Liberals throw stones while living in glass house - re: Wajid Khan

[Keepitsimple]

I doubt this story will show up in The Star or The Globe:

Link:http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070120/national/khan_adviser&printer=1

Liberals throw stones in Khan affair while living in glass house

Sat Jan 20, 5:16 PM

By Joan Bryden

OTTAWA (CP) - Liberals may be basing their skepticism about the value of MP Wajid Khan's report to Stephen Harper on their own experience with special prime ministerial advisers.

Onetime Liberal MP Sarkis Assadourian says he never did a day's work after being appointed a special adviser to former prime minister Paul Martin.

Shortly before the 2004 election, Assadourian agreed to step aside in his Brampton riding so that a star recruit, Ruby Dhalla, could run for the Liberals in his stead. In return, Martin gave him a job as a special foreign policy adviser.

"They put out a press release and he said to the media and the nation with a straight face I was working with him as (his) adviser on the south Caucasus and Middle East," Assadourian said in an interview.

"The whole thing was a lie . . . I never a single day worked in his office. I was never paid a single penny."

At the same time, Martin named MP Sophia Leung as a special adviser on international trade and emerging markets. She stepped aside in her Vancouver riding for star recruit David Emerson, who later defected to the Tories.

At the time, a Martin spokeswoman said that Assadourian and Leung would not be paid for their advisory roles as long as they remained MPs. Whether they'd be paid after the election was to be "decided at that time."

Assadourian said that after the election, Martin's office wouldn't even return his phone calls, although he ostensibly remained a special adviser.

"For 15 months I was lied to," he said.

Asked if he regrets accepting Martin's job offer and giving up his seat, Assadourian said: "I regret knowing him as a person."

Martin eventually appointed Assadourian a citizenship judge.

Leung said she was never paid either but did provide verbal advice on "a free, informal basis." She accompanied Martin on a trade mission to China but paid her own travel and other expenses.

"Mine was sort of an honourary appointment. It was not a paid job," she said in an interview.

Assadourian said he didn't initially complain that his job turned out to be a sham because he hoped Martin would eventually honour his end of the bargain. He said he chose to speak out now in order to defend "my name and my integrity."

In recent days, Assadourian and Leung have found their names bandied about as part of the controversy surrounding Khan, the erstwhile Liberal MP whom Harper appointed last summer as his special adviser on the Middle East and South Asia.

Khan, who spent $13,000 touring the Middle East in the fall, originally promised to publicly release his findings and recommendations. But, after defecting to the Tories earlier this month, Harper's office insisted Khan's report must be kept confidential.

Liberals and other opposition MPs have insisted taxpayers have a right to know whether they got any value for the money spent on Khan's trip. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has gone so far as to question whether a report actually exists.

The Tories have fought back by contending that Khan at least is doing some work, unlike Martin's special advisers who appear to have done nothing. They've pointed to access to information requests for records of any work done by Assadourian and Leung, which came back marked "no record found."

Liberals counter that Assadourian and Leung were never sent on taxpayer-funded fact-finding tours and neither ever promised to produce a public report.

As to Assadourian's complaint that his appointment was a sham designed get him to resign his seat, Martin spokesman Jim Pimblett said the advisory roles were never intended to be paid positions.

"These were not paid government jobs and no pay was ever to be provided," he said.

After the Liberals emerged with a minority from the 2004 election, Pimblett said the idea was to provide opportunities for experienced former MPs to contribute advice to the government.

If Assadourian had nothing to do, Pimblett suggested it's his own fault.

"They were free - indeed it was suggested - that if they had views or thoughts on the scope or scale of the position, it would be welcomed. In other words, we provided an opportunity to play a role and it was up to them to take advantage of that."

Copyright © 2007 Canadian Press

Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Canada Co. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service

Need help? Want to send feedback?

[madmax]

I doubt this story will show up in The Star or The Globe:

Liberals throw stones in Khan affair while living in glass house

Sat Jan 20, 5:16 PM

What a bunch of whiners. I am trying to figure out which is worse, the disgruntled Liberals, the Liberals, or the CPCs for taking opportunists like Wajid Khan and Emerson. To bad so sad.

[tml12]

I doubt this story will show up in The Star or The Globe:

Liberals throw stones in Khan affair while living in glass house

Sat Jan 20, 5:16 PM

What a bunch of whiners. I am trying to figure out which is worse, the disgruntled Liberals, the Liberals, or the CPCs for taking opportunists like Wajid Khan and Emerson. To bad so sad.

This is so typical of Liberal corruption. Absolute power truly does corrupt absolutely...right now Harper can hardly do anything in government because EVERYTHING is Liberal. Liberal Senate, Liberal civil service, Liberal Supreme Court.

Some Canadians are thinking of voting Liberal in the next election. Why not? Hopefully, the tyranny will not begin anytime soon.

[Ricki Bobbi]

This is so typical of Liberal corruption. Absolute power truly does corrupt absolutely...right now Harper can hardly do anything in government because EVERYTHING is Liberal. Liberal Senate, Liberal civil service, Liberal Supreme Court.

Do you remember the outrage when Harper dared to state that truth during the last election???

Some people think it cost him a majority. Doubtful, but you never know.

[tml12]

This is so typical of Liberal corruption. Absolute power truly does corrupt absolutely...right now Harper can hardly do anything in government because EVERYTHING is Liberal. Liberal Senate, Liberal civil service, Liberal Supreme Court.

Do you remember the outrage when Harper dared to state that truth during the last election???

Some people think it cost him a majority. Doubtful, but you never know.

I can't imagine why it would have cost him a majority. Is it not so plainly obvious that it is THE TRUTH?

What cost Harper a majority was the fact that the election was not 2 weeks later...that would have been a Harper majority.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I can't imagine why it would have cost him a majority. Is it not so plainly obvious that it is THE TRUTH?

What cost Harper a majority was the fact that the election was not 2 weeks later...that would have been a Harper majority.

Don't know about that. Seems to me that the Conservative campaign lost a little steam when they ran out of policy announcements to make.

I can't see how an extra two weeks would have helped them that much...

[tml12]

I can't imagine why it would have cost him a majority. Is it not so plainly obvious that it is THE TRUTH?

What cost Harper a majority was the fact that the election was not 2 weeks later...that would have been a Harper majority.

Don't know about that. Seems to me that the Conservative campaign lost a little steam when they ran out of policy announcements to make.

I can't see how an extra two weeks would have helped them that much...

Martin's rent-a-wreck was REALLY fizzing out. If Harper had until early February 2006, I can see him going into majority territory and only the centrist Liberals voting Liberal (the hard left Liberals going NDP).

[jdobbin]

This is so typical of Liberal corruption. Absolute power truly does corrupt absolutely...right now Harper can hardly do anything in government because EVERYTHING is Liberal. Liberal Senate, Liberal civil service, Liberal Supreme Court.

The Senate is indeed Liberal but painting the Supreme Court and civil service as Liberal is destructive. It used to be in places like New Brunswick that whenever a new party was brought into power, everything was purged right down to people who plowed the highways. Is that what you think needs to happen: that everyone has to pass a political litmus test or be purged?

As far Khan goes, he is now Harper's cross to bear.

[geoffrey]

Asked if he regrets accepting Martin's job offer and giving up his seat, Assadourian said: "I regret knowing him as a person."

Martin eventually appointed Assadourian a citizenship judge.

I don't think I'd hate someone that appointed me a citizenship judge. There is no cushier spot...

[BC_chick]

Absolute power truly does corrupt absolutely.... right now Harper can hardly do anything in government because EVERYTHING is Liberal. Liberal Senate, Liberal civil service, Liberal Supreme Court.

Yes, and the same thing will be said about the Harper Conservatives if they manage to stay in power for 13 years. It is a rule of humanity as you just put forth in that proverb.

Now honestly answer the following.... Do you think the CPC has a chance of making it 13 years in office? What do you think of the fact that the best Harper could muster up after a scandal like Adscam was a shaky minority? Or the fact that a not even a year in the office, they were already tied with the Liberals in most polls?

Funny how if you were to be honest with yourself you know that Harper probably won't last 13 years, and it is rather odd that so many Canadians would vote Liberal after something like the sponsorship scandal, and it is also odd that people would not warm up to someone with fresh ideas for the country after 13 years of the same thing...

But no it's the CBC, or the immigrants, or the Liberal judges.... anything to find a scapegoat for the fact that the Liberals have dominated Canadian politics for 50 years.

Yet you will never consider that perhaps it's YOUR PARTY that's the problem.

[Catchme]

Asked if he regrets accepting Martin's job offer and giving up his seat, Assadourian said: "I regret knowing him as a person." Martin eventually appointed Assadourian a citizenship judge.

I don't think I'd hate someone that appointed me a citizenship judge. There is no cushier spot...

This is way too funny, what a load of lies that guy is spouting. Wonder how much he is getting paid to do it?

Excuse me, he is whining because he got a paid position as a citizenship judge, instead of an unpaid advisory position?

And he is speaking out now for his integrity? LOLOLOLOL He just lost it!

[scribblet]

Former Liberal adviser said he did no real work LOL so maybe Liberals are basing their skepticism about the value of MP Wajid Khan's report to Stephen Harper on their own experience with special prime ministerial advisers.

Onetime Liberal MP Sarkis Assadourian says he never did a day's work after being appointed a special adviser to former prime minister Paul Martin.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...120?hub=QPeriod

Shortly before the 2004 election, Assadourian agreed to step aside in his Brampton riding so that a star recruit, Ruby Dhalla, could run for the Liberals in his stead. In return, Martin gave him a job as a special foreign policy adviser.

"They put out a press release and he said to the media and the nation with a straight face I was working with him as (his) adviser on the south Caucasus and Middle East," Assadourian said in an interview.

"The whole thing was a lie . . . I never a single day worked in his office. I was never paid a single penny."

[jdobbin]

"The whole thing was a lie . . . I never a single day worked in his office. I was never paid a single penny."

Khan was paid or at least had his tour of the Middle East covered. And it was promised that his report would be given to all parties. He wasn't a member of the privy council when he was adviser. I see no reason why the report can't be given to the committee.

[madmax]

Martin's rent-a-wreck was REALLY fizzing out. If Harper had until early February 2006, I can see him going into majority territory and only the centrist Liberals voting Liberal (the hard left Liberals going NDP).

I would be hard pressed to see the NDP squeeze out one more vote out of a person whom voted Liberal Prior.

If the campaign were to have gone two more weeks, I think the Conservatives would be able to squeeze a little more from the Liberals, if Harper continued to be level headed.

[madmax]

Asked if he regrets accepting Martin's job offer and giving up his seat, Assadourian said: "I regret knowing him as a person."

Martin eventually appointed Assadourian a citizenship judge.

I don't think I'd hate someone that appointed me a citizenship judge. There is no cushier spot...

So this guy scored pretty good eh?

But former Tory MP Garth Turner raised questions Monday about that account. In a blog on his website, he noted the Tory candidate who ran against Khan in the last election was named a citizenship judge in the fall.

In the election last January, Raminder Gill lost the Ontario riding of Mississauga-Streetsville to Khan by less than 5,800 votes. On Oct. 31, he was appointed to the citizenship post.

[tml12]

Dear BC Chick,

"Yes, and the same thing will be said about the Harper Conservatives if they manage to stay in power for 13 years. It is a rule of humanity as you just put forth in that proverb."

I agree that Harper in power for that many years would produce an arrogant (though I am not sure how corrupt) government. I do not think Harper by nature is as corrupt and arrogant as Chretien and many senior Liberals who basically have spent 40 of the last 50 years living off my tax dollars.

Furthermore, Harper has made it very clear that he is interested in REFORMING the government (through Senate reform, Parliamentary vetting of Supreme Court justices, etc.) to make sure that power cannot be concentrated in one branch of government. I think it is very nice to think that we have our own James Madison as prime minister. Perhaps you should read The Federalist Papers to see why the American Federalists rallied against the kind of tyranny we have seen of late in this country.

"Now honestly answer the following.... Do you think the CPC has a chance of making it 13 years in office?"

Given the fact that most Canadians are alcoholics who are drunk on the Liberal Party bottle the answer is no but I think it is really too bad.

"What do you think of the fact that the best Harper could muster up after a scandal like Adscam was a shaky minority?"

I think it is a damn shame. It shows, as I have said above, that Canadians (especially people in the tight Ivory tower troika of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal) are braindead fools who continually vote Liberal because they believe in the Liberal (read anti-American, anti-populist, pro-elitist) myth of Canada. The very thought of government reform, the very thought that the Liberals could not control the one-party state they have enjoyed for most of the last century. The very thought that THE PEOPLE might actually be given more power to choose through their elected representatives the future of this country SCARES these people.

So they resort to "Harper is scary right-wing Old Glory-worshipping American sell-out" propaganda to scare the masses.

So yes, I do think after Adscam the fact that Harper could only get a minority with tired old Martin running the Liberals was a damn shame and represents the very serious lunacy of Canadian federalism.

"Or the fact that a not even a year in the office, they were already tied with the Liberals in most polls?"

If Canada re-elects the Liberals, I do not know how much longer I will stay in this country. I REALLY don't.

"Funny how if you were to be honest with yourself you know that Harper probably won't last 13 years, and it is rather odd that so many Canadians would vote Liberal after something like the sponsorship scandal, and it is also odd that people would not warm up to someone with fresh ideas for the country after 13 years of the same thing... "

I think I have been refreshingly honest and have presented my case with clear-cut facts.

"But no it's the CBC, or the immigrants, or the Liberal judges.... anything to find a scapegoat for the fact that the Liberals have dominated Canadian politics for 50 years."

I think it has been well-documented that the CBC is anti-Conservative and anti-American. I believe the Conservatives have made great inroads into the immigrant community. I believe it is also quite clear that Liberal judges have made attempts to sabotage this government because they do not want to make the process any more democratic than it already is.

"Yet you will never consider that perhaps it's YOUR PARTY that's the problem."

When my party is the problem, I will call it. So far, I think Harper has performed admirably as prime minister. I think it is time Canadians give him a strong majority, something he has clearly shown that he deserves. Anything less would be devastating for the state of the federation.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Funny how if you were to be honest with yourself you know that Harper probably won't last 13 years, and it is rather odd that so many Canadians would vote Liberal after something like the sponsorship scandal, and it is also odd that people would not warm up to someone with fresh ideas for the country after 13 years of the same thing...

No party should be in power for 13 years.

Harper could win two massive majorities and would still not reach that mark. He'd retire on his own.

The healthiest thing for Canada is to majorities for one party followed by two majorities for the other, and so on and so on...

[Keepitsimple]

A good example of the political bias of the Public Service, mainly through partisan appointments by the Liberals can be found in a recent article by The Star.....and this is an example of only one ministerial area:

The Toronto Star published a front-page article entitled "Jailers fear PM's Justice overhaul. The article states that the "recently released" document is dated January 24, 2006 – the day after the Conservatives won the election. Obviously, it was in the making several months before. Since the Civil Service is theoretically non-partisan, the document had to have been requested by the political masters of the day, the Liberal Party. Not surprisingly, its “recommendations” refute each and every Conservative policy and thus was clearly prepared as Liberal electoral fodder. During the election, the Liberals were caught flat-footed by the public demonstration of support for Conservative crime and sentencing initiatives. As a result, the document appears to have been kept under wraps due to the fear that the Liberals would be viewed as soft on crime. This article highlights a fundamental problem that hopefully has been somewhat addressed by the Accountability Act – and that involves the politicization of the Civil Service for partisan purposes. Finally, owing to the dubious origins and authorship of this year-old document, one has to question why The Star would give the article front-page, top-of-fold coverage.....but I'll take a wild guess - they might be just a teeny-weeny bit biased and maybe just a little anti-Conservative.

Jailers fear PM's justice overhaul

TheStar.com - News - Jailers fear PM's justice overhaul

Tonda MacCharles

Toronto Star

OTTAWA–Federal government proposals to get tougher on criminals would hit aboriginal people the hardest, violate Charter rights of inmates, and likely not make for safer streets, says the agency that oversees federal prisons.

Underlying some of the agency's criticism is concern about dramatic increases in the prison population that would result from the Conservatives' approach.

Among the targets in an analysis prepared by Correctional Services Canada's strategic policy division are proposals for mandatory minimum sentences and for the so-called three-strikes law, key elements of the Tories' law-and-order agenda.

The analysis says minimum sentences don't have a deterrent effect and drain away funds available for social programs that prevent crime.

The proposal for a three-strikes law – designating as a dangerous offender anyone convicted of a third violent or sexual offence – would have a "disproportionately higher impact" on native people, the analysis says.

The analysis took aim at almost every law-and-order promise that would affect prisoners made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives during the election campaign a year ago.

The final version of the document, obtained by the Star under Access to Information legislation, is dated Jan. 24, 2006 – the day after the Conservatives won the election. It outlined "considerations" for the new government on each of its proposed policies, as well as advice on the "direction/way forward."

The final document and its early drafts contain several blacked-out sections. But the public servants' critique appears to offer more ammunition to the government's critics.

Only two crime bills have passed – tougher penalties for street racing and a watered-down version of the promised restrictions on conditional sentencing or "house arrest."

The rest of the Tories' promised measures are either stalled in the minority Parliament, or still to be introduced. But Harper appears undeterred by either opposition or concerns of the public service, naming law and order as still among the government's priorities.

The complete article can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/169976

[BC_chick]

[...] Canadians (especially people in the tight Ivory tower troika of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal) are braindead fools who continually vote Liberal because they believe in the Liberal (read anti-American, anti-populist, pro-elitist) myth of Canada. The very thought of government reform, the very thought that the Liberals could not control the one-party state they have enjoyed for most of the last century. The very thought that THE PEOPLE might actually be given more power to choose through their elected representatives the future of this country SCARES these people.

So they resort to "Harper is scary right-wing Old Glory-worshipping American sell-out" propaganda to scare the masses.

[...]

I think it has been well-documented that the CBC is anti-Conservative and anti-American.

[...]

When my party is the problem, I will call it. So far, I think Harper has performed admirably as prime minister. I think it is time Canadians give him a strong majority, something he has clearly shown that he deserves. Anything less would be devastating for the state of the federation.

Dear tml,

Thank you for demonstrating my point. You are implying that Canadians are putting a LPC-induced, CBC-propagated irrational fear of Harper ahead of much-needed fresh ideas and reform. Yet, you are not considering the fact that perhaps the problem is all the other policies Harper is offering. Of course, Canadians MUST be stupid, and it couldn't possibly be that Harper's other policies are so out of touch with the electorate that they're willing to put up with a broken system, than to have Harper represent them.

According to the annual poll in Maclean's magazine last summer, Canadians are by and large moral relativists, whereas Americans are more binary in their views. Harper and his black or white views of the world don't sit well with Canadians, he is adopting American-style conservative views and trying to instill them in Canada.

It's not that we're right, he's wrong, or he's right and we're too stupid to see it. It's that he's out of touch with his electorate.

[tml12]

[...] Canadians (especially people in the tight Ivory tower troika of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal) are braindead fools who continually vote Liberal because they believe in the Liberal (read anti-American, anti-populist, pro-elitist) myth of Canada. The very thought of government reform, the very thought that the Liberals could not control the one-party state they have enjoyed for most of the last century. The very thought that THE PEOPLE might actually be given more power to choose through their elected representatives the future of this country SCARES these people.

So they resort to "Harper is scary right-wing Old Glory-worshipping American sell-out" propaganda to scare the masses.

[...]

I think it has been well-documented that the CBC is anti-Conservative and anti-American.

[...]

When my party is the problem, I will call it. So far, I think Harper has performed admirably as prime minister. I think it is time Canadians give him a strong majority, something he has clearly shown that he deserves. Anything less would be devastating for the state of the federation.

Dear tml,

Thank you for demonstrating my point. You are implying that Canadians are putting a CBC-induced, Liberal-party propagated irrational fear of Harper ahead of much-needed fresh ideas and reform. Yet, you are not considering the fact that perhaps the problem is all the other policies Harper is offering. Of course, Canadians MUST be stupid, and it couldn't possibly be that Harper's other policies are so out of touch with the electorate that they're willing to put up with a broken system, than to have Harper represent them.

According to the annual poll in Maclean's magazine last summer, Canadians are by and large moral relativists, whereas Americans are more binary in their views. Harper and his black or white views of the world don't sit well with Canadians, he is adopting American-style conservative views and trying to instill them in Canada.

It's not that we're right, he's wrong, or he's right and we're too stupid to see it. It's that he's out of touch with his electorate.

I can't think of one Harper policy that is so radically different from mainstream Canada. Furthermore, I am not a fan of polls...especially in a country as large as Canada or the U.S. you are implying that it is very easy to classify people as being moral relitavists, etc.

The values and politics of New York are not the same as the values and politics of Kansas, the same with Vancouver and Regina. If Canadians do not trust Harper, it is because they have been subjected to so much propaganda against him by a largely pro-Liberal media that is desperate to see him fail as PM. He has been the victim of a mallicious smear campaign by Canadian elitists who do not want the national Liberal myths of Canada to change. As such, they have convinced Canadians that their best interests are the Liberal status quo. This must end if Canada is to become a strong nation and regain its status in the world (the book "While Canada Slept" comes to mind).

This country has become too content with the status quo...Harper is the fresh blood we need to start real change in Canada.

[BC_chick]

I can't think of one Harper policy that is so radically different from mainstream Canada. Furthermore, I am not a fan of polls...especially in a country as large as Canada or the U.S. you are implying that it is very easy to classify people as being moral relitavists, etc.

The values and politics of New York are not the same as the values and politics of Kansas, the same with Vancouver and Regina. If Canadians do not trust Harper, it is because they have been subjected to so much propaganda against him by a largely pro-Liberal media that is desperate to see him fail as PM. He has been the victim of a mallicious smear campaign by Canadian elitists who do not want the national Liberal myths of Canada to change. As such, they have convinced Canadians that their best interests are the Liberal status quo. This must end if Canada is to become a strong nation and regain its status in the world (the book "While Canada Slept" comes to mind).

This country has become too content with the status quo...Harper is the fresh blood we need to start real change in Canada.

Whether or not you believe in polls when it comes to Canadian ideas of morality (which you should actually read the article before deciding, they figures are quite compelling), then there is one poll you can't deny about Canadians - and that is an unfavourable view of the Bush administration. That has been consistent and it goes for Canadian Liberals and Conservatives alike - something like 80%+ in every poll conducted on the issue.

Maybe Harper would fair better if he didn't cozy up to the Bush administration, and maybe his defense of Bush's Iraq policies hurt him permanently as a credible leader. Who knows, maybe the only thing going against him is the bad timing of being a conservative government simultaneously as the Bush administration made a mockery out of the conservative movement. Or maybe a combination of the binary views as well as the bad luck of running as conservative government while the idiot in chief is his conservative counterpart.

But either way, my point remains that he is not well-liked by the electorate in spite of the different views he is offerings. That should tell you something about what Canadians want, but as I initally stated - CPC supporters would rather blame everyone and everything else, than to actually consider that perhaps their own policies are the problem.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Maybe Harper would fair better if he didn't cozy up to the Bush administration, and maybe his defense of Bush's Iraq policies hurt him permanently as a credible leader. Who knows, maybe the only thing going against him is the bad timing of being a conservative government simultaneously as the Bush administration made a mockery out of the conservative movement. Or maybe a combination of the binary views as well as the bad luck of running as conservative government while the idiot in chief is his conservative counterpart.

There is the rub. Harper isn't cozying up to Bush. He is just treating him with the respect the leader of our most important ally and trading partner deserves.

You haven't seen members of Harper's caucus stomping on GW Bush dolls. You haven't heard senior Conservative staffers calling White House staffers a**holes. You haven't seen the Harper Government making announcements on policy changes affecting the Americans, without informing the Americans first.

That stuff was ignorant and just wrong. Harper has stated his objections to Bush on a number of issues. You are mistaking professionalism with "cozying up".

CPC supporters would rather blame everyone and everything else, than to actually consider that perhaps their own policies are the problem.

Not blaming anybody. We are the Government. We are doing the best we can given the restrictions of a minority Parliament.

Their isn't a *problem* with our polices. We haven't only seen one Federal Government elected with a majority of the votes cast since 1962. Are you saying that there has been a *problem* with all but one of the Government's we have had since 1962?

[jefferiah]

Absolute power truly does corrupt absolutely.... right now Harper can hardly do anything in government because EVERYTHING is Liberal. Liberal Senate, Liberal civil service, Liberal Supreme Court.

Yes, and the same thing will be said about the Harper Conservatives if they manage to stay in power for 13 years. It is a rule of humanity as you just put forth in that proverb.

Now honestly answer the following.... Do you think the CPC has a chance of making it 13 years in office? What do you think of the fact that the best Harper could muster up after a scandal like Adscam was a shaky minority? Or the fact that a not even a year in the office, they were already tied with the Liberals in most polls?

Funny how if you were to be honest with yourself you know that Harper probably won't last 13 years, and it is rather odd that so many Canadians would vote Liberal after something like the sponsorship scandal, and it is also odd that people would not warm up to someone with fresh ideas for the country after 13 years of the same thing...

But no it's the CBC, or the immigrants, or the Liberal judges.... anything to find a scapegoat for the fact that the Liberals have dominated Canadian politics for 50 years.

Yet you will never consider that perhaps it's YOUR PARTY that's the problem.

I think you are right BC Chick in saying that it is not the immigrants or not the CBC. But also I think you are wrong in saying its the Conservative Party. I blame it on a horrible law of human nature-----people love what sounds nice better than what is true.

Why wouldnt Harper cosy up to the Bush administration? Bush is the president of a nation which is our neighbour and our greatest ally.

Try taking another look at Harper forgetting all the far-right accusations people are making. Does it not occur to you that this is ridiculous? Nonetheless people eat it up. He comes across as a rather shy and soft spoken fellow to me. I have yet to hear him say he is going to "smoke em out their holes" like his supposed "clone". Seriously take an honest look. He is a really average person.

Look at all the far-right policies in our nation. Look how hard it is for you people to come on here and criticize Harper. Oh you brave souls. You could face life in prison or execution for this. What martyrs the Liberals are! They are so oppressed. People actually disagree with them and thats so offensive.

If they could revive Mr. Dressup (Ernie Coombs) and make him PM, and if he was a conservative, we would be reading articles about how far-right he is. If he didnt legalize pot people would be crying fascism. If he made cuts to an overfunded special interest group who had a name like "Left-Handed Lesbian Narcoleptics for Recreational Morphine Use" people would cry discrimination.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Look at all the far-right policies in our nation. Look how hard it is for you people to come on here and criticize Harper. Oh you brave souls. You could face life in prison or execution for this. What martyrs the Liberals are! They are so oppressed. People actually disagree with them and thats so offensive.

Very well said.

I just don't get the arrogance. Do people actually buy that bullsh*t about Canada's Natural Governing Party???

IIRC we didn't hear that term for about 9 years. i.e. 1948 to 1993. Here's hoping we have another streatch of that.

[tml12]

I can't think of one Harper policy that is so radically different from mainstream Canada. Furthermore, I am not a fan of polls...especially in a country as large as Canada or the U.S. you are implying that it is very easy to classify people as being moral relitavists, etc.

The values and politics of New York are not the same as the values and politics of Kansas, the same with Vancouver and Regina. If Canadians do not trust Harper, it is because they have been subjected to so much propaganda against him by a largely pro-Liberal media that is desperate to see him fail as PM. He has been the victim of a mallicious smear campaign by Canadian elitists who do not want the national Liberal myths of Canada to change. As such, they have convinced Canadians that their best interests are the Liberal status quo. This must end if Canada is to become a strong nation and regain its status in the world (the book "While Canada Slept" comes to mind).

This country has become too content with the status quo...Harper is the fresh blood we need to start real change in Canada.

Whether or not you believe in polls when it comes to Canadian ideas of morality (which you should actually read the article before deciding, they figures are quite compelling), then there is one poll you can't deny about Canadians - and that is an unfavourable view of the Bush administration. That has been consistent and it goes for Canadian Liberals and Conservatives alike - something like 80%+ in every poll conducted on the issue.

Maybe Harper would fair better if he didn't cozy up to the Bush administration, and maybe his defense of Bush's Iraq policies hurt him permanently as a credible leader. Who knows, maybe the only thing going against him is the bad timing of being a conservative government simultaneously as the Bush administration made a mockery out of the conservative movement. Or maybe a combination of the binary views as well as the bad luck of running as conservative government while the idiot in chief is his conservative counterpart.

But either way, my point remains that he is not well-liked by the electorate in spite of the different views he is offerings. That should tell you something about what Canadians want, but as I initally stated - CPC supporters would rather blame everyone and everything else, than to actually consider that perhaps their own policies are the problem.

You've got to be lefty to make a statement like that. It is not that Harper is cozying up to Bush, he recognizes that Bush is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces that would defend us if we are attacked, Bush is the president of the country whose taxpayers pay for our defense, Bush is the president of the country where almost 90% of our exports go, our country and Bush's country are fighting a war in Afghanistan, Bush is the president of the country who is our staunchest ally and closest friend in the world, etc. I could go on... There of course is widespread Canadian (and American) dislike of Bush's policies (I myself am not a huge fan overall) but you must recognize the position Bush is in. Every Canadian prime minister must ensure that relations with the Americans are good considering our political and economic circumstances. Naturally, they (especially if they are conservative) will be attacked for "selling out" Canada because the majority of Canadians have been brainwashed by the Liberal elite that Canadian nationalism is based solely on anti-Americanism, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Bush is seen as a "go it alone" go, of course that isn't popular in any country.