Why does Joe Clark support the Liberals now?

[1967100]

Stephen Harper is what a true conservative is about.

Why does Joe Clark support the Liberals now when he clearly was a tory and even supported Defiebaker and Brian Mulroney ?

[cybercoma]

Who's Joe Clark?

[noahbody]

Stephen Harper is what a true conservative is about.

Why does Joe Clark support the Liberals now when he clearly was a tory and even supported Defiebaker and Brian Mulroney ?

He sees Harper as one of the key people who led to the demise of his PC party. In politics, it seems a lot easier to blame someone outside your own party for your failures. Sour grapes.

"Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't." Words to live by, if you're content with being a loser.

[jbg]

He may have been a "Tory" in the old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy sense of the term, the way Eisenhower was a Republican. Harper harks more to the modern, Reagan-style conservatism, one that is not scared of growth and progress.

[August1991]

Why does Joe Clark support the Liberals now when he clearly was a tory and even supported Defiebaker and Brian Mulroney ?

Joe Clark was elected PM in 1979 and if he'd had the good sense to talk with six Creditistes MPs, he would have remained PM. He didn't.

And then Joe Clark, in CBC circles, has the audacity to claim to have the reputation of an English-Canadian who tries to understand Quebec - a Red Tory, a Progressive Conservative.

Stephen Harper, a whitebread English-Canadian, spoke to those MPs, got those votes and put them in his cabinet.

Draw your own conclusion.

[jbg]

Why does Joe Clark support the Liberals now when he clearly was a tory and even supported Defiebaker and Brian Mulroney ?

Joe Clark was elected PM in 1979 and if he'd had the good sense to talk with six Creditistes MPs, he would have remained PM. He didn't.

And then Joe Clark, in CBC circles, has the audacity to claim to have the reputation of an English-Canadian who tries to understand Quebec - a Red Tory, a Progressive Conservative.

Stephen Harper, a whitebread English-Canadian, spoke to those MPs, got those votes and put them in his cabinet.

Draw your own conclusion.

Are you saying that the Bloc is the successor to the Creditistes?

[Topaz]

One could say the same for Harper who DID support did Liberals years back and quit over Trudeau's national energy program, where he thought it would hurt Alberta's energy industry. '85, he joined the PC then he became disillioned with Mulroney's fiscal policy and then left on'86. 1987 found him with the Reform Party and 1998 considered running for the leadership of the PC. 2001, he then deided to run for leadership of the Alliance were he won and joined the PC and Alliance party. This is a guy who really knows how to flip-flop when it comes to politics!

[Michael Bluth]

One could say the same for Harper who DID support did Liberals years back and quit over Trudeau's national energy program, where he thought it would hurt Alberta's energy industry. '85, he joined the PC then he became disillioned with Mulroney's fiscal policy and then left on'86. 1987 found him with the Reform Party and 1998 considered running for the leadership of the PC. 2001, he then deided to run for leadership of the Alliance were he won and joined the PC and Alliance party. This is a guy who really knows how to flip-flop when it comes to politics!

The only real *flip-flop* in there was his move from the Liberals to the PCs.

He has been on the right wing of the Canadian political spectrum ever since that time.

Where did you get the idea that Harper considered running for the PC leadership in 1998?

Why does Joe Clark support the Liberals now when he clearly was a tory and even supported Defiebaker and Brian Mulroney ?

Petulance.

[August1991]

Are you saying that the Bloc is the successor to the Creditistes?

No, I'm saying that Maxime Bernier is a modern version of Fabien Roy.

[geoffrey]

No, I'm saying that Maxime Bernier is a modern version of Fabien Roy.

That's quite a statement. I see your point, but I don't think Mr. Bernier would agree with that. I'm not sure I do either. It was a very different time, I don't think a parallel could be drawn.

Bottom line, Bernier would never be a creditiste.

[madmax]

He may have been a "Tory" in the old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy sense of the term, the way Eisenhower was a Republican. Harper harks more to the modern, Reagan-style conservatism, one that is not scared of growth and progress.

What a load of rubbish. Harper is no Reagan Style Conservative. Harper has more in common with the George W. Bush. And George W Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Bush is stubborn. So is Harper. Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed. One up for Steve. But both are cunning whereas Steve appears more intellectual then Bush. Ronald Reagan spoke his mind. "Tear down that wall", "there you go again" and these are Reagans words. You know it comes from him. Harper and Bush speak in rhetoric. Bush pretends to be likeable but that has worn thin. Harper just isn't likeable and probably never will be. He can't go for much more then a month before saying something childish and stupid. He has little wisdom, Reagan governed on Wisdom, often to the dismay of his advisors. Reagan never pretended to know to much. In fact, he probably knew just enough, and acted on what he did know, to the best of his abilities.

Reagan was a different era from today.

Bush is more like Nixon, only worse on all counts. Nixon actually knew how to extract a country from an unwinnable conflict. Harper may also be closer to Nixon, but I don't believe Nixon exploited religious and Social Conservatives for his victories.

Joe Clark is more Like George H. Bush.

Fuddy Duddy if you like.

[madmax]

Who's Joe Clark?

Joe Who?

Trivia Question.

What does Joe Clark have tied to his wrists? Anyone remember?

[geoffrey]

Joe Clark is more Like George H. Bush.

I couldn't disagree more. Joe Clark wasn't made for politics, GHWB was a brilliant politican and developed into a highly respected statesman.

Joe Clark never acheived statesman status because of his endless whinning and zero responsibility attitude.

[madmax]

Joe Clark is more Like George H. Bush.

I couldn't disagree more. Joe Clark wasn't made for politics, GHWB was a brilliant politican and developed into a highly respected statesman.

Joe Clark never acheived statesman status because of his endless whinning and zero responsibility attitude.

I stand corrected. I was only thinking of GHWB failed campaign. Perhaps I was more familiar with the Saturday Night Live Version, which, if you think about it, might make you think of Joe Clark.

GHWB was brought down by tax increases, IIRC and this was the downfall of Clark. Which is where any real similitaries might end.

[geoffrey]

I couldn't disagree more. Joe Clark wasn't made for politics, GHWB was a brilliant politican and developed into a highly respected statesman.

Joe Clark never acheived statesman status because of his endless whinning and zero responsibility attitude.

I stand corrected. I was only thinking of GHWB failed campaign. Perhaps I was more familiar with the Saturday Night Live Version, which, if you think about it, might make you think of Joe Clark.

GHWB was brought down by tax increases, IIRC and this was the downfall of Clark.

In that sense your right, but in ideology and character, I don't think there are two conservative leaders that were more far apart.

[madmax]

Joe Clark never acheived statesman status

Awe shucks. Now I just remembered GHWB vomitting on TV. This footage was also detrimental to his image.

[jbg]

Bush is more like Nixon, only worse on all counts. Nixon actually knew how to extract a country from an unwinnable conflict. Harper may also be closer to Nixon, but I don't believe Nixon exploited religious and Social Conservatives for his victories.

Nixon was more comparable to Guite, Gagliano and those of similar ilk. He was posessed of a genuinely sick, deranged and paranoid personality. Nixon and Kissinger declared that "peace was at hand" in October 1972, and then commenced the Haiphong bombing runs of Christmas 1972, safely after the election.

And the answer is yes, he did exploit "religious and Social Conservatives for his victories", most famously the Reverend Billy Graham. There is some vile and despicable tapes of conversations of the two of them agreeing that "Jews were ruining the country" or words to that effect. He exploited and worsened racial tensions deliberately, and sometimes with deadly effect, in order to try to stanch losses in the 1970 Congressional elections. If you're going to try to make a case for or against anyone, be very careful with Nixon analogies.

On might not agree with Bush or Harper, but their stands, in general, are quite clear. Nixon, on the other hand, was on, as it suited him, conservative and liberal sides of just about every issue.

He was, in short, a very bad man.

[August1991]

What a thread...

No, I'm saying that Maxime Bernier is a modern version of Fabien Roy.

That's quite a statement. I see your point, but I don't think Mr. Bernier would agree with that. I'm not sure I do either. It was a very different time, I don't think a parallel could be drawn.

Bottom line, Bernier would never be a creditiste.

I don't think anyone would be a Creditiste now.

Let me make the comparison this way: Gordon Campbell is a modern version of WAC Bennett.

And returning to my original point, Stephen Harper has Bernier in his Cabinet. Joe Clark didn't talk to Fabien Roy. So now, tell me, who is the better politician or statesman?

----

Nixon was more comparable to Guite, Gagliano and those of similar ilk. He was posessed of a genuinely sick, deranged and paranoid personality. Nixon and Kissinger declared that "peace was at hand" in October 1972, and then commenced the Haiphong bombing runs of Christmas 1972, safely after the election.

He was, in short, a very bad man.

Richard Nixon got the Republican Party to recognize Red China and kick Taiwan out of the UN. He also negotiated the first ABM treaty with the Soviets and started detente. He extricated the US from Vietnam with honour.

Politics is a dirty game where only the ambitious survive and anyone who says otherwise has never played it. But it's also capable of doing much good.

[jbg]

And returning to my original point, Stephen Harper has Bernier in his Cabinet. Joe Clark didn't talk to Fabien Roy. So now, tell me, who is the better politician or statesman?

Was Fabien Roy a Creditiste? And why wouldn't any one be one now?

----

Richard Nixon got the Republican Party to recognize Red China and kick Taiwan out of the UN.

Actually, Jimmy Carter, I think, was President when those happened. Small detail. However, Nixon did break the ground for this dubious accomplishment. By doing so when there was absolutely no need to do so, he showed our allies, and countries we might need to threaten a bit, that we were utterly unreliable. The Chinese could not help us much with the USSR given the desolate nature of the Chinese-Russian border. In short, we got a lot of goods produced by slave labor (thus hurting our workers) in return for....what?

He also negotiated the first ABM treaty with the Soviets and started detente. He extricated the US from Vietnam with honour.

Both with one-sided treaties that hurt us badly.

[Topaz]

One could say the same for Harper who DID support did Liberals years back and quit over Trudeau's national energy program, where he thought it would hurt Alberta's energy industry. '85, he joined the PC then he became disillioned with Mulroney's fiscal policy and then left on'86. 1987 found him with the Reform Party and 1998 considered running for the leadership of the PC. 2001, he then deided to run for leadership of the Alliance were he won and joined the PC and Alliance party. This is a guy who really knows how to flip-flop when it comes to politics!

The only real *flip-flop* in there was his move from the Liberals to the PCs.

He has been on the right wing of the Canadian political spectrum ever since that time.

Where did you get the idea that Harper considered running for the PC leadership in 1998?

Why does Joe Clark support the Liberals now when he clearly was a tory and even supported Defiebaker and Brian Mulroney ?

In 1998, Harris, Clements and Tom Long encouraged Harper to run for the leadership which he did considered it, but he went in another direction instead bring both parties together.

Petulance.

[geoffrey]

I don't think anyone would be a Creditiste now.

Let me make the comparison this way: Gordon Campbell is a modern version of WAC Bennett.

And returning to my original point, Stephen Harper has Bernier in his Cabinet. Joe Clark didn't talk to Fabien Roy. So now, tell me, who is the better politician or statesman?

That wasn't really my point, but we'll continue from here.

Your setting the bar pretty low when you highlight how Harper is a better statesman than Clark was, but yes, I agree with that statement. Harper expanded the party, Clark never quite realised that the old Tory tradition doesn't sell anymore in Canada. That said, Harper doesn't have the widespread acceptability that Mulroney had, and I don't think Quebec will ever embrace him like they did with ol' Brian. Harper is a much lesser statesman than Mulroney.

[madmax]

Nixon was more comparable to Guite, Gagliano and those of similar ilk. He was posessed of a genuinely sick, deranged and paranoid personality. Nixon and Kissinger declared that "peace was at hand" in October 1972, and then commenced the Haiphong bombing runs of Christmas 1972, safely after the election.

He was, in short, a very bad man.

I am not going to touch alot of that with the ten foot pole. I already feel dirty. I must reverse those comments regarding the religious element. You are correct in that regard. I was thinking more along the lines that the "moral majority" had yet to make an impact into the Reagan period, in the same manner as they did during the GWB era in which the Moral Majority had morphed into a larger Social Conservative movement.

Reading the stuff you have printed on Nixon, however, leads me to wonder why you manage to point fingers at some Adscam bureaucrats and elected officials. Hardly the same league. Infact these guys don't rate anything like the Iran/Contra, or the march to war against Iraq.

Nixon was caught for what he was. Luckily for Bush, the American public has no pallet for another impeachment, to which GWB might be worthy of the process.

Regardless, Harper is no Reagan.

So, does Joe Clark really support the Liberals?

[madmax]

. Harper expanded the party, Clark never quite realised that the old Tory tradition doesn't sell anymore in Canada.

I think you are being premature. The were two right wing parties, and the Liberals certainly weren't holding to Tory style traditions. Neither were the Reform/Alliance. But those Tories are working their networks again, as the neo liberal economic policies start to show major chinks in their armour. Chinks that had been cleared up by Progressive Conservatives in the past.

Joe Clark to support Liberals that share none of these values is very confusing to me. It does fall in line with many of Joe Clarks political decisions made over his career.

On top of this, I can't figure out these band of Liberals at all. They are so far out in left field, that they are challenging the Green party for votes. These Liberals don't appear to be stealing NDP ideas to campaign from, but are choosing to fight the NDP by cosying up with the Greens. The NDP numbers though are remaining higher then when there was a split in the Right between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance. Then the NDP was in single digits.

Perhaps Joe Clark hasn't figured out where the Progressives have found a new home yet? I don't believe they went to the Liberals, but have split their votes among the other parties.

[bush_cheney2004]

Reading the stuff you have printed on Nixon, however, leads me to wonder why you manage to point fingers at some Adscam bureaucrats and elected officials. Hardly the same league. Infact these guys don't rate anything like the Iran/Contra, or the march to war against Iraq.

Nixon was caught for what he was. Luckily for Bush, the American public has no pallet for another impeachment, to which GWB might be worthy of the process.

Regardless, Harper is no Reagan....

And can never be....Canadian political tempests in teapots will never run with Big Dog hurricanes.