Harper's inexperience - this is serious folks

[Melanie_]

The US does not need our troops for anything. We could have made them perfectly happy if we'd just given them moral support on both Iraq and missile defence. That's a small price to pay given how one-sidedly in our favour the relationship between us and them has been to date.

Supporting them when they are wrong, just to pander to the inequality of the economic relationship, can hardly be called moral at all.

[BubberMiley]

Supporting an illegal war like Iraq would have been a pretty heavy price to pay. I think we gained more respect with most Americans than we lost on that one.

[newbie]

Supporting an illegal war like Iraq would have been a pretty heavy price to pay. I think we gained more respect with most Americans than we lost on that one.

Right on Bubber. And this idea that Canadians are anti-American is overdone. If anything we are anti-Bush and his administration for all the right reasons; one of which is Bush's right-wing Christianity. And what does it say when Pat Robertson has the likes of Tom Delay, Bill Frist and other high power republicans on his little TV show.

[Harare]

Well back to the subject about foreign experience.

I have travelled to over 60 countries, so does that make me

"experienced in foreign policy" or "ready to properly protect Cananda's interests" of course not. What a ludicrous proposition. The vast majority of cabinet ministers step into ministries about which they have no experience. That's what we have deputy ministers for.

I would suggest that speaking a few foreign languages would be useful in foreign affairs or having lived in a few other countries would be helpful but that's about it. Not a big deal & clearly the Liberal war room also thinks so.

As for Harper getting pointers from Bush, pulease THAT guy had only travelled to Mexico but once.

Harper by contrast has travelled to Mexico and Europe and has a wife who has travelled extensively all over the world - not that it really matters as far as being ready to govern.

As others have said, I'd far rather have a straight shooter than an "experienced" traveller like Trudeau who so damaged this country.

[newbie]

As others have said, I'd far rather have a straight shooter than an "experienced" traveller like Trudeau who so damaged this country.

Naah, Trudeau put us on the world map.

[kimmy]

How the hell can anyone take Harper as a serious leader when just after loosing the last election he was ready to throw in the towel. Is that a quality you look for in a leader?

At a time when many observers said that Harper's own unpopularity hurt his party or that he would never win an election, I think taking some time off to decide whether he was really the guy to lead the party shows

(1) introspection and

(2) a willingness to consider the party's welfare ahead of his own aspirations.

In other words, two qualities completely foreign to Paul Martin Jr or Jean Chretien. So I suppose it's not surprising that a young Canadian such as yourself would wonder if that's a proper way for a prime minister to act.

-k

[Argus]

The US does not need our troops for anything. We could have made them perfectly happy if we'd just given them moral support on both Iraq and missile defence. That's a small price to pay given how one-sidedly in our favour the relationship between us and them has been to date.

Supporting them when they are wrong, just to pander to the inequality of the economic relationship, can hardly be called moral at all.

I don't agree they were wrong. I still contend the real reason for invading Iraq was an effort to remake the political/cultural map of the Arab world. That is the only thing which makes sense, but of course, there is simply no way they could actually announce such a thing.

[Melanie_]

I don't agree they were wrong. I still contend the real reason for invading Iraq was an effort to remake the political/cultural map of the Arab world. That is the only thing which makes sense, but of course, there is simply no way they could actually announce such a thing.

I agree that is why they went, but I still contend they were wrong to do so. Your biggest concern with the Arab world seems to be that they want to spread their culture around the world, and take over, by force if necessary, all non Arab territories. If we agree that they don't have a right to do so, what gives the Americans the right to do the same thing, pre-emptively?

[Harare]

"As others have said, I'd far rather have a straight shooter than an "experienced" traveller like Trudeau who so damaged this country. "

"Naah, Trudeau put us on the world map."

Good grief, you never heard of Vimy Ridge or what our troops did in WWII or what Lester Pearson did on the world stage. Get real !!!

Trudeau was born rich and could afford to be both a communist and an elistist and has done great damage to the unity of this country, not to mention starting his reign with a national debt of 20 billion and finished with 160 billion. Like Castro was all to willing to share our money but never his own.

[Harare]

double post.

[newbie]

I don't agree they were wrong. I still contend the real reason for invading Iraq was an effort to remake the political/cultural map of the Arab world. That is the only thing which makes sense...

This has been overly discussed in the past and I can't believe there are still some people here who believe that crap. Let's talk coincidences shall we:

1) Bush is an oilman,

2) Cheney used to work at Halliburton who handled some of the biggest contracts in pre-invasion Iraq (thru the Cayman Is.)

3) Halliburton has one of the biggest contracts in post-Iraq invasion.

4) America needs oil.

5) Iraq has one of the biggest oil reserves in the world.

6) Halliburton subsidiary KBR got $12 billion worth of exclusive contracts for work in Iraq.

7) 911 commission finds no link between Al Queda and Saddam.

8) no weapons of mass delusion found in Iraq

9) convenient bad intelligence

THIS WAS FOR OIL FOLKS.

[Argus]

I don't agree they were wrong. I still contend the real reason for invading Iraq was an effort to remake the political/cultural map of the Arab world. That is the only thing which makes sense, but of course, there is simply no way they could actually announce such a thing.

I agree that is why they went, but I still contend they were wrong to do so. Your biggest concern with the Arab world seems to be that they want to spread their culture around the world, and take over, by force if necessary, all non Arab territories. If we agree that they don't have a right to do so, what gives the Americans the right to do the same thing, pre-emptively?

Because their culture is inimically hostile to anything one could possibly term civilized. Think what you like about the Americans, but at least they're not hanging teenage girls from cranes because they got pregnant.

Islam was born in blood and fire, and spread through war and forced conversion. Most people don't realize that Egypt was one of the world's greatest manufacturing centres when it was a Christian land. Hell, most people don't even realize Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, etc., used to be Christian. Nor did they choose Islam voluntarily. Convert or die, they were told. And masses of them were slaughtered for refusing.

But since the advent of Islam the Muslim world has pretty much stood still. Culturally, they might as well still be back in the sixth century. Islam and the interpretations and requirements of it as pronounced by its religious leaders has been a lodestone on the necks of its followers for more than a millenia. It is a sick society we do not want spread elsewhere.

The Americans are, whether you like it or not, the leaders of the free world, and at this point in history it is up to them to challenge Islam. They are doing that by trying to ease the barbarity of it, by trying to introduce democracy, to lessen the power of the mullahs and introduce the concept of the give-and-take, cooperation and pragmatism which democracy requires. Democracy requires the questioning of authority. That can spread to religion pretty quickly. When a free press starts exposing the ignorance and corruption of religious leaders and their edicts people may well start to question just how certain their interpretations are of the Koran, and perhaps even rethinking those interpretations for themselves.

The problem of the Islamic world is they let their religious leaders do their thinking for them, and those religious leaders are ignorant and culturally grounded in a literal interpretation of their holy book which goes back 1500 years. They aren't going to modernize, so society has to modernize without them and drag them kicking and screaming along for the ride.

[Argus]

I don't agree they were wrong. I still contend the real reason for invading Iraq was an effort to remake the political/cultural map of the Arab world. That is the only thing which makes sense...

This has been overly discussed in the past and I can't believe there are still some people here who believe that crap. Let's talk coincidences shall we:

1) Bush is an oilman,

2) Cheney used to work at Halliburton who handled some of the biggest contracts in pre-invasion Iraq (thru the Cayman Is.)

3) Halliburton has one of the biggest contracts in post-Iraq invasion.

4) America needs oil.

5) Iraq has one of the biggest oil reserves in the world.

6) Halliburton subsidiary KBR got $12 billion worth of exclusive contracts for work in Iraq.

7) 911 commission finds no link between Al Queda and Saddam.

8) no weapons of mass delusion found in Iraq

9) convenient bad intelligence

THIS WAS FOR OIL FOLKS.

All of that would make sense only if the war were profitable. It hasn't been, by a very long shot.

Haliburton does indeed have a huge contract in post-Iraq. So? Patronage doesn't exist in Canada? And from all accounts their profits aren't all that big anyway. No, a few years of control of Iraq's oil (ferociously monitered by every left wing group out there) is not going to be worth it economically. And certainly not politically, given the damage the war has caused to Bush's popularity. He only scraped through the election by chance, and with Liberal type sleazy campaign ads. There are much easier ways to guide money into the pockets of your friends, after all. Like giving them fat contracts to build bridges to nowhere in Alaska.

[BubberMiley]

"Halliburton Profits Skyrocket On Iraq Deals

Thu Jul 31, Financial Times

By Sheila McNulty in Houston

Halliburton, the second biggest oilfield service company in the world, on Thursday said work in Iraq had boosted revenue as it swung from a loss to record second-quarter net income of $26m , or 6 cents a share, compared with the year-earlier period.

The Houston-based company credited the quarter's 11 per cent rise in revenue, to $3.6bn largely to increased activity in its Engineering and Construction Group (ECG) projects, including government services work in the Middle East."

[GostHacked]

How the hell can anyone take Harper as a serious leader when just after loosing the last election he was ready to throw in the towel. Is that a quality you look for in a leader?

At a time when many observers said that Harper's own unpopularity hurt his party or that he would never win an election, I think taking some time off to decide whether he was really the guy to lead the party shows

(1) introspection and

(2) a willingness to consider the party's welfare ahead of his own aspirations.

In other words, two qualities completely foreign to Paul Martin Jr or Jean Chretien. So I suppose it's not surprising that a young Canadian such as yourself would wonder if that's a proper way for a prime minister to act.

-k

If he questioned his own leadership for even a moment, he is not the man for the job. I am old enough to know that this so called Conservative party is just another way of saying, Oldnewconservativesreformedandalliancedintoanewfreshconservativeparty.

Proper way for a PM to act? Well first off they are human. But showing weakness is not an option. Out of all the PMs in the past that I have taken note of.. I would say Trudeau was how a leader should act. I have not really liked a PM since.

Martin I would not vote for myself. I have voted NDP all my life, and will continue to do so. Not that they will win any election soon. Actually when it comes down to it. I really do not like any of the options proposed to me. Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc, NDP all cater to a specific part of the population.

Show me a leader who can unite us on all fronts and I will gladly put an X on his/her name.

[newbie]

[quote name=Argus' date='Jan 20 2006, 08:43 PM' post='90176

All of that would make sense only if the war were profitable. It hasn't been, by a very long shot.

Oh, it was profitable alright.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4311.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/07.14A.halli.profit.htm

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/stock_troop2.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...4&articleId=801

[arif]

Too bad Stephen Lewis isn't running...

Arif

[Hicksey]

[quote name=Argus' date='Jan 20 2006, 08:43 PM' post='90176

All of that would make sense only if the war were profitable. It hasn't been, by a very long shot.

Oh, it was profitable alright.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4311.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/07.14A.halli.profit.htm

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/stock_troop2.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...4&articleId=801

OOoooooOOOoooooOO ... Those evil profits!

Do you honestly think these companies are going to go over there and rebuild for free? In that atmosphere?

And guess what, just as before the oil is still going to the countries that Saddam had contracts with. Believe it or not, the Americans honored the prior contracts.

[kimmy]

Excellent point.

Have you noticed that when a concern is raised about Harper, the folks on this thread who are his suporters can only try to point elsewhere and claim .. "see.. he is not as bad as this other guy". That is a complete acceptance and admission that IS a serious issue .. one that these folks do not want to face or acknowledge.

The other thing you will find is that they will try to claim that this is 'liberal plant' .... you see, they believe that anybody who raises serious concerns about Harper is automatically 'a plant' ... or 'a troll' or some other false accustiaon.

All of this in end end, just bolsters the case that they have an indefensible situation and quite understandably, they are frustrated. This is becuase there is simply no credible response to this other than to acknowledge it as an issue that is causing concenr for Canadians. If there was at least an acknowledgement, it would be worth the time to hear out their other opinions.

When there are only 2 parties that have a realistic chance of forming a government, "he is not as bad as the other guy" is a very strong argument in Harper's favor.

Harper supporters here have been willing to acknowledge that he has little experience in foreign affairs.

You, on the other hand, have been unwilling to acknowledge or discuss any of Martin's glaring flaws. He's a weak, indecisive leader who can't make up his mind on any issue without consulting his polling firm and his PR consultants. He divided the Liberal party in his quest to unseat Chretien and claim power for himself, and in doing so has created a rift in his party that remains to this day. He can't even unite his own party, let alone the country. He has been flatly rejected by the vast majority of Quebec voters and has now set his sights on attacking Albertans as well. He continues to drive wedges between the regions to try to shore up his strength in his southern Ontario power base. He offers no response on issues of democratic reform, no response on issues of accountability, just more of the status quo-- the status quo that has put this country on a collision-course with break-up.

And to all of this, the only response you have is "yeah, well Harper has no international experience." So who is really the one who is denying the issues?

Yeah, Martin has international experience. He's put this country on the brink of disaster, but at least he has international experience.

Listen today and hear me on Monday.

-k

[Hicksey]

Excellent point.

Have you noticed that when a concern is raised about Harper, the folks on this thread who are his suporters can only try to point elsewhere and claim .. "see.. he is not as bad as this other guy". That is a complete acceptance and admission that IS a serious issue .. one that these folks do not want to face or acknowledge.

The other thing you will find is that they will try to claim that this is 'liberal plant' .... you see, they believe that anybody who raises serious concerns about Harper is automatically 'a plant' ... or 'a troll' or some other false accustiaon.

All of this in end end, just bolsters the case that they have an indefensible situation and quite understandably, they are frustrated. This is becuase there is simply no credible response to this other than to acknowledge it as an issue that is causing concenr for Canadians. If there was at least an acknowledgement, it would be worth the time to hear out their other opinions.

When there are only 2 parties that have a realistic chance of forming a government, "he is not as bad as the other guy" is a very strong argument in Harper's favor.

Harper supporters here have been willing to acknowledge that he has little experience in foreign affairs.

You, on the other hand, have been unwilling to acknowledge or discuss any of Martin's glaring flaws. He's a weak, indecisive leader who can't make up his mind on any issue without consulting his polling firm and his PR consultants. He divided the Liberal party in his quest to unseat Chretien and claim power for himself, and in doing so has created a rift in his party that remains to this day. He can't even unite his own party, let alone the country. He has been flatly rejected by the vast majority of Quebec voters and has now set his sights on attacking Albertans as well. He continues to drive wedges between the regions to try to shore up his strength in his southern Ontario power base. He offers no response on issues of democratic reform, no response on issues of accountability, just more of the status quo-- the status quo that has put this country on a collision-course with break-up.

And to all of this, the only response you have is "yeah, well Harper has no international experience." So who is really the one who is denying the issues?

Yeah, Martin has international experience. He's put this country on the brink of disaster, but at least he has international experience.

Listen today and hear me on Monday.

-k

The numbers are in. We gained a point overnight from 6 up to 7. Those Martin ads have been playing for a week. They must not be hitting as hard as the Liberals had hoped. Could just be they're tired of fear and smear. Either way, 13 years of misery are behind me. These next (possibly) four at least present hope for better things to come.

[justcrowing]

Excellent point.

Have you noticed that when a concern is raised about Harper, the folks on this thread who are his suporters can only try to point elsewhere and claim .. "see.. he is not as bad as this other guy". That is a complete acceptance and admission that IS a serious issue .. one that these folks do not want to face or acknowledge.

The other thing you will find is that they will try to claim that this is 'liberal plant' .... you see, they believe that anybody who raises serious concerns about Harper is automatically 'a plant' ... or 'a troll' or some other false accustiaon.

All of this in end end, just bolsters the case that they have an indefensible situation and quite understandably, they are frustrated. This is becuase there is simply no credible response to this other than to acknowledge it as an issue that is causing concenr for Canadians. If there was at least an acknowledgement, it would be worth the time to hear out their other opinions.

When there are only 2 parties that have a realistic chance of forming a government, "he is not as bad as the other guy" is a very strong argument in Harper's favor.

Harper supporters here have been willing to acknowledge that he has little experience in foreign affairs.

You, on the other hand, have been unwilling to acknowledge or discuss any of Martin's glaring flaws. He's a weak, indecisive leader who can't make up his mind on any issue without consulting his polling firm and his PR consultants. He divided the Liberal party in his quest to unseat Chretien and claim power for himself, and in doing so has created a rift in his party that remains to this day. He can't even unite his own party, let alone the country. He has been flatly rejected by the vast majority of Quebec voters and has now set his sights on attacking Albertans as well. He continues to drive wedges between the regions to try to shore up his strength in his southern Ontario power base. He offers no response on issues of democratic reform, no response on issues of accountability, just more of the status quo-- the status quo that has put this country on a collision-course with break-up.

And to all of this, the only response you have is "yeah, well Harper has no international experience." So who is really the one who is denying the issues?

Yeah, Martin has international experience. He's put this country on the brink of disaster, but at least he has international experience.

Listen today and hear me on Monday.

-k

The numbers are in. We gained a point overnight from 6 up to 7. Those Martin ads have been playing for a week. They must not be hitting as hard as the Liberals had hoped. Could just be they're tired of fear and smear. Either way, 13 years of misery are behind me. These next (possibly) four at least present hope for better things to come.

Alright!! I hope so too that all this corruption, etc. is behind us. Time to move on towards a better Canada than we had the past 13 years.

[Hicksey]

Excellent point.

Have you noticed that when a concern is raised about Harper, the folks on this thread who are his suporters can only try to point elsewhere and claim .. "see.. he is not as bad as this other guy". That is a complete acceptance and admission that IS a serious issue .. one that these folks do not want to face or acknowledge.

The other thing you will find is that they will try to claim that this is 'liberal plant' .... you see, they believe that anybody who raises serious concerns about Harper is automatically 'a plant' ... or 'a troll' or some other false accustiaon.

All of this in end end, just bolsters the case that they have an indefensible situation and quite understandably, they are frustrated. This is becuase there is simply no credible response to this other than to acknowledge it as an issue that is causing concenr for Canadians. If there was at least an acknowledgement, it would be worth the time to hear out their other opinions.

When there are only 2 parties that have a realistic chance of forming a government, "he is not as bad as the other guy" is a very strong argument in Harper's favor.

Harper supporters here have been willing to acknowledge that he has little experience in foreign affairs.

You, on the other hand, have been unwilling to acknowledge or discuss any of Martin's glaring flaws. He's a weak, indecisive leader who can't make up his mind on any issue without consulting his polling firm and his PR consultants. He divided the Liberal party in his quest to unseat Chretien and claim power for himself, and in doing so has created a rift in his party that remains to this day. He can't even unite his own party, let alone the country. He has been flatly rejected by the vast majority of Quebec voters and has now set his sights on attacking Albertans as well. He continues to drive wedges between the regions to try to shore up his strength in his southern Ontario power base. He offers no response on issues of democratic reform, no response on issues of accountability, just more of the status quo-- the status quo that has put this country on a collision-course with break-up.

And to all of this, the only response you have is "yeah, well Harper has no international experience." So who is really the one who is denying the issues?

Yeah, Martin has international experience. He's put this country on the brink of disaster, but at least he has international experience.

Listen today and hear me on Monday.

-k

The numbers are in. We gained a point overnight from 6 up to 7. Those Martin ads have been playing for a week. They must not be hitting as hard as the Liberals had hoped. Could just be they're tired of fear and smear. Either way, 13 years of misery are behind me. These next (possibly) four at least present hope for better things to come.

Alright!! I hope so too that all this corruption, etc. is behind us. Time to move on towards a better Canada than we had the past 13 years.

Nothing's for sure. But with the Liberals seeming to be on the outs at least conservatives have their own beacon of light to look ahead to starting Monday.

[kimmy]

At a time when many observers said that Harper's own unpopularity hurt his party or that he would never win an election, I think taking some time off to decide whether he was really the guy to lead the party shows

(1) introspection and

(2) a willingness to consider the party's welfare ahead of his own aspirations.

In other words, two qualities completely foreign to Paul Martin Jr or Jean Chretien. So I suppose it's not surprising that a young Canadian such as yourself would wonder if that's a proper way for a prime minister to act.

If he questioned his own leadership for even a moment, he is not the man for the job.

(...)

Proper way for a PM to act? Well first off they are human. But showing weakness is not an option. Out of all the PMs in the past that I have taken note of.. I would say Trudeau was how a leader should act. I have not really liked a PM since.

I don't think spending some time reflecting on whether he's the man for the job is a sign of weakness.

A lot of smart and experienced observers said before, during, and after the 2004 election that Harper would never be PM. After the disappointment of his 2004 loss, how can you blame the guy for taking some personal time to consider the question of whether maybe they were right?

Do you really feel that it would be more admirable for a leader to pigheadedly refuse to step aside until power is ripped from his cold dead hands? That was Chretien's way, and look at the damage that was done to the Liberal Party as a result.

We didn't see Paul Martin step aside after his near miss in 2004 either, or even (publicly, at least) admit to giving any thought to the idea. Do you think Paul Martin will have the wisdom to step aside after this election, be it defeat or narrow victory?

I am old enough to know that this so called Conservative party is just another way of saying, Oldnewconservativesreformedandalliancedintoanewfreshconservativeparty.

I think that what Harper has accomplished, first in merging the old PC party into his own party, and uniting it into a cohesive party that is on the virge of winning this election is actually a testament to the kind of leader Harper is. By comparison, look at the "leadership" the other guy has shown. Martin's quest, over the better part of a decade, to engineer a coup-d'etat against Jean Chretien created scars in the party. Even 2+ years after Chretien's retirement we still have warfare going on between the "Chretien" and "Martin" factions of the Liberal party, we have Liberal candidates stripping the word "Liberal" from their own advertising, we have people openly organizing their leadership campaigns in the middle of an election.

Harper has taken 2 parties and turned them into a single and effective factor in this election. Martin has taken Canada's traditional governing party, an election-winning machine, and turned it into a confused mess divided by internal conflict and plagued by poor strategy, bad planning, and a series of errors.

At this point how can there be any question as to which man has stronger leadership skills?

-k

[Hicksey]

At a time when many observers said that Harper's own unpopularity hurt his party or that he would never win an election, I think taking some time off to decide whether he was really the guy to lead the party shows

(1) introspection and

(2) a willingness to consider the party's welfare ahead of his own aspirations.

In other words, two qualities completely foreign to Paul Martin Jr or Jean Chretien. So I suppose it's not surprising that a young Canadian such as yourself would wonder if that's a proper way for a prime minister to act.

If he questioned his own leadership for even a moment, he is not the man for the job.

(...)

Proper way for a PM to act? Well first off they are human. But showing weakness is not an option. Out of all the PMs in the past that I have taken note of.. I would say Trudeau was how a leader should act. I have not really liked a PM since.

I don't think spending some time reflecting on whether he's the man for the job is a sign of weakness.

A lot of smart and experienced observers said before, during, and after the 2004 election that Harper would never be PM. After the disappointment of his 2004 loss, how can you blame the guy for taking some personal time to consider the question of whether maybe they were right?

Do you really feel that it would be more admirable for a leader to pigheadedly refuse to step aside until power is ripped from his cold dead hands? That was Chretien's way, and look at the damage that was done to the Liberal Party as a result.

We didn't see Paul Martin step aside after his near miss in 2004 either, or even (publicly, at least) admit to giving any thought to the idea. Do you think Paul Martin will have the wisdom to step aside after this election, be it defeat or narrow victory?

I am old enough to know that this so called Conservative party is just another way of saying, Oldnewconservativesreformedandalliancedintoanewfreshconservativeparty.

I think that what Harper has accomplished, first in merging the old PC party into his own party, and uniting it into a cohesive party that is on the virge of winning this election is actually a testament to the kind of leader Harper is. By comparison, look at the "leadership" the other guy has shown. Martin's quest, over the better part of a decade, to engineer a coup-d'etat against Jean Chretien created scars in the party. Even 2+ years after Chretien's retirement we still have warfare going on between the "Chretien" and "Martin" factions of the Liberal party, we have Liberal candidates stripping the word "Liberal" from their own advertising, we have people openly organizing their leadership campaigns in the middle of an election.

Harper has taken 2 parties and turned them into a single and effective factor in this election. Martin has taken Canada's traditional governing party, an election-winning machine, and turned it into a confused mess divided by internal conflict and plagued by poor strategy, bad planning, and a series of errors.

At this point how can there be any question as to which man has stronger leadership skills?

-k

To reasoned minds, there's not. Need I say more?

[tml12]

Are you even Canadian? Fuck-off with your anti-american bullshit. We are not anit-american. Iraq? ya their anit-american. Canada? Freinds. Real Canadians know this and I think emailforcanada sumed that up quite well.

There is a lot of anti-Americanism in Canada. They say they're against Bush and his policies, but you don't have to dig very far to get the sneers about cowboy Americans, about their gun mentality, about their religious beliefs, and about many other aspects of their society and culture. Americans are thought to be simplistic, uncultured and stupid, though that's not put in so many words very often. You hear it coming from the smug, wine and cheese set, but you also hear it parotted back by fairly simple and ordinary Canadians because they're regurgitating what Martin and Chretien and their type have been spreading around for so many years. I have heard from several people, young people with little political awareness, who rarely follow the news, in ordinary jobs, that Stephen Harper would sell us out to the Americans, be Bush's lap dog. Where are they getting this nonsense from? The political elites, of course.

I don't think Argus is confusing anything. In fact, I think he just about gave a perfect description of anti-Americanism in Canada. Primarily based on ignorance, blind patriotism, and (my favourite one) the left's insecurity that Canadians are so much like the Americans they despise.

I find that when I declare how much similar we are with the Americans how much better I feel. No I don't support all of U.S. policy and yes I am proud of Canadian sovereignty, but I am also proud of living next to the U.S. and sharing in their material benefits. I am proud to live in North America.

Hopefully Harper will govern with the same level of sincerity and consistency as he campaigned with. He is a good man who was not tainted by scandal. And he has my vote.