jdobbin Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070418/...rper_mulroney_4 Stephen Harper lavished praise on a predecessor who was once a bitter rival but who now serves as his political inspiration: Brian Mulroney.The current prime minister paid tribute Wednesday to the former at an event honouring Mulroney for his 1991 recognition of Ukrainian independence. In those days, Harper had just bolted from Mulroney's Conservative party to help spearhead the Reform movement. Today, he hopes to emulate Mulroney's political success by leading the newly formed Conservatives back to the hallowed land of majority government. Harper described his predecessor as a visionary who is only now being recognized for successes that once went ignored. Quite the change from when Harper bolted the PCs and attacked Mulroney relentlessly in the 1990s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 He's becoming quite the flip-flopper as of late. Methinks he's already surpassed Martin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 He's becoming quite the flip-flopper as of late. Methinks he's already surpassed Martin. It makes you think that if he was wrong about Mulroney, what else is he wrong about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Quite the change from when Harper bolted the PCs and attacked Mulroney relentlessly in the 1990s. Were his attacks as relentless as yours on Harper? Was Mulroney wrong in recognizing Ukrainian independence? Did Harper criticize Mulroney for recognizing Ukrainian independence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 One would almost forget how angry Harper was with Mulroney that the man helped create a party just to defeat him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper He became chief aide to Progressive Conservative MP Jim Hawkes in 1985, but later became disillusioned with both the party and the government of Brian Mulroney. Harper was especially critical of the Mulroney government's fiscal policy, and its inability to fully revoke the NEP until 1986. He left the PC Party that same year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Where's the anger in that. He may well have been enraged for that matter, but your link doesn't say that. People leave parties quite regularly to join different ones. Leaving to start a brand new party is uncommon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Where's the anger in that. He may well have been enraged for that matter, but your link doesn't say that. People leave parties quite regularly to join different ones. Leaving to start a brand new party is uncommon. To inject some honesty he left to help start a new party. Reform was Manning's baby, Harper was just along for the ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Where's the anger in that. He may well have been enraged for that matter, but your link doesn't say that. People leave parties quite regularly to join different ones. Leaving to start a brand new party is uncommon. The praise Harper lavished on Mulroney doesn't mention what differences Harper had with Mulroney. Must have been something, don't you think? Happy people don't make speeches and contribute articles that repeatedly said Mulroney was wrong. Harper was also credited with the phrase, "the west wants in." http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscomm...tern_clout.html What did that mean as it pertains to Mulroney? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 ............and Martin and Chretien were the best of pals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 ............and Martin and Chretien were the best of pals. So the Liberals are better because their leaders continue their spat forever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 ............and Martin and Chretien were the best of pals. They were the most vociferous of enemies at the end. For a while, they had one of the stronger finance minister and PM relationships that the country has ever seen. Martin and Chretien never left the Liberal party because they were upset though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Martin and Chretien never left the Liberal party because they were upset though. Yes, they did leave the Liberal party...........in shambles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 They may not have left, but their bitter feud did untold damage. Chretien stayed on for the last election JUST to make Martin wait for the reins of power. Also, party members tended to choose between the two to support instead of having a unified party. Maybe one of them should have left! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Yes, they did leave the Liberal party...........in shambles. You have no disagreement from me there. Their actions were selfish and left the party divided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 They may not have left, but their bitter feud did untold damage. Chretien stayed on for the last election JUST to make Martin wait for the reins of power. Also, party members tended to choose between the two to support instead of having a unified party. Maybe one of them should have left! I've always thought Chretien stayed on one election too many. However, getting back the subject, neither man left the party and split the party vote so that they were reduced to two seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Reform was Manning's baby, Harper was just along for the ride. Exactly. He merely used the Reform Party to boost his career. Harper was a rightwing idealogue and opportunist who had no interest in accountability, democratic reform or populism. His subsequent turn at the helm has shown no inclination toward empowering people at the grassroots, or improving governance and accountability, or anything Preston Manning stood for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 His subsequent turn at the helm has shown no inclination toward empowering people at the grassroots, Much like Dion is doing,eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted April 23, 2007 Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 ...Quite the change from when Harper bolted the PCs and attacked Mulroney relentlessly in the 1990s. What value is this to Mulroney if he doesn't also include the statements "I'm sorry. I was wrong."? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted April 23, 2007 Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 Harper is a professional flip-flop. Go "google" Stephen Harper and read how he was a Lib under Trudeau, then switch to PC followed by Reformer, Alliance and ????? where next??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted April 23, 2007 Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 \then switch to PC followed by Reformer, Alliance and ????? where next??? How are any of these a flip flop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted April 23, 2007 Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 Harper is a professional flip-flop. Go "google" Stephen Harper and read how he was a Lib under Trudeau, then switch to PC followed by Reformer, Alliance and ????? where next??? I dunno. He seems to have settled for the moment. I'm pretty sure he won't become a Marijuana Party follower this week anyway. Is this supposed to be a real question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Harper is a professional flip-flop. Go "google" Stephen Harper and read how he was a Lib under Trudeau, then switch to PC followed by Reformer, Alliance and ????? where next??? I dunno. He seems to have settled for the moment. I'm pretty sure he won't become a Marijuana Party follower this week anyway. Is this supposed to be a real question? Wasn't everyone a Liberal under Trudeau? I was a Liberal under Trudeau, and when Trudeau returns, I will be a Liberal again. Think about Trudeau for a second.....if he wasn't afraid to call out the army against domestic terrorists....how would he have handled a foreign threat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 I will never forget my absolute disgust watching Mulroney and Reagan sing Irish eyes are smiling on a stage in Quebec. Both claiming to be Irish I guess, it wasn't even an Irish song. And yes, Harper wants to be a totla prime minister no matter what he has to say and do and then Canadians you will get what you are asking for so watch out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 and then Canadians you will get what you are asking for so watch out. *scary* *scary* *scary* redux? et tu Margrace... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Harper is a professional flip-flop. Go "google" Stephen Harper and read how he was a Lib under Trudeau, then switch to PC followed by Reformer, Alliance and ????? where next??? I dunno. He seems to have settled for the moment. I'm pretty sure he won't become a Marijuana Party follower this week anyway. Is this supposed to be a real question? From red to blue to green to blue: One more colour change and he'll be flying the rainbow flag in the gay pride parade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.