Bush's Canadian 'Clone' in Jeopardy

[scribblet]

How convenient that the Liberals used American speakers at their meetings, imagine that. Does that make them 'clones' of Bush?

The fact that Harper used American strategists has no signififcance4, other than he wants to use the best advisors he can get. Hardly makes him a 'clone' of anything.

All these drive by smears referring to Harper as a Bush clone are predicated on the false assumption that Harper is as right wing or as scary as Bush. Recent events and actions have proved all of this wrong, he is simply - liberal lite; in fact sometimes more left than Dion or Martin.

[margrace]

How convenient that the Liberals used American speakers at their meetings, imagine that. Does that make them 'clones' of Bush?

The fact that Harper used American strategists has no signififcance4, other than he wants to use the best advisors he can get. Hardly makes him a 'clone' of anything.

All these drive by smears referring to Harper as a Bush clone are predicated on the false assumption that Harper is as right wing or as scary as Bush. Recent events and actions have proved all of this wrong, he is simply - liberal lite; in fact sometimes more left than Dion or Martin.

And if you believe this then I got something to sell you.

[Argus]

I think Harper deserves to be tried for treason - same with Martin - for the (secret) North American Union.

Well, yeah but.. you're not entirely sane.

[Argus]

This actually is a very good article as it has broad examples and coverage, so its much more than just an opinion piece.

...Canada’s hard-line Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper may become the next ally of George W. Bush to be washed away.

Harper, who modeled his aggressive brand of conservation what the Republicans had done in the United States,

Clearly the writer - like you - is almost entirely ignorant of the basic realities of political life in Canada. There is therefore no reason to go on reading past this point.

Harper's government would be run out of office in most places in the US as far too left wing. It has virtually nothing in common with the hard-line conservatism in the US. In many ways its further to the left than the Democratic Party.

[scribblet]

How convenient that the Liberals used American speakers at their meetings, imagine that. Does that make them 'clones' of Bush?

The fact that Harper used American strategists has no signififcance4, other than he wants to use the best advisors he can get. Hardly makes him a 'clone' of anything.

All these drive by smears referring to Harper as a Bush clone are predicated on the false assumption that Harper is as right wing or as scary as Bush. Recent events and actions have proved all of this wrong, he is simply - liberal lite; in fact sometimes more left than Dion or Martin.

And if you believe this then I got something to sell you.

I believe facts not opinions or drive by smears.

[tml12]

I believe Harper is Regan at heart and I think that's a good thing because it is clear Canada needs a Regan revolution NOW.

[scribblet]

I believe Harper is Regan at heart and I think that's a good thing because it is clear Canada needs a Regan revolution NOW.

He might be at heart, but he's governing with his head.

The increase in posts re: Bush clone etc. is simply aiming at the anti Bush/U.S. sentiment in Canada. It seems to tie in with the 'Bush Derangement Syndrome" LOL

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/553043.html

BDS, for those not in the loop, stands for Bush Derangement Syndrome. The term was coined just over three years ago by conservative U.S. syndicated columnist, and former psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer, who defined the condition thusly: "The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush."

One could also call it "Harper Derangement Syndrome"

[tml12]

Regan was not the right-wing extremist his critics portrayed him as. He was not as right-wing as the current Bush. The man in many ways governed in a pragmatic right-leaning fashion. While his 1981 Reganomic tax cuts were unprecedented, Regan raised taxes in 1982 and 1984 to make up for it. Economically, Regan isn't that far right of Paul Martin, for example. I think Harper is in his camp. His bark was not his bite.

[Canadian Blue]

How conveinent that you forgot the discussion is about Harper being a Bush clone, and how he had US Republican advisors that you denied he had. All this has been giving you more evidence that indeed he has for a good long time.

So does that mean the Liberal's are all clones of the US Politician's because they had some democrats working with them. It doesn't prove anything, and even you're list has the British Conservative Party, who has supported some liberal position's.

Harper's not a clone of anything, the list provided does not prove anything. Plus child didn't you're mother teach you it was rude to stick you're tongue out at people.

Regan was not the right-wing extremist his critics portrayed him as. He was not as right-wing as the current Bush. The man in many ways governed in a pragmatic right-leaning fashion. While his 1981 Reganomic tax cuts were unprecedented, Regan raised taxes in 1982 and 1984 to make up for it. Economically, Regan isn't that far right of Paul Martin, for example. I think Harper is in his camp. His bark was not his bite.

The reason why Reagan was so successful was because he was an excellent communicator. He also did run the country better, than compared to Bush. I believe he was actually named the top American when they ran something similar to our top Canadian.

[tml12]

Regan was a fantastic communicator and he destroyed the Soviets. People thought he was senile, etc. when he was president but that was part of his act. He didn't come across as an Ivory Tower intellectual because he wanted his opponents to underestimate him.

Overall, Regan was a pretty good president.

[jefferiah]

Far right? Lol. Conservatives are right of the Canadian Liberals maybe, but that aint right of center. Thats right of left.

[madmax]

Remember the 2000 election, the Liberal's were basically using American style attack advertising, and it worked.

2000 2004 2006 They used attack adds prior to this as well. In 2004 they were effective, but Harper put the nail in his own coffin by saying Martin supported Pedophiles, and then hid in a trailer during the final week.

In 2006 the Liberal attacks were undermined by their credibility issues, and the NDP didn't feed the scare mongering provided by the Liberals.

Obviously when attack advertising fails, it goes very badly. Kim Campbell era comes to mind.

The Liberals attacking the United Church Minister in Gerard Kennedys riding.

The NDP attacks in London against the Liberal Candidate and his conservative campaign manager.

When it doesn't work it is complete collapse.

[tml12]

It's funny when the Liberals use "American-style" to describe attack ads. The fact is, I do not think Canadian political TV ads are much different than American ones. In fact, I think there are Canadian political TV commercials that are cruler than anything that has ever been seen in the states...the 1993 election comes to mind,