Harper’s fast drop in popularity astonishing

[gerryhatrick]

Harper’s fast drop in popularity astonishing

Nov 02 2006

Looking at those seeking the Liberal leadership, I’m reminded of Mair’s Axiom II which says “you don’t have to be a 10 in politics; you can be a 3 if everyone else is a 2.”

Liberals can take heart from the growing realization that Prime Minister Stephen Harper may well be in that 2-3 range.

http://www.missioncityrecord.com/portals-c...63330&more=

Not really all that astonishing, really.

The lad has tried to rule like he had a majority, and in the process managed to remind Canadians why they don't trust him.

[geoffrey]

Pretty biased article. I wouldn't bet the farm...

But when a policy can make me question where I could stomach a Liberal vote (Kennedy would be the only one I could vote for... MAYBE... big MAYBE)... you got to wonder what the soft supporters of the 905 and Quebec are thinking?

The oil connected professional from Calgary-Southewest questioning the CPC and Harper? Considering the Liberals? Hrrmmmpphhhh..... Harper could be in trouble back East. Then again, such a policy might play well to Ontario people, and seeing the oil industry squirm makes Quebec happy.

[August1991]

Gerry,

You play the guy and not the ball. You lose.

Play the ball? You have a chance.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Gerry isn't concerned about losing.

In his history of posts every stab at Harper, every attack, every jab, every misleading article leaked to is a victory.

Forget decency, honesty, the truth, respect or civility.

It's all attack, attack, attack from Gerry.

Good to see the number of people taking offence to Gerry's never-ending anti-Harperism is growing.

[gerryhatrick]

Gerry,

You play the guy and not the ball. You lose.

Play the ball? You have a chance.

The ball? Harper has no ball.

[August1991]

Gerry, I'll offer you some advice. (Take the advice or ignore it.)

If you play the guy (Harper) and not the ball (Conservative ideas). You'll lose.

If you play the ball? You have a chance of winning.

[gerryhatrick]

Gerry, I'll offer you some advice. (Take the advice or ignore it.)

If you play the guy (Harper) and not the ball. You'll lose.

If you play the ball? You have a chance of winning.

Harper has tried to rule like he has a majority, and he is losing points on environment, transparency, wheat board, income trusts, ....

Do tell though...what do you believe the ball is in your analogy (if we can call it yours)?

[August1991]

Do tell though...what do you believe the ball is in your analogy (if we can call it yours)?

That's kind of sad, Gerry.

What is the ball? And you ask me!

If you don't know what the ball is, or you don't where it is, forget my advice. Just go for Harper, the guy. Play the man, not the ball.

[Argus]

Harper’s fast drop in popularity astonishing

Looking at those seeking the Liberal leadership, I’m reminded of Mair’s Axiom II which says “you don’t have to be a 10 in politics; you can be a 3 if everyone else is a 2.”

Seems to me the last poll taken showed that Harper was more popular than ANY of the potential Liberal leadership hopefuls, as well as Layton.

So you can flush the whole pathetic opinion piece. It's based on nothing more than hate.

[Michael Hardner]

As much as the income trust announcement was reviled, I think when the dust settles people will see Harper as someone who isn't afraid to make tough choices.

I think voters are through with politicians that pander to them, and Harper is anything but that.

[normanchateau]

Harper’s fast drop in popularity astonishing

Nov 02 2006

Looking at those seeking the Liberal leadership, I’m reminded of Mair’s Axiom II which says “you don’t have to be a 10 in politics; you can be a 3 if everyone else is a 2.”

Liberals can take heart from the growing realization that Prime Minister Stephen Harper may well be in that 2-3 range.

I see that the author of this piece is Rafe Mair, former BC Social Credit Cabinet Minister. When right-wingers like Mair are writing Harper off, good chance that this signifies the beginning of the end. Mair is well-known in BC for his attacks on the provincial NDP and federal Liberals. When someone like Mair acknowledges Harper's mediocrity, it suggests that the Cons will lose even more seats in BC than they did in the January, 2006 election.

[scribblet]

As much as the income trust announcement was reviled, I think when the dust settles people will see Harper as someone who isn't afraid to make tough choices.

I think voters are through with politicians that pander to them, and Harper is anything but that.

I agree.

I also agree that there seems to be a proliferation of threads all on the same theme, it's getting kinda getting repetitious and boring, ho hum, same old same old.

cheers

[Ricki Bobbi]

I agree.

I also agree that there seems to be a proliferation of threads all on the same theme, it's getting kinda getting repetitious and boring, ho hum, same old same old.

cheers

The two most recent one's, i.e. the one's with the "astonishingly" anti-Harper titles were started by the same poster. Who always starts multiple anti-Harper threads. Maybe to combat this we are better off to start more threads with pro-Harper themes...

[scribblet]

I agree.

I also agree that there seems to be a proliferation of threads all on the same theme, it's getting kinda getting repetitious and boring, ho hum, same old same old.

cheers

The two most recent one's, i.e. the one's with the "astonishingly" anti-Harper titles were started by the same poster. Who always starts multiple anti-Harper threads. Maybe to combat this we are better off to start more threads with pro-Harper themes...

right on !!!!

[normanchateau]

I agree.

I also agree that there seems to be a proliferation of threads all on the same theme, it's getting kinda getting repetitious and boring, ho hum, same old same old.

cheers

The two most recent one's, i.e. the one's with the "astonishingly" anti-Harper titles were started by the same poster. Who always starts multiple anti-Harper threads. Maybe to combat this we are better off to start more threads with pro-Harper themes...

right on !!!!

Yes, I'd like to see some pro-Harper threads as well. How about one about his uncanny wisdom in hiring Darrel Reid as Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose? The environment never had a better friend than Darrel.

Or how about one about how Harper helped anti-abortionist Charles McVety oust Garth Turner from the Conservative party? Or maybe one about how Harper got Emerson to pull a Belinda? Or maybe one about how Harper cleverly appointed an unelected Quebecer who had chaired Harper's leadership campaign to Senate then made him an unelected cabinet minister.

How about one about how David Emerson, as a Liberal cabinet minister rejected a US-neogtiated softwood lumber deal which imposed export duties and kept one billion dollars worth of illegal duties, then as a Conservative cabinet minister, accepted exactly the same deal? I'm sure that can be spun into a pro-Harper thread, e.g., "Harper Made Him Do It."

[Figleaf]

I think voters are through with politicians that pander to them, and Harper is anything but that.

Unless you're a social conservative or a Likud apologist.

[normanchateau]

I think voters are through with politicians that pander to them, and Harper is anything but that.

If Harper is not pandering to homophobes, social conservatives and religious nuts, then why is he "re-visiting" same-sex marriage? It was not an election promise he needed to make. And given his history of flipflopping on election promises, it is not an election promise he needs to keep.

[Canuck E Stan]

I think voters are through with politicians that pander to them, and Harper is anything but that.

If Harper is not pandering to homophobes, social conservatives and religious nuts, then why is he "re-visiting" same-sex marriage? It was not an election promise he needed to make. And given his history of flipflopping on election promises, it is not an election promise he needs to keep.

Not very politically astute are you? Think about it.

If he presents it now in a minority parliament, who's going to be in favour and who is going to be against?

Why is he bringing it up if he knows it has no chance of passing?

Because he said he would, and he won't have to deal with it again.

[normanchateau]

I think voters are through with politicians that pander to them, and Harper is anything but that.

If Harper is not pandering to homophobes, social conservatives and religious nuts, then why is he "re-visiting" same-sex marriage? It was not an election promise he needed to make. And given his history of flipflopping on election promises, it is not an election promise he needs to keep.

Not very politically astute are you? Think about it.

If he presents it now in a minority parliament, who's going to be in favour and who is going to be against?

Why is he bringing it up if he knows it has no chance of passing?

Because he said he would, and he won't have to deal with it again.

Nice try but Harper said he'd re-visit the issue BEFORE he was elected and BEFORE he knew that he'd have a minority government.

And your theory that he's doing it "because he said he would" is even more laughable given his flipflop on income trusts.

[Michael Hardner]

Norm -

If Harper is not pandering to homophobes, social conservatives and religious nuts, then why is he "re-visiting" same-sex marriage? It was not an election promise he needed to make. And given his history of flipflopping on election promises, it is not an election promise he needs to keep.

Pandering would be to sweep the whole contentious issue under the rug.

He's going to keep his promise, lose the vote, then move on.

I suppose you could say anything is pandering, but ruling via the polls as the Liberals did DEFINITELY is pandering.

[Figleaf]

He's going to keep his promise, lose the vote, then move on.

Well, that certainly sounds like the most cynical of pandering imaginable. You imply he doesn't care about the issue and will hold the vote with the intention of losing it. Why then, hold the vote at all if not to pander to those who want to beat the issue a little bit more.

The responsible thing to do would be to admit the issue has been settled and move on without any further nonsense.

[White Doors]

He's going to keep his promise, lose the vote, then move on.

Well, that certainly sounds like the most cynical of pandering imaginable. You imply he doesn't care about the issue and will hold the vote with the intention of losing it. Why then, hold the vote at all if not to pander to those who want to beat the issue a little bit more.

The responsible thing to do would be to admit the issue has been settled and move on without any further nonsense.

he does care about the issue. He wants a free vote in parliament. It's the principle of how the liberals did it, of which he has as much stated himself many times.

[scribblet]

He's going to keep his promise, lose the vote, then move on.

Well, that certainly sounds like the most cynical of pandering imaginable. You imply he doesn't care about the issue and will hold the vote with the intention of losing it. Why then, hold the vote at all if not to pander to those who want to beat the issue a little bit more.

The responsible thing to do would be to admit the issue has been settled and move on without any further nonsense.

He's not holding the vote to revisit the issue with the intention of losing it, he's holding it because he agreed to, but most people realize that it won't pass. The big problem here for the Liberals is whether or not to let the MP's have a free vote or expect them to toe the party line. There are a number of Liberals against SSM also.

[Alexandra]

If Harper is not pandering to homophobes, social conservatives and religious nuts, then why is he "re-visiting" same-sex marriage? It was not an election promise he needed to make. And given his history of flipflopping on election promises, it is not an election promise he needs to keep.

Actually, this issue was not an election promise. This SSM issue was a resolution put forward by the delegates at the Tory Convention in Montreal. It passed with an over 60% yes vote. What did not pass was a resolution put forward by a group of so-cons to ban partial birth abortion.

You are right Normanchateau. The SSM issue is not an "election promise" Harper needed to keep. It is a resolution by the delegates representing the members of the Tory party at the Convention which Harper is obligated to act upon.

Call it what you will but if any leader of the NDP, Bloc or Liberal party 'flip-flopped' on a resolution passed at their Convention it is possible that leader would be facing a rather disgruntled group of party members or a leadership review at the next convention.

And, Normanchateau. It is a myth that Emerson turned down any softwood lumber agreement while a member of the Lib. party. This myth was put to rest by the Libs. themselves and, the American negotiators. Guess you were out of town when that news broke?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Actually, this issue was not an election promise. This SSM issue was a resolution put forward by the delegates at the Tory Convention in Montreal. It passed with an over 60% yes vote. What did not pass was a resolution put forward by a group of so-cons to ban partial birth abortion.

You are right Normanchateau. The SSM issue is not an "election promise" Harper needed to keep. It is a resolution by the delegates representing the members of the Tory party at the Convention which Harper is obligated to act upon.

Call it what you will but if any leader of the NDP, Bloc or Liberal party 'flip-flopped' on a resolution passed at their Convention it is possible that leader would be facing a rather disgruntled group of party members or a leadership review at the next convention.

And, Normanchateau. It is a myth that Emerson turned down any softwood lumber agreement while a member of the Lib. party. This myth was put to rest by the Libs. themselves and, the American negotiators. Guess you were out of town when that news broke?

Normie didn't miss the news. Call it 'blissful ignorance'. Doesn't fit his view of the world so it didn't happen...