Why we must prevent Harper from becoming PM

[shoop]

Wow.

You really don't get it. Martin is toast and his only legacy as leader of the Liberals will be competing with John Turner as worst leader in the last hundred years.

The best leaders can look beyond the present election and get beyond naval gazing. When you compare Harper with Martin ... Harper spends his time pointing fingers and looking for opportunities to lure voters to get his party elected... not much vision beyond that. Martin spends much more time with vision and is passionate about the opportunities for Canada.

[Slim MacSquinty]

quote:

For those who have chosen to downplay Canada and our accomplishments in this thread, here is what is behind the assertion that we are respected in the world...

We are one of the few industrialized nations that has managed to dramatically reduce dept and get the economic house in order. In this global climate, other governments very much respect that accomplishment.

And you credit the Liberals for ecomonic performance gained through the free trade agreement which they opposed? This while they taxed the **it out of ordinary Canadians and ran the provinces into the ground? The only reason we balanced the books are free trade, the low dollar and Michael Wilson's budget.

We had a leadership at the time (including some opposition leaders) that were capable of seeing beyond the moment to asses the ramification to Canada of blindly following the US into the Iraq mess. Unfortunatley Harper was not among them and chose to push for our involvement which was a bad choice.

This is pure bull **it. It's always nice to look back in history and re-arrange the truth.

We have been involved in peace keeping and have made tremendous contributions when disasters occur. We are there and visible in a positive way across the world. We have been quite successful on the international front in terms of some of out foreign policy directions.

With second rate equipment and an emasculated military, imagine what we could do if we tried, don't credit the friggin political party credit the men and women in the uniform. GOOF

Whether you are prepared to accept it or not, there is a great deal of respect for Canada because we did not blindly follow Bush into the Iraq mess. Many in the US are now vehemently against the deception and the invasion and there is extreme backlash against Bush and others. Somehow our leaders withstood the enormous pressures at that time, saw the warning signals, and stood our ground in spite of the risk of not making Bush happy.

Bush is not the entire US, they have a somewhat functional government that is less prone to theft than that which we have at present. Americans think of us as a cold Argentina, we're good for cheap labour, oil and good skiing. Get over your smug self appreciation. Martin's idea of diplomacy is to suck up to China.

The best leaders can look beyond the present election and get beyond naval gazing. When you compare Harper with Martin ... Harper spends his time pointing fingers and looking for opportunities to lure voters to get his party elected... not much vision beyond that. Martin spends much more time with vision and is passionate about the opportunities for Canada.

Martin is a screw up, that's why they call him Mr. Dithers, he is running an election campaign on vague ideas about values, governments don't impose values that's stupid. Harper has run an excellent campaign based on issues and policy, that's what government is supposed to do.

Go back to watching the CBC if you just want to feel smug and self righteous, leave the government to people with real ideas.

[shoop]

Martin has been a terrible PM and run an equally terrible campaign this time around.

He is being booted to the sidelines, as he deserves to be.

People like the OP are just sad YL hacks holding on for dear life. Attack, attack, attack. That is why they are losing this campaign.

Martin is a screw up, that's why they call him Mr. Dithers, he is running an election campaign on vague ideas about values, governments don't impose values that's stupid. Harper has run an excellent campaign based on issues and policy, that's what government is supposed to do.

Go back to watching the CBC if you just want to feel smug and self righteous, leave the government to people with real ideas.

[kimmy]

I don't know why I'm spending my time responding to a guy who appears to just be reposting form letters, except that it's a good excuse to write about why I believe so passionately that we need to choose a new government on Jan 23.

For those who have chosen to downplay Canada and our accomplishments in this thread, here is what is behind the assertion that we are respected in the world...

I don't think it is "downplaying Canada" to point out that Prime Minister Martin can't even keep his own party in line or manage his own election campaign competently. How's he supposed to lead the country when it seems as though he couldn't even organize a game of hide and seek at his grandchildrens' birthday party?

We had a leadership at the time (including some opposition leaders) that were capable of seeing beyond the moment to asses the ramification to Canada of blindly following the US into the Iraq mess. Unfortunatley Harper was not among them and

and neither was Martin.

We have been involved in peace keeping and have made tremendous contributions when disasters occur. We are there and visible in a positive way across the world. We have been quite successful on the international front in terms of some of out foreign policy directions.

Canadians who believe that our ability to contribute in trouble spots around the globe is important should be quite excited about Harper's plan to bolster our military and expand our capability of providing aid in places that need our help.

The best leaders can look beyond the present election and get beyond naval gazing. When you compare Harper with Martin ... Harper spends his time pointing fingers and looking for opportunities to lure voters to get his party elected... not much vision beyond that. Martin spends much more time with vision and is passionate about the opportunities for Canada.

Are you watching the same election as the rest of us? Harper has been talking about his own policy and plans and his hopes for the future for weeks. Martin is the one who has done nothing but point fingers, spending the entire campaign trying to convince Canadians that Stephen Harper is a Bad Guy.

Next time you fly by, why don't you respond to questions like how Paul Martin can possibly address national unity when his party's been so thoroughly discredited in Quebec. Or why we should trust a guy who proposed a major policy idea in the middle of a debate without even consulting his own party.

-k

[Slim MacSquinty]

I don't know why I'm spending my time responding to a guy who appears to just be reposting form letters, except that it's a good excuse to write about why I believe so passionately that we need to choose a new government on Jan 23.

Mr E-mail has posted pretty much verbatum the same crap on Politics Canada Forum, obviously a desperate Liberal insider!

[emailforcanada]

Nop. Not a liberal insider, not paid and not put up to posting opinions. I am a just a regular Canadian and for this election I am determined to share these concerns as one who has watched Harper and his actions long before this election campaign started.

This topic is about valid concerns on many peoples minds and it is appropriate here or any political discussion board. While the discussion thread may take different forms, the starting point intentionally the same. To save time (and fingers) cut and paste is sometimes appropriate. Most reasonable discussion board participants will understand that.

Whether or not you are prepared to have a reasonable discourse without resorting to accusations that any opposing opinion is a plant, is of course totally up to you. There are plenty who can articulate their arguments well and have engaged a good debate. Yet these 5 points have withstood a lot of prodding and poking.

There are a great many people who are as vehemently opposed to Harper and I am. They are not plants. They care about the future of Canada. I give credit to Harper for pulling off a great campaign ... However he is not fooling me and these posts are intended to ensure that he has less opportunity to fool others.

I don't know why I'm spending my time responding to a guy who appears to just be reposting form letters, except that it's a good excuse to write about why I believe so passionately that we need to choose a new government on Jan 23.

Mr E-mail has posted pretty much verbatum the same crap on Politics Canada Forum, obviously a desperate Liberal insider!

[shoop]

So we are *unreasonable* if we take offence to your blatant agenda that you carry from board to board?

If you are really looking for a *reasonable discourse* why not reply directly to the considered answers of kimmy and Slim McGuinty?

This topic is about valid concerns on many peoples minds and it is appropriate here or any political discussion board. While the discussion thread may take different forms, the starting point unintentionally the same. To save time (and fingers) cut and paste is sometimes appropriate. Most reasonable discussion board participants will understand that.

Whether or not you are prepared to have a reasonable discourse without resorting to accusations that any opposing opinion is a plant, is of course totally up to you. There are plenty who can articulate their arguments well and have engaged a good debate. Yet these 5 points have withstood a lot of prodding and poking.

[Guest eureka]

And you credit the Liberals for ecomonic performance gained through the free trade agreement which they opposed? This while they taxed the **it out of ordinary Canadians and ran the provinces into the ground? The only reason we balanced the books are free trade, the low dollar and Michael Wilson's budget.

The ignorance abounds!

The Free Trade agreements are not responsible for Canada's econpmic performance. Canada has not performed particularly well since Free Trade. Free Trade freed almost nothing except some more Canadian busines to leave for the United States.

The federal government did not tax the h.. out od "ordinary Canadians. In fact. taxes have been substantially reduced under the last Liberal regimes.

The federal government did hurt the Provinces under the Liberals; continuing the reduction of transfers so hugely begun by Wilson and Mulroney. The Provinced had the taxing power to replace the lost transfers but chose not: preferring to have all the blame fall onto the feds and, in the case of Harris at least, downloading the need for revenue replacement onto the municipalities.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Quote:

This topic is about valid concerns on many peoples minds and it is appropriate here or any political discussion board. While the discussion thread may take different forms, the starting point intentionally the same. To save time (and fingers) cut and paste is sometimes appropriate. Most reasonable discussion board participants will understand that.

How many boards did you post the exact same "statement" which conforms exactly to the Liberal "talking points"?

Whether or not you are prepared to have a reasonable discourse without resorting to accusations that any opposing opinion is a plant, is of course totally up to you. There are plenty who can articulate their arguments well and have engaged a good debate. Yet these 5 points have withstood a lot of prodding and poking.

If you really want discourse and you've just "discovered" this board then go back and read the many rebuttals and explanations on previous threads. Otherwise you're not interesting in learning anything you're just making statements.

There are a great many people who are as vehemently opposed to Harper and I am. They are not plants. They care about the future of Canada. I give credit to Harper for pulling off a great campaign ... However he is not fooling me and these posts are intended to ensure that he has less opportunity to fool others.

Thats all well and fine, but your whole premise is that your guy cares more than their guy, that is unadulterated bull **it. And somehow your better Canadians than everyone else, and wrapping yourself in the flag is the last act of a desperate despot.

Many of us have watched Harper for a long time, done considerable reading and have done the same as regards Mr. Martin. MY conclusion is that Martin wants his name in the history books, Harper wants to make his country better, Harper's plan is well considered, publically debated and supported by a policy convention, not made up on the fly and shrouded in vagaries like "values" which is historically the Liberal way of diverting attention away from their real agenda. That agenda is, and has been since WW2, to ensure that they and their elite a) stay in power and get rich doing so.

The jig is up get over it.

[Guest eureka]

It has been said that "Death and Taxes" are the only two inevitabilities.

When the tax obsessed Harper has abolished taxes, will he then devote his considerable beliefs (faith?) to the task of abolishing Death?

[sharkman]

Abolishing death, has a nice ring to it. But don't tell Martin, he might actually try it as a related strategy to his gun bans.

Of course, Harper won't abolish death or taxes, and the sun will come up the day after the election just like every Liberal victory. Canada will go in a different direction for a few years, and if Canadians don't like it they will vote him out next time.

[emailforcanada]

Quote from previuos post:

That agenda is, and has been since WW2, to ensure that they and their elite a) stay in power and get rich doing so."

I rest my case in the point about acute cynicism and how it affects one's ability to accept other opposing opinions. That previous post is a wonderful example and thank you for the illustration.[/b]

So in the previous response there was a magnificent effort to illustrate how much the author is opposed to Martin and the Liberals. That is super clear and we get it..... Really... we do.

A HUGE giveaway that points to a lack of clear thinking is when someone chooses to reference 60 years of politics and then make generalized statements about everything else today in that context. All the liberals, for all time are this… all conservatives are that, etc. everyone who even thinks of supporting the liberals are in this bucket, otherwise they are that. You are either left or right and so on. If only life … and politics were that simple.

There are great number of caring folks who are involved in the conservative party and who really care about Canada. They are all unique individuals, have various views on various topics and decided to align with a particular party. That does not make them all like Harper (and thank goodness for that). It is a shame that Harper is their leader because they would not have to deal with all this concern otherwise. The same thing goes for NDP, Liberals and even the Bloc.

No single party has a monopoly on good people or good ideas. No single party is, or will ever be, immune to bad people or bad ideas. Over time every single major party has had its share of experiencing the damage caused by a few selfish corrupt individuals. As we have seen lately, even Harper has had to openly acknowledge this reality and drop a candidate right in the middle of a campaign.

Ultimately though, it is the leader that has the biggest effect on the direction and perception of a party. The 5 points in this thread are just a few examples that encapsulate common concerns about Harper.

What is most telling and underscores the validity of these concerns is what happens when someone raises a point about the way that Harper shows how he consistently chooses his own political ambitions over the best interests of Canada.

Almost without exception, the ONLY response that the majority of die hard Harper supporters can muster is to point to someone else and claim they are worse.

That is a sign that there is a degree of acceptance of the criticism. The excuse is that well, at least Harper is not as bad as this other person.

We need a leader who is prepared to do the right thing when the chips are down. We do not need to elect a seriously flawed leader with a history of bad choices just because there is an appetite for change.

Change is good when there is a good alternative. Layton is actually pretty impressive but again there are serious concerns about a severe lack of experience within the party.

Martin is passionate about Canada, he is an exceptional economist and he is truly trying to overcome the massive damage from a serous scandal. He is an very easy target but I must put at least some stock into the Gomery report that spent 8 months going through every grueling detail in a very public forum. What Gomery, the lawyers and the investigators came back with after spending over 8 months of their lives is more than most people on this discussion board would ever even have time to read. While there is always a question, their findings are good enough for me. Their findings certainly hold more credibility than some of exaggerated claims on this or any other discussion board.

Finally... yes, if another die hard supporter of Harper tries to level similar accusations of this being a plant because they d o not happen to agree, I will absolutely reuse portions of this post when and where as appropriate.

[August1991]

Email, your post above offered absolutely no rebuttal to Kimmy's excellent posts that appear here and here.

It is clear that you post on this forum because you want to defend the Liberal Party. You should understand that unless you respond to others' posts, you appear to be hiding something.

If you don't answer others' posts, you are hurting your cause and you would be better to not post at all.

[emailforcanada]

Apologies - was not meaning to come across as ignoring the rebuttle. I thought I already posted this response but here it is again. The primary reason for these posts is to raise awareness and engage in discusisons about Harper as a leader and not to defend the liberals.

Addressing Kimmy's rebuttle to #1.:

"What instability? What crisis? The only crisis was of the Liberal party itself. If you are claiming national unity was at stake, consider that replacing Paul Martin as prime minister might be the most important action Canadians could take towards resolving that issue. If you're talking about the loonie dipping a few cents at the international currency markets and so forth, get real.

We have a parliamentary system that allows elections to be forced when the prime minister has lost the confidence to govern. Quite clearly Paul Martin had done so, and parliament was well within its right to exercise that power. Forcing an election is not of itself "instability". It's a natural occurence in our parliamentary system."

My Response:

Harper's actions last May showed that he badly wanted to size upon a great political opportunity. His actions showed that he believed could get into power by using the sponsorship scandal... even if meant creating additional more instability for Canada at the time. Things were bad enough and we certainly did not need any additional instability in our Government but his actions showed that he was willing to take it to the brink regardless of the ramifications to our economy, our currency or anything else. During the days when he brought everything to a halt in parliament to try to take the government down, the Canadian dollar was affected and it would have likely have turned worse had he succeeded. This would have had very negative unnecessary ramifications. Many eyes across the world were watching this carefully and foreign investors were getting jittery. It was a stupid move and a bad time and resulted in absolutely nothing positive for Canada.

Whatever his motives, his ultimate actions were definitely NOT in Canada's best interest and nothing good could have occurred in the short term even if he had succeeded. It does show the lengths Harper was willing to go and would indicate that it was more intended to prove a political point and win back his election loss last time around. It seemed like he and his top aides were so engrossed in trying to take advantage of the situation that they were completely oblivious to the effect it was having. Rest assured that the business world was watching carefully and not oblivious at all.

This was the turning point in many people's mind about Harper. On top of his willingness to risk getting Canada involved in Iraq for the wrong reason, Harper was now willing to also sacrifice the economy unnecessarily. This is why we must prevent him from becoming the prime minister. There is no room for these kinds of erroneous decisions and in this day and age of global markets there is no mercy for Governments who screw up their economy.

As it turned out we did managed (as expected) to get through to the planned election time just fine. This also further underscores the point that his timing was completely inappropriate. It was a failed attempt to seize upon a political opportunity. Even people within his own party did not support the way that he approached it.

Doing the right thing for Canada means putting the best interest of Canada ahead of your own political interests. Harper can certainly point the finger at others but he has shown by his own actions that when it comes to the crunch, he can make very poor judgments and make potentially dangerous decisions.

quote name='August1991' date='Jan 19 2006, 12:46 AM' post='89517']

Email, your post above offered absolutely no rebuttal to Kimmy's excellent posts that appear here and here.

It is clear that you post on this forum because you want to defend the Liberal Party. You should understand that unless you respond to others' posts, you appear to be hiding something.

If you don't answer others' posts, you are hurting your cause and you would be better to not post at all.

[kimmy]

This topic is about valid concerns on many peoples minds and it is appropriate here or any political discussion board. While the discussion thread may take different forms, the starting point intentionally the same. To save time (and fingers) cut and paste is sometimes appropriate. Most reasonable discussion board participants will understand that.

Whether or not you are prepared to have a reasonable discourse without resorting to accusations that any opposing opinion is a plant, is of course totally up to you. There are plenty who can articulate their arguments well and have engaged a good debate. Yet these 5 points have withstood a lot of prodding and poking.

You say you want reasonable discourse, but you haven't responded to any of the replies you've gotten. That doesn't sound like you're here for "reasonable discourse", it sounds like you're just here to proselytize.

You criticize Harper for advocating involvement in Iraq, but Martin did the same. How is Martin an improvement?

You praise Martin's management of our relations on the international stage, but Martin has worsened our relationship with our most important ally and trading partner. How smart is that?

You talk about disunity in the Conservative party, but ignore the fact that the Liberals are now openly fighting. You ignore the fact that Martin's own party members have already begun campaigning to replace him. Why would Canadians even consider voting for a guy who's a LAME DUCK before he's even elected?

You talk about Martin's capable and experienced leadership, but presently it doesn't look like Martin would be capable of leading a sing-along at band-camp. Is a guy who can't even keep his own campaign under control really somebody who should be running the country?

You accused Harper of causing instability to the country? There's no bigger threat to our stability than Quebec separatism, and the Liberals are incapable of addressing it.

You accuse Harper of inventing gimmick policies on the fly? Name one. And then address the most glaring example of a gimmick-policy invented on the fly of the election, Martin's spur-of-the-moment revelation that he'd revoke the notwithstanding clause.

You talk about Harper just pointing fingers and criticizing and having no vision of his own? Absurd. The Conservatives have articulated their policies and their vision day after day after day in this election, while the Liberals have done almost nothing except attack Harper.

But you don't really have a response to any of that, do you. You'll just keep on churning out the same stuff, cross-posting it to different forums, deep in denial of the fact that your guy is a weak lame-duck leader who doesn't even have the backing of his own party anymore, in denial of the fact that the Liberals have driven this country to the brink of a unity crisis.

-k

[emailforcanada]

OK - I have addressed each and every one of Kimmy's points below.

This topic is about valid concerns on many peoples minds and it is appropriate here or any political discussion board. While the discussion thread may take different forms, the starting point intentionally the same. To save time (and fingers) cut and paste is sometimes appropriate. Most reasonable discussion board participants will understand that.

Whether or not you are prepared to have a reasonable discourse without resorting to accusations that any opposing opinion is a plant, is of course totally up to you. There are plenty who can articulate their arguments well and have engaged a good debate. Yet these 5 points have withstood a lot of prodding and poking.

You say you want reasonable discourse, but you haven't responded to any of the replies you've gotten. That doesn't sound like you're here for "reasonable discourse", it sounds like you're just here to proselytize.

Answer:

Be clear please about the replies you are referring to. I welcome the counter points and have responded to many already.

You criticize Harper for advocating involvement in Iraq, but Martin did the same. How is Martin an improvement?

Answer:

I do not agree at all that Martin and Harper had the same response to that situation.

You praise Martin's management of our relations on the international stage, but Martin has worsened our relationship with our most important ally and trading partner. How smart is that?

Answer:

Everyone knows that we have been consistently given the finger by our largest trading partner in spite of the fact that we were both diplomatic and polite for the longest time. We showed enormous patience and yet each time we called out how our trading 'partner' was screwing us we again, got the finger. In spite of this the majority of Canadians can appreciate that the current administration is not necessarily representative of all Americans, and we still offer the hand of friendship. That says a lot. No leader of Canada, absolutely none, should just go along with this arrogant and insulting behavior without making a firm stand. That is the smart thing to do. That is the right thing to do and it shows enormous patience that it took so long to let those currently running the show with now in the US, in no uncertain terms, that their behavior is wrong and we will not put up with it. It is those arrogant people who are currently running the show in the US that worsened the relationship not us. Now in the past, Harper has indicated that he would prefer to have Canada act liek a puppy dog that just goes along with whatever our big neighbor wants. That is not the kind of leader we need.

You talk about disunity in the Conservative party, but ignore the fact that the Liberals are now openly fighting. You ignore the fact that Martin's own party members have already begun campaigning to replace him. Why would Canadians even consider voting for a guy who's a LAME DUCK before he's even elected?

Answer: Now it is you who is not addressing the point that was raised. Bear in mind that pointing to another political party for comparison is simply avoiding the issue.

You talk about Martin's capable and experienced leadership, but presently it doesn't look like Martin would be capable of leading a sing-along at band-camp. Is a guy who can't even keep his own campaign under control really somebody who should be running the country?

Answer:

I agree that the perception is that the campaign looks less organized. Look, it is nothing to me what you think of Martin but anyone can throw out loose analogies. That is very easy to do. When I referred to reasonable intelligent discourse, I meant utilizing intelligent points and arguments ... not pathetic methaphores . If a point is worth making and the case is strong enough, it should not need to be be exaggerated.

You accused Harper of causing instability to the country? There's no bigger threat to our stability than Quebec separatism, and the Liberals are incapable of addressing it.

Answer:

That is your opinion. I disagree completly.

You accuse Harper of inventing gimmick policies on the fly? Name one. And then address the most glaring example of a gimmick-policy invented on the fly of the election, Martin's spur-of-the-moment revelation that he'd revoke the notwithstanding clause.

Answer:

Intelligent discourse does not mean providing a set of instruction for how the other person must respond.

I will name one glaring example. On an interview about the campaign policies, Happer said ... and this is an exact quote: ".. we have introduced some policies in this campaign, and we will probably throw in a couple more before the campaign ends". Those words 'throw in' are very telling. I do not know for sure yet which ones were thrown in but a good indication is one that has broad ramifications that were not fully thought through. As much as I love the idea of avoiding capital gains.. there is increasing awareness that the ramifications of setting the rules, managing, monitoring and implementing this are huge in terms of costs and probably a nightmare for CCRA.

You talk about Harper just pointing fingers and criticizing and having no vision of his own? Absurd. The Conservatives have articulated their policies and their vision day after day after day in this election, while the Liberals have done almost nothing except attack Harper.

Answer:

If there is one point I will agree needed to be much better articulated it is this one. I am sure Harper has a vision but I do not get a good sense that it is as well though out as it should be. Also - I truly beleive that Harper has spend more time on the election strategy than on a vision for Canada.

But you don't really have a response to any of that, do you. You'll just keep on churning out the same stuff, cross-posting it to different forums, deep in denial of the fact that your guy is a weak lame-duck leader who doesn't even have the backing of his own party anymore, in denial of the fact that the Liberals have driven this country to the brink of a unity crisis.

-k

[kimmy]

You criticize Harper for advocating involvement in Iraq, but Martin did the same. How is Martin an improvement?

Answer:

I do not agree at all that Martin and Harper had the same response to that situation.

Martin said quite bluntly "We should be in Iraq."

You praise Martin's management of our relations on the international stage, but Martin has worsened our relationship with our most important ally and trading partner. How smart is that?

Answer:

Everyone knows that we have been consistently given the finger by our largest trading partner in spite of the fact that we were both diplomatic and polite for the longest time. We showed enormous patience and yet each time we called out how our trading 'partner' was screwing us we again, got the finger. In spite of this the majority of Canadians can appreciate that the current administration is not necessarily representative of all Americans, and we still offer the hand of friendship. That says a lot. No leader of Canada, absolutely none, should just go along with this arrogant and insulting behavior without making a firm stand. That is the smart thing to do. That is the right thing to do and it shows enormous patience that it took so long to let those currently running the show with now in the US, in no uncertain terms, that their behavior is wrong and we will not put up with it. It is those arrogant people who are currently running the show in the US that worsened the relationship not us. Now in the past, Harper has indicated that he would prefer to have Canada act liek a puppy dog that just goes along with whatever our big neighbor wants. That is not the kind of leader we need.

But Paul Martin and his party completely failed to take any action on the issues you're talking about. What have they done about the softwood tarrifs? What did they actually accomplish on beef? Nothing. For all their tough talk about standing up to Americans, the Liberals haven't lifted a finger on these trade issues.

Instead, we saw Martin challenge Americans on greenhouse gas emissions, which is ironically an area where they have a much stronger track record than we do. We saw Martin try to lure the American ambassador into this election for political reasons. How is that helpful to a constructive relationship?

You talk about disunity in the Conservative party, but ignore the fact that the Liberals are now openly fighting. You ignore the fact that Martin's own party members have already begun campaigning to replace him. Why would Canadians even consider voting for a guy who's a LAME DUCK before he's even elected?

Answer: Now it is you who is not addressing the point that was raised. Bear in mind that pointing to another political party for comparison is simply avoiding the issue.

My answer is that not long ago the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance were two separate parties and Harper has done an amazing job of unifying them into a cohesive team that has displayed exceptional focus in this campaign. That these two parties have merged and are operating so efficiently and so effectively in such a short time is a strong testament to Harper's leadership.

You raised the issue of party unity, so the disunity of the Liberal Party is not a distraction or an attempt to avoid the issue, it is *directly* relevant to the point you wish to discuss.

If you believe unity of the governing party is an important consideration, why would you support the Liberals, who have open warfare between different factions of the party?

If you believe party unity is an important consideration, how can you support Paul Martin, whose bloodless coup against Jean Chretien and his open campaign to replace his own leader caused a rift in the Liberal party that exists to this day?

And why, again, do you believe Canadians should vote to elect a Prime Minister whose own party is already planning his ouster?

You talk about Martin's capable and experienced leadership, but presently it doesn't look like Martin would be capable of leading a sing-along at band-camp. Is a guy who can't even keep his own campaign under control really somebody who should be running the country?

Answer:

I agree that the perception is that the campaign looks less organized. Look, it is nothing to me what you think of Martin but anyone can throw out loose analogies. That is very easy to do. When I referred to reasonable intelligent discourse, I meant utilizing intelligent points and arguments ... not pathetic methaphores . If a point is worth making and the case is strong enough, it should not need to be be exaggerated.

You don't debate the substance of the question, you just dislike the analogy? Very well. I shall rephrase in a direct and analogy-free manner:

If Martin is a capable leader, why is his campaign in such confusion?

If Martin is a capable leader, why is his party so divided?

If Martin is a capable leader, why are members of his own party already planning their campaigns to replace him?

If Martin is a capable leader, why is his most trusted and loyal supporter Anne McLellan now saying publicly that Martin's leadership has likely cost her the election?

Why do you think that a man who is unable to lead his own party would be a good choice to lead the country?

You accused Harper of causing instability to the country? There's no bigger threat to our stability than Quebec separatism, and the Liberals are incapable of addressing it.

Answer:

That is your opinion. I disagree completly.

Why do you disagree? Liberal support in Quebec is plunging toward single digit numbers. Quebecers have rejected the Liberal party. The Liberals and their record of scandal in the province had tarnished the name of federalism in Quebec.

You accuse Harper of inventing gimmick policies on the fly? Name one. And then address the most glaring example of a gimmick-policy invented on the fly of the election, Martin's spur-of-the-moment revelation that he'd revoke the notwithstanding clause.

Answer:

Intelligent discourse does not mean providing a set of instruction for how the other person must respond.

I will name one glaring example. On an interview about the campaign policies, Happer said ... and this is an exact quote: ".. we have introduced some policies in this campaign, and we will probably throw in a couple more before the campaign ends". Those words 'throw in' are very telling. I do not know for sure yet which ones were thrown in but a good indication is one that has broad ramifications that were not fully thought through. As much as I love the idea of avoiding capital gains.. there is increasing awareness that the ramifications of setting the rules, managing, monitoring and implementing this are huge in terms of costs and probably a nightmare for CCRA.

Yes, you already mentioned the "we will probably throw in a couple more" quote. However poor the choice of words may have been, it does not indicate that policies have been invented on the fly. All of the Conservatives' major policies were announced early in the campaign, over a month ago. The fact is, there is nothing last minute or on the fly about any of them.

I again challenge you to address Martin's pledge to scrap the notwithstanding clause. It didn't appear anywhere in the Liberal policy platform. It's not in the "Red Book". Martin and his aides are unable to say when the policy was actually created or why it doesn't appear in the "Red Book". Anne McLellan-- the Deputy Prime Minister, Martin's closest supporter, a professor of constitutional law for goodness sake-- admitted to a reporter that she knew nothing about the idea until the words came out of Paul Martin's mouth during the debate.

If you're concerned about leaders making up "gimmick policies" on the fly to try and get elected, then what better example of that could anyone ask for than Paul Martin announcing in the middle of the debate that he will scrap the notwithstanding clause?

You talk about Harper just pointing fingers and criticizing and having no vision of his own? Absurd. The Conservatives have articulated their policies and their vision day after day after day in this election, while the Liberals have done almost nothing except attack Harper.

Answer:

If there is one point I will agree needed to be much better articulated it is this one. I am sure Harper has a vision but I do not get a good sense that it is as well though out as it should be. Also - I truly beleive that Harper has spend more time on the election strategy than on a vision for Canada.

Ah. Of course. Harper's campaign must be so good because he spends too much time thinking about his campaign and no time thinking about the country. Martin's campaign must be so crappy because he spends no time thinking about his campaign and all his time thinking about his vision for the country. Martin's crappy campaign is proof that he loves the country more!

riiiiight

-k

[shoop]

emailforcanada,

Take a look at your replies.

You keep talking about 'reasonable' dsicourse and discussion.

Yet you resort to the same tactics you theoretically abhor.

How is your off-hand dismissal of a metaphor as *pathetic* a tactic of reasonable discourse?

You don't have a *good sense* that Harper has a well-thought out vision? Where is the intelligence in simply going with your sense/feelings? Is reasonable discourse only a requirement for the ever-growing number of Canadians opposed to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Your sentence about the meaning of intelligent discourse is an oxymoron in that it attempts to provide a set of ground rules for engaging in intelligent discourse - as defined by ....... YOU!

Here is a (non-pathetic) metaphor for you. Your response to kimmy is symbolic of the problems the Liberals are facing in this campaign. You are attempting to talk over the heads of posters with opposing views from yours, because you feel this tactic has worked for you in the past. Symbolic of the arrogance that will lead your party into the wilderness for a long, long time. Just like the Liberal campaign nationally you are stuck playing the same chord even in the face of an opposition that can refute your points logically and coherently.

To save time (and fingers) cut and paste is sometimes appropriate. Most reasonable discussion board participants will understand that.

Whether or not you are prepared to have a reasonable discourse without resorting to accusations that any opposing opinion is a plant, is of course totally up to you.

When I referred to reasonable intelligent discourse, I meant utilizing intelligent points and arguments ... not pathetic methaphores .

Intelligent discourse does not mean providing a set of instruction for how the other person must respond.

I am sure Harper has a vision but I do not get a good sense that it is as well though out as it should be.

[sage]

The hallmark of Liberal policy the last decade plus has been to decry an opposition parties policy, get into power, then either accept it, and/or elaborate on it. Case in point free trade, the balancing of the budget, etc.

When GST came in, Liberals despised it. The they were going to "harmonize it". Eventually they did nothing with it and when Harper indicated he's going to lower it, suddenly cutting the GST is a tax cut to the upper class.

Free Trade. Absolute hypocrisy on the part of the Liberals and there can be no rebuttal.

Balancing the budget. If anyone other then a Liberal had downloaded social programs onto the Provinces in the way Martin did, it would have been treason.

Also how does Martin get this "I'm a great economist" image. The economist in the Liberal party is John McCallum (former chief economist with the Royal Bank), who likely will lose his own seat this election. Paul has really done nothing pf significance on his own his entire life.

First he was born into a rich liberal family. Then he followed daddy's footsteps and went to the U of T law school. Then he became a director on the board of a few big corp.'s because his last name was Martin and daddy was a Liberal cabinet minister. Then he was forced into dealing with the debt and deficit by virtue of the Reform party's fiscal conservative views.

What the hell has Martin ever done on his own other then split his own party and contradict himself every time he opens his mouth. He's the walking definition of a megalomaniac.

[emailforcanada]

#6. Harper's inexperience - exposed on TV tonight.

I knew Harper was inexperienced, but my jaw dropped when he was asked by the viewer on 'Your Turn' tonight about his foreign policy experience.

His answer: Very little.

When asked if he ever even travelled? Not much.... "but I have been to Mexico" Said Harper.

This is worthy of a separate topic.... but underscores a major concern and another reason why Harper is a poor choice for PM. He will likely not do well for Canada at the G8 summit.

[kimmy]

#6. Harper's inexperience - exposed on TV tonight.

I knew Harper was inexperienced, but my jaw dropped when he was asked by the viewer on 'Your Turn' tonight about his foreign policy experience.

His answer: Very little.

When asked if he ever even travelled? Not much.... "but I have been to Mexico" Said Harper.

This is worthy of a separate topic.... but underscores a major concern and another reason why Harper is a poor choice for PM. He will likely not do well for Canada at the G8 summit.

Better a man who's inexperienced on the world stage than a man who's proven he's a weak and ineffective leader.

I notice you didn't respond to my previous message, Mr Discourse. Are you unwilling, unable, or still trying to locate the appropriate Liberal Party pamphlets?

-k

[emailforcanada]

These are understandable reactions under the circumstances and predictable attempts for divert or minimize the issue can be expected from Harper die hard fans.

This latest piece of information just underscores that there is a serious concern among many Canadians about the level of inexperience of Harper.

It is a matter of great importance when considering who to vote for and expecially in this age where global awareness and competency is critical.

.

#6. Harper's inexperience - exposed on TV tonight.

I knew Harper was inexperienced, but my jaw dropped when he was asked by the viewer on 'Your Turn' tonight about his foreign policy experience.

His answer: Very little.

When asked if he ever even travelled? Not much.... "but I have been to Mexico" Said Harper.

This is worthy of a separate topic.... but underscores a major concern and another reason why Harper is a poor choice for PM. He will likely not do well for Canada at the G8 summit.

Better a man who's inexperienced on the world stage than a man who's proven he's a weak and ineffective leader.

I notice you didn't respond to my previous message, Mr Discourse. Are you unwilling, unable, or still trying to locate the appropriate Liberal Party pamphlets?

-k

[geoffrey]

These are understandable reactions under the circumstances and predictable attempts for divert or minimize the issue can be expected from Harper die hard fans.

This latest piece of information just underscores that there is a serious concern among many Canadians about the level of inexperience of Harper.

It is a matter of great importance when considering who to vote for and expecially in this age where global awareness and competency is critical.

So because Harper says he's a little inexperienced internationally and because you believe this is bad for Canada, there is now an underscoring serious concern among many Canadians? You have too much faith in yourself.

What has Martin ever done for Canada internationally?

Fix the softwood lumber dispute? No.

Solve an easy to solve problem in BSE? No.

Make us look like idiots in front of the world lecturing the US on a topic we utterly fail at ourselves? Yes.

Harper knows he's not experienced, and he's willing to bring in help to fix this.

Martin thinks he's effective, but in reality, is a poor stateman abroad. When you are so ignorant of your own problems that it hurts our country economically and socially, you have no advantage over an unproven candidate.

I'll take inexperience over ignorance anyday.

P.S. You still haven't answered Kimmy's question.

[kimmy]

Well, ok. Let's check the scorecard.

Negative:

Martin has been thoroughly rejected by Quebec.

Martin can't even unify his own party.

Martin's own allies are turning against him.

Martin is a lame duck whose own party is already jockeying to replace him.

Martin makes up policy positions on the fly in the middle of debates without even consulting his own people.

Martin was as blunt as Harper in saying that we should be in Iraq.

Positive:

But at least Martin has been to a few G8 conferences.

-k

[emailforcanada]

The most important thing to note about responses like this is that ultimately it shows that there is an complete acceptance of the issue raised about Harper. There is clearly no defence and it is a completely understandable reaction. Look, this is not intended as a personal insult to Harper - just a recognition that a there are some key criteria for the job, and he is missing them.

Most Canadians know the importance of having experience - especially in foreign affairs.

If you were hiring someone for a job and a large part of that job function included closing international trade deals and defining foreign policy.... having practically zero experience would be a very big concern. Hiring a PM is no different.

>

Well, ok. Let's check the scorecard.

Negative:

Martin has been thoroughly rejected by Quebec.

Martin can't even unify his own party.

Martin's own allies are turning against him.

Martin is a lame duck whose own party is already jockeying to replace him.

Martin makes up policy positions on the fly in the middle of debates without even consulting his own people.

Martin was as blunt as Harper in saying that we should be in Iraq.

Positive:

But at least Martin has been to a few G8 conferences.

-k