — An eight-year-old Stephen Harper speech, which praises American conservative values, disparages Canada as a “welfare state” and says the jobless aren't worried because they have generous benefits, could provide fresh ammunition to his critics.

The speech was delivered to a 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a little-known right-wing American think tank.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The original link to this speech no longer works. Did they take this down?

[scribblet]

Saying that Canada is a mid-european welfare state isn't too far off, considering thats what we have become under the Liberals.

[Biblio Bibuli]

If an 8 year old speech is the best the liberals can come up with when their issues of today are being attacked, that's pretty sad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoever pointed out that speech to The Canadian Press did it on condition that he won't be identified. My guess is that it was Stephen Harper himself who pointed them towards it.

And now Stephen can't wait for Martin to start using that speech against him so he can bring out a big arsenal of quotes by the Liberals' star candidate, Michael Ignatieff, that make his 1997 speech look like child's play.

That's strictly a guess, though.

[The Honest Politician]

If an 8 year old speech is the best the liberals can come up with when their issues of today are being attacked, that's pretty sad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoever pointed out that speech to The Canadian Press did it on condition that he won't be identified. My guess is that it was Stephen Harper himself who pointed them towards it.

And now Stephen can't wait for Martin to start using that speech against him so he can bring out a big arsenal of quotes by the Liberals' star candidate, Michael Ignatieff, that make his 1997 speech look like child's play.

That's strictly a guess, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry I didn't realize Michael Ignatieff was the Leader of the Liberal Party.

[canuckcat]

Whoever pointed out that speech to The Canadian Press did it on condition that he won't be identified.

More likely, the researcher was in fear of his career or possibly his life.

Remember that the CPC is really only a branch plant of the Republican Party...

they have a nasty reputation for torture, disappearances and death...

to say nothing of what they could do to one's career...

[Biblio Bibuli]

I'm sorry I didn't realize Michael Ignatieff was the Leader of the Liberal Party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if you know this but Michael Ignatieff is not just some slug. The Liberals parachuted him into a Toronto riding not only as a "star candidate" but as a "superstar candidate" (read Liberal leader/PM in waiting). All this time fully aware of his pro-torture, pro-Iraq, pro-missile defence shield stance. Did you know that that guy was quoted as saying that "Canada could be more valuable broken up than intact."?

I like this one: ... "If you oppose America, you pay."

[kimmy]

If Liberals are reaching for this speech as the "magic bullet" that's going to take down Harper, they must be pretty desperate. The real reason that this speech stayed "hidden" for so long is most likely that it just doesn't have much value as campaign material.

It is, as I think somebody else mentioned, a pretty interesting synopsis of Canada's parties and politics of the time.

-k