Harper Staking His Ground...

[sir_springer]

Excellent! We have a leader here, people!

_________________________________

From the Ottawa Citizen...

Harper seeks balance in merged agenda

Alliance leader says new party has to be 'about more than tax cuts'

Peter O'Neil and Tom Blackwell

The Vancouver Sun with files from National Post

November 7, 2003

A merged Canadian Alliance-Progressive Conservative party must openly embrace social conservatives even though the proposed new entity's statement of principles deliberately avoids issues such as abortion or gay marriage, Stephen Harper said yesterday.

The Alliance leader, who is seriously considering a bid to lead the proposed new party, said the role of social conservatives in the new party will obviously be a dominate theme of the leadership race.

"The party has got to be about more than tax cuts," Mr. Harper said.

"I know that's a view in some quarters (in the two parties) that that's what it's about. But, realistically, I think we have to address a range of issues, including some of these issues that are controversial."

Mr. Harper acknowledged there is no specific recognition of social conservatives or their agenda in the proposed new party's agreement-in-principle, which calls for a party that balances "fiscal accountability, progressive social policy and individual rights and responsibilities."

Meanwhile, in Toronto, Conservative leader Peter MacKay fought off a small but determined band of hecklers last night as he led a Tory show of force in favour of the proposed merger.

A crowd of 1,500 activists at a fundraising dinner repeatedly gave Mr. MacKay standing ovations as he trumpeted the amalgamation deal as the only chance to end effective one-party rule by the Liberals.

However, much of the applause was designed to drown out boos and shouts from about a dozen opponents of the merger, who called it a betrayal of the party's roots and values.

The audience included a who's who of Ontario Conservative heavyweights -- from former premiers Bill Davis and Mike Harris to cable-TV magnate Ted Rogers -- as well as Mr. Harper and several of his caucus colleagues.

"We are here to send a message to our re-united conservative family: Get ready, our time is here again," Mr. MacKay told the dinner. "We are here as well to send this message to the most arrogant, corrupt Liberal government we have ever seen in Ottawa: The countdown has begun, and your days are numbered."

Outside the convention centre where the event took place, about 35 naysayers marched in defiance of the deal, carrying sings with slogans such as 'MacKay traitor,' 'No merger madness' and 'PC party hijacked.'

"I feel like a tourist at the demise of my own party," scoffed one opponent as she left the dinner.

But the message most of the Conservatives inside the building tried to convey was one of grateful acceptance of the proposed amalgamation.

"This is not an Alliance take-over," said Mr. Davis. "This is a happy marriage."

The former premier, one of the architects of the merger, told the crowd he knows some Conservatives are "less than enthused" by the prospect. But he said such divisions in any party are nothing new and "you endeavour to do what you think is right."

Mr. Harper acknowledged the merger deal, to be ratified in a vote by members of both parties in early December, doesn't appear consistent with his statement earlier this year that "serious conservative parties simply cannot shy away from values questions."

"The purpose of the so-called statement of principles in the agreement with Peter MacKay is really just to provide -- I can be quite blunt about it -- an unobjectionable set of principles that can be used as a basis for a wide variety of conservatives starting a debate."

Mr. Harper, in an April speech that was later published as an essay in the now-defunct Citizens Centre Report magazine in June, described social conservatism as "respect for custom and traditions (religious traditions above all), voluntary association, and personal self-restraint reinforced by moral and legal sanctions on behaviour."

He wrote the Alliance and its predecessor, the Reform party, had been adrift because of a focus on winning votes rather than advocating strong policies.

Writing at a time when there were no serious Alliance-Tory merger negotiations under way, he said a legitimate conservative party must concentrate not just on what the state costs, but also "about what the state values."

He said the party should focus on efforts to protect the family by concentrating on issues such as parents' right to reasonably discipline their children; banning child pornography; raising the current age of sexual consent from 14; providing "choice" in education; and "strengthening the institution of marriage."

Mr. Harper argued a conservative party that focuses only on tax cuts, as the Alliance attempted to do during the 2000 election, would risk being indistinguishable from a Liberal party under Paul Martin.

The essay blasted the "federal Liberals and their cheerleaders in the media and the universities" for opposing the U.S. war against Iraq.

He also condemned the "modern left" because of its support for "radical, responsibility-free individualism" and "tribalism in the form of group rights."

"The logical end of this thinking (by the left) is the actual banning of conservative views, which some legislators and 'rights' commissions openly contemplate."

In yesterday's interview, Mr. Harper said his own positions, such as his recent opposition to gay marriage and his refusal to adopt the strict position of the anti-abortion movement, represent the proper balanced approach.

Social conservative groups that harshly criticize abortion, gay rights activists, and left-wing feminists have expressed both concern and cautious optimism about the creation of the new party.

While several anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage groups have expressed hope the new party could eventually form a government and have a major impact on policy, there are fears the new party could push aside the social conservative agenda.

"For example, the current agreement-in-principle makes no commitment to defend the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage," stated a bulletin on the website of the Canadian Family Action Coalition, which is urging supporters to buy party memberships.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2003

[sir_springer]

My thoughts, exactly!

---------------------------

November 7, 2003

Checkmate!

By LINK BYFIELD -- Calgary Sun

There are two men in Ottawa today for whom the universe is unfolding as it should.

One is Paul Martin. The other is Stephen Harper.

Both are emerging as titans from the depressing political wreckage of the past decade.

They will soon face each other, probably this spring, in one of the most interesting federal elections in recent history.

If I were a gambler, I'd put my money on Harper.

A JMCK poll in mid-October put a united conservative party only 5% behind the Liberals. All the same, Harper is starting from too far back to win. But he'll outshine Martin, gain more in the East than Martin does in the West, and take the wind out of the Liberal sails. He'll keep rising in the next Parliament, while Martin subsides.

Martin will probably win. But Harper's the one to watch.

Martin has been oversold. Harper, by contrast, has been underestimated from the beginning and will continue to exceed expectations.

In one year, he has united a caucus that Preston Manning had divided and Stockwell Day had lost control of.

And, just as only Nixon could go to China, only Harper could actually effect a merger.

As the Alliance leader who was always least enthused about merging, he was best able to get the Alliance to do it. Whether the Tories will come to the altar remains uncertain.

Either way, Harper wins.

He has (it seems safe to say) persuaded tens of thousands of Tory-hating western Alliance members to reunite their party with the Conservatives -- on Conservative terms.

At the same time, by strenuously opposing gay marriage, he has proved to his own party's distrustful social conservatives that he will support them, if not on all issues, at least on those that stand some chance of winning.

Some say his real political ambition all along has been to nudge the Tories back to the right, and hopefully the nation, too.

Biding his time, he chose the perfect moment.

New Tory leader Peter MacKay had just betrayed his own right-wing supporters by striking a secret deal with leftist leadership contestant David Orchard.

Harper realized that MacKay could now be pushed into betraying David Orchard by resuming secret unity talks with the Alliance.

Result: No one in the old Conservative Party trusts MacKay to be leader of anything, and no other credible Tory candidates exist. Which leaves only Harper.

The only other Tory possibility was former Ontario premier Mike Harris, but last weekend he gave it a pass, as I suspect Harper figured he would.

Harris's marital affairs are in a mess. He will soon be investigated by Ontario's new Liberal government for his role in the Ipperwash Native blockade fatality. He can't speak French.

Former provincial premiers are never elected prime minister. And he's making way too much money in business to fancy becoming leader of the federal opposition.

There were other forces in play. There was enough time -- just barely enough --to pull off a merger before the election next spring.

On Jan. 1, the election financing rules will change dramatically, forbidding corporate political donations and granting federal money to parties based on the votes they received in the previous election.

The Tories, vote-poor and badly in debt, could not survive this double blow without help.

Harper also knew that though Red Tories like Joe Clark and David Orchard were bound to oppose a merger, more influential figures like Brian Mulroney and Don Mazankowski would recognize reality and support it.

So Harper made them an offer they couldn't refuse: A merger on their terms, which in effect hands their party over to Alliance leadership.

If Tory members do refuse it next month, they will not be forgiven by the electorate.

The nation is yearning for a viable alternative to the Liberals. With their party depleted of members, money and credible candidates, the Tories will either accept or they will implode, once and for all.

Either way, it's checkmate.

Harper has won.

[sir_springer]

Paul Martin is the Vanilla Ice of Canadian politics

Like a pop band, he steals and recycles other people's ideas from past decades

DAVID ANBER

Montreal Gazette - Monday, November 03, 2003

Paul Martin is the Vanilla Ice of Canadian politics. For those who might not remember, Vanilla Ice was a rapper who had one big hit in the early 1990s. That song, Ice Ice Baby, went quadruple platinum in less than a month and everybody was convinced that Vanilla Ice was going to replace the rock and pop that dominated the previous three decades.

Then it happened. People began to realize why they found the tune so catchy: It turned out that Ice Ice Baby was quite similar to a song by Queen and David Bowie from the previous decade. And so, the Vanilla Ice craze will go down in music history as the combination of empty hype and borrowed styles.

Martin might not realize it, but he is quickly defining himself as the next Vanilla Ice. His vision for Canada is really just borrowed lyrics from Brian Mulroney or Stephen Harper. His vision of federalism is just a remix of the tunes first sung by Jean Charest and Ralph Klein.

In a world where there are no alternative music genres, this strategy might have worked just fine. But this is no longer the case. By the time the federal election is called in April, the Conservative Party will be formed and Canadians will see quite the political comeback.

Sure, Martin dismisses the new party as insignificant in Quebec, but that's only because he believes his own hype.

Even among some Canadian Alliance and Tory supporters, the question of uniting the right is divisive. They call it a takeover, and point to a poll that claims Canadians agree, with younger Canadians leading the way. And yet, Alliance and Progressive Conservative campus clubs, representing thousands of young Canadians, have united in support of the unification in every province of the country.

What about the Quebec question? Vanilla Martin and the Dave Orchard Band would have Canadians believe that this new party cannot win in Quebec.

This, too, is hype. Without it, people might actually notice that Quebec does not traditionally support the Liberal Party. In fact, since the days of Trudeau, the Liberals have never won Quebec. Since 1993, the Bloc Québécois has prevented the Liberals from winning the province. Why? Because Quebecers prefer to elect the strongest alternative to the Liberals. The Bloc might persist as a fringe party buoyed only by the hard-core separatists. The Bloc has existed with the support of a Parti Québécois government in Quebec City. Without this ally, the Bloc's days are clearly numbered. Where will its support go?

The borrowed Paul Martin tunes might sound catchy at first, but Quebecers won't buy it. They might even prefer to stay home rather than vote Liberal. What else could explain the drop in voter turnout from 77 per cent in 1993 to 64 per cent in 2000? In this most recent election, 36 per cent of Quebecers didn't vote and only 28 per cent voted Liberal.

Martin probably realizes this even though he pretends otherwise. This is why he adopted the Vanilla Ice strategy. He had hoped to copy the popular Mulroney/Harper tunes of late. But he wasn't expecting that the Mulroney and Harper melodies would be making a comeback of their own. And when given the choice between a cheap imitation and the original song, we all know what wins out.

It might be a bit hard to say who is going to be lead singer of this new comeback group. With a leader who can speak to Canadians in both official languages, this new party will grow both in Quebec and across the country. The auditions have already started each day during Question Period in the House of Commons. To be sure, this is only rehearsal for when Martin becomes leader, but - by then - his song might just have slipped off the charts.

[Morgan]

Depending on what political skeletons are revealed in this "candid " new book by LPOC insider and "bagman", Leo Kolber, Harper and the conservatives may get a "leg up" in voters minds as a result.

Senator Leo Kolber's candid new book called "Leo-a life" reveals LPOC secrets

- Mr. Kolber said he was "profoundly disturbed" by the wave of anti-Americanism that swept through Canada before and during the American invasion of Iraq in March 2003. "Feelings ran so high in our caucus that two senior ministers, David Collenette and Don Boudria, later suggested in all seriousness that U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci be expelled for stating the obvious," wrote Mr. Kolber. Happily, saner heads prevailed to prevent what would have been a virtual breaking of relations."

- In his book, Mr. Kolber said he made a rare statement in the Senate on the topic of anti-Americanism last spring after denouncing Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish for her "idiotic outburst" about Americans when she stated that she hated "those bastards."

- "I went on to address the issue of anti-Americanism, particularly in the larger context of hate mongering, which is a crime in Canada," he wrote. He stated that anti-Americanism is as unacceptable as anti-Semitism, anti-Arabic sentiment or "the dissemination of hatred against 'any identifiable group'."

- The McGill-Queen's University Press book, which was released this week, is a surprisingly candid autobiography by the self-proclaimed Liberal "bagman" who raised millions of dollars for politicians over the years. He writes about his relationship with Mr. Trudeau, Prime Minister Jean Chretien and former prime minister Brian Mulroney. He also has tales from his 40 years of managing assets for the Bronfman family and turning Cadillac Fairview into the biggest real estate company in Canada in the 1970s.

- He bluntly states that his attendance in the Senate was horrible until his last five years when he became chairman of the powerful Senate banking committee to hold hearings into bank mergers.

- He is as blunt-spoken about that process, saying the government dumped a problem onto the committee's lap when it asked them to hold hearings to deflect attention from rumors of potential deals. He said Finance Minister John Manley, Maurizio Bevilacqua, the junior minister of finance, and Kevin Lynch, the deputy minister of finance, "stiffed the committee" by refusing to show up.

- He also said his eyes were opened to the country's diversity when he travelled coast to coast asking for $25,000 donations from wealthy supporters of the Liberal party to retire the party's debt.

- "It didn't matter where you went in the country, they had a beef about Canada and Ottawa ... In Vancouver, 'who the hell needs Canada, we've got the Pacific Rim.' In Calgary, with the national energy policy, 'why the hell are you guys interfering with us.' In Manitoba, the wheat board, Ontario 'we give more than our share.' For Quebec, I don't need to tell you, they got 400 things," said Mr. Kolber.

- "In the Maritimes, everybody is broke and in Newfoundland, 80 per cent of them on the dole and they still say they would be better off joining the United States."