Big Brother is watching...

[tml12]

This is worth a look and a giggle.

Ruber Stamping Our Rights

The gag is the same types championing Bush's warrantless spying were, just a few years a go, a -twitter over Clinton's "rubber-stamp" warrant-based FISA eavesdropping.

Which leaves me wondering: does the modern, mainstream conservative movement have any central alues beyond obediance to Bush? How did it devolve into a personality cult?

BlackDog,

The modern conservative movement is very complicated. Bush may be part of the conservative movement, but the conservative movement is not Bush.

Bush is a "neo-conservative." Neo-conservatives make up an element of conservatives but do not make up the conservative movement.

I am moderate and I always have been. I voted Conservative not because I think every word that comes out of Harper's mouth is equivalent to that of God's. Why I supported the Conservatives is they were the only party running that promised to put Canadian values and positive Canada-U.S. relations first. Find me another major party that was willing to do that and I would have voted for them.

The U.S. does not need Canada, Canada needs the U.S. And we need a U.S. government that will find room there for Canada. That will remember Canada when they remember their own country. Only the Conservatives promised to stand up for Canada in that fashion.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear tml12

The U.S. does not need Canada, Canada needs the U.S.

I call B.S. Further, the reverse of this statement is set to grow stronger.

Why I supported the Conservatives is they were the only party running that promised to put Canadian values and positive Canada-U.S. relations first. Find me another major party that was willing to do that and I would have voted for them.

I would have voted conservative this time around but the MP in my riding is contemptible. However, I agree that some 'conservative values' need to be strengthened, and US relations have to be handled with way more tact.

[geoffrey]

This is worth a look and a giggle.

Ruber Stamping Our Rights

The gag is the same types championing Bush's warrantless spying were, just a few years a go, a -twitter over Clinton's "rubber-stamp" warrant-based FISA eavesdropping.

Which leaves me wondering: does the modern, mainstream conservative movement have any central alues beyond obediance to Bush? How did it devolve into a personality cult?

BlackDog,

The modern conservative movement is very complicated. Bush may be part of the conservative movement, but the conservative movement is not Bush.

Bush is a "neo-conservative." Neo-conservatives make up an element of conservatives but do not make up the conservative movement.

I am moderate and I always have been. I voted Conservative not because I think every word that comes out of Harper's mouth is equivalent to that of God's. Why I supported the Conservatives is they were the only party running that promised to put Canadian values and positive Canada-U.S. relations first. Find me another major party that was willing to do that and I would have voted for them.

The U.S. does not need Canada, Canada needs the U.S. And we need a U.S. government that will find room there for Canada. That will remember Canada when they remember their own country. Only the Conservatives promised to stand up for Canada in that fashion.

I'm not a neo-con, in fact, far from it. Definitely fit the bit of a neo-liberal mixed in with a bit of British class toryism.

Neo-cons make up a very small amount of conservatives... in fact I'd say they only exist in the US and a little in the UK. It's too bad GWB Jr. is giving the rest of us a bad name.

I also disagree tml, the US/Canada relationship is needed by both countries.

[tml12]

Dear tml12

The U.S. does not need Canada, Canada needs the U.S.

I call B.S. Further, the reverse of this statement is set to grow stronger.

Why I supported the Conservatives is they were the only party running that promised to put Canadian values and positive Canada-U.S. relations first. Find me another major party that was willing to do that and I would have voted for them.

I would have voted conservative this time around but the MP in my riding is contemptible. However, I agree that some 'conservative values' need to be strengthened, and US relations have to be handled with way more tact.

Fleabag,

If you are referring to freshwater, you're right. But that is the main reason we need to have better relations with our cousing to the south.

I respect your voting decision...

[tml12]

This is worth a look and a giggle.

Ruber Stamping Our Rights

The gag is the same types championing Bush's warrantless spying were, just a few years a go, a -twitter over Clinton's "rubber-stamp" warrant-based FISA eavesdropping.

Which leaves me wondering: does the modern, mainstream conservative movement have any central alues beyond obediance to Bush? How did it devolve into a personality cult?

BlackDog,

The modern conservative movement is very complicated. Bush may be part of the conservative movement, but the conservative movement is not Bush.

Bush is a "neo-conservative." Neo-conservatives make up an element of conservatives but do not make up the conservative movement.

I am moderate and I always have been. I voted Conservative not because I think every word that comes out of Harper's mouth is equivalent to that of God's. Why I supported the Conservatives is they were the only party running that promised to put Canadian values and positive Canada-U.S. relations first. Find me another major party that was willing to do that and I would have voted for them.

The U.S. does not need Canada, Canada needs the U.S. And we need a U.S. government that will find room there for Canada. That will remember Canada when they remember their own country. Only the Conservatives promised to stand up for Canada in that fashion.

I'm not a neo-con, in fact, far from it. Definitely fit the bit of a neo-liberal mixed in with a bit of British class toryism.

Neo-cons make up a very small amount of conservatives... in fact I'd say they only exist in the US and a little in the UK. It's too bad GWB Jr. is giving the rest of us a bad name.

I also disagree tml, the US/Canada relationship is needed by both countries.

Geoff,

Yes i agree with you and Fleabag that it is needed by both countries but to a different degree.

The U.S. does not need Canada now as much as it will in 50 years or so. And that is more than enough time for our relations to get better so the U.S. can work out a postive agreement with Ottawa over freshwater, etc.

[Black Dog]

The modern conservative movement is very complicated. Bush may be part of the conservative movement, but the conservative movement is not Bush.

Bush is a "neo-conservative." Neo-conservatives make up an element of conservatives but do not make up the conservative movement.

I wouldn't count Bush among the neocons. The Bush administration is full of them, sure, but Bush himself has never struck me as an idealogue. No matter what role he's played, eitehr as a private citizen or in politics, he's never been anything more than a dillentente.

However, it certainly seems like he's inspired a almost cult-like devotion among rank and file conservatives, not the conservative intelligensia, but the average Republican voter and the hard right social conservative base. I think after 9-11, right-leaning people gravitated to the idea of a strong father figure, a mantle Bush assumed by defaulty (by virture of his position as oppossed to his actual deeds). The lustre may have gone off a bit among moderates and"ideas" people, but the level of personal fealty to the man remains high. I mean: can you think of a president in the last 50 years that has inspuired the amount of personal devotion Bush has?

I am moderate and I always have been. I voted Conservative not because I think every word that comes out of Harper's mouth is equivalent to that of God's. Why I supported the Conservatives is they were the only party running that promised to put Canadian values and positive Canada-U.S. relations first. Find me another major party that was willing to do that and I would have voted for them.

The U.S. does not need Canada, Canada needs the U.S. And we need a U.S. government that will find room there for Canada. That will remember Canada when they remember their own country. Only the Conservatives promised to stand up for Canada in that fashion.

Well, I'm, talking about U.S. conservatives, which make our Cons look like Maoists.

[tml12]

"Well, I'm, talking about U.S. conservatives, which make our Cons look like Maoists."

Conservatives in general, regardless of what country they are in, speak for the same thing.

American conservatives are hardly different from Canadian conservatives. The only reason they seem different is because the American neo-con minority claims to speak for the moderate conservative majority.

There are many Canadian neo-cons, including many within the CPC, but they do not claim to speak for Canada's governing Conservative party.

[Black Dog]

Conservatives in general, regardless of what country they are in, speak for the same thing.

American conservatives are hardly different from Canadian conservatives. The only reason they seem different is because the American neo-con minority claims to speak for the moderate conservative majority.

There are many Canadian neo-cons, including many within the CPC, but they do not claim to speak for Canada's governing Conservative party.

"Conservative" is a broad term and, as you imply, covers a lot of differnt factions from economic libertarians to religious extremists and everyone in between. I've tried to narrow down who it is I'm talking about when I use the term conservative here, but obviously labels have limitations.

But I happen to believe that American conservatives are far more factionalized than there Canadian counterparts and that the strength of those factions tilt the movement far further to the right than Canada's Cons.

(Also: I suspect we're working on different terminologies here. I'm not sure what you mean by "neocon".)

[tml12]

Conservatives in general, regardless of what country they are in, speak for the same thing.

American conservatives are hardly different from Canadian conservatives. The only reason they seem different is because the American neo-con minority claims to speak for the moderate conservative majority.

There are many Canadian neo-cons, including many within the CPC, but they do not claim to speak for Canada's governing Conservative party.

"Conservative" is a broad term and, as you imply, covers a lot of differnt factions from economic libertarians to religious extremists and everyone in between. I've tried to narrow down who it is I'm talking about when I use the term conservative here, but obviously labels have limitations.

But I happen to believe that American conservatives are far more factionalized than there Canadian counterparts and that the strength of those factions tilt the movement far further to the right than Canada's Cons.

(Also: I suspect we're working on different terminologies here. I'm not sure what you mean by "neocon".)

Canadian cons are much more marginalized and divided than American cons. The neo-con movement only pretends to speak for regular conservatives and that is how they united them. In reality, neo-cons have their own big government, military spending agenda they don't market to your average American conservative who may vote for Bush but not support, or even understand, neo-conservatism.

[Black Dog]

Canadian cons are much more marginalized and divided than American cons. The neo-con movement only pretends to speak for regular conservatives and that is how they united them. In reality, neo-cons have their own big government, military spending agenda they don't market to your average American conservative who may vote for Bush but not support, or even understand, neo-conservatism.

I won't disagree, but I do think you're countering your own point here. You're right in that the neocons (for lack of a better term) don't show their real agenda to American voters. But how do they market themselves? As the party of God, guns, and (anti) gays. Social issues take up a disproportinate amount of space on the U.S. conservative agenda: economics are secondary. Given the amount of success they've had with this approach (and with the "war on terror"), they are obviously resonating with a significant chunk of the U.S. population.

Now, a party that tried the same approach here wouldn't get within sniffing distance of Parliment, which is why our Cons are trying like hell to moderate themselves. And look: it worked.

[tml12]

Canadian cons are much more marginalized and divided than American cons. The neo-con movement only pretends to speak for regular conservatives and that is how they united them. In reality, neo-cons have their own big government, military spending agenda they don't market to your average American conservative who may vote for Bush but not support, or even understand, neo-conservatism.

I won't disagree, but I do think you're countering your own point here. You're right in that the neocons (for lack of a better term) don't show their real agenda to American voters. But how do they market themselves? As the party of God, guns, and (anti) gays. Social issues take up a disproportinate amount of space on the U.S. conservative agenda: economics are secondary. Given the amount of success they've had with this approach (and with the "war on terror"), they are obviously resonating with a significant chunk of the U.S. population.

Now, a party that tried the same approach here wouldn't get within sniffing distance of Parliment, which is why our Cons are trying like hell to moderate themselves. And look: it worked.

The Republicans are only the party of God, guns, and anti-gays in rural areas. In urban areas, they are the party of lower taxes and tougher crime, in fact, just like the CPC here.

I don't see the difference, only reason Harper had to moderate his platform was because Canada's urban areas have more power and are more concentrated than with the electoral system in the States.

You think if New York and LA and San Francisco, etc. had the power in the U.S. their equivalents (Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver) have in Canada, we would be looking at constant Democratic majorities down there. Same if the Prairies and Alberta had the kind of power Middle America has there.

We would be seeing constant Conservative majorities with a pro-life platform.

[Black Dog]

The Republicans are only the party of God, guns, and anti-gays in rural areas. In urban areas, they are the party of lower taxes and tougher crime, in fact, just like the CPC here.

Which doesn't explain why they stiff in urban areas.

[tml12]

The Republicans are only the party of God, guns, and anti-gays in rural areas. In urban areas, they are the party of lower taxes and tougher crime, in fact, just like the CPC here.

Which doesn't explain why they stiff in urban areas.

BD,

Explain what you mean.

The only reason why Canada seems like a more left-wing country is because Canada's urban areas are more poweful electorally than America's urban areas.

[Black Dog]

BD,

Explain what you mean.

You claim U.S. conservative speaks in two languages: one for the rural good ol' boys and one for the city slickers. I don't buy that analysis because even the moderate stance you claim they put forward is rejected by urban voters.

The only reason why Canada seems like a more left-wing country is because Canada's urban areas are more poweful electorally than America's urban areas.

Well, we have two completely different electoral system, so using electoral success as a basis for discussion here is a flawed exercise. But it's kind of interesting that you'd suggest the Democrats and CPC are somehow polar opposites: I would suggest they don't really differ much at all, which would, in turn, indicate a more rightward tilt overall south of the 49th.

[tml12]

"You claim U.S. conservative speaks in two languages: one for the rural good ol' boys and one for the city slickers. I don't buy that analysis because even the moderate stance you claim they put forward is rejected by urban voters."

Fair enough...I agree.

"Well, we have two completely different electoral system, so using electoral success as a basis for discussion here is a flawed exercise. But it's kind of interesting that you'd suggest the Democrats and CPC are somehow polar opposites: I would suggest they don't really differ much at all, which would, in turn, indicate a more rightward tilt overall south of the 49th."

The Dems are pretty left of the CPC.