Harper's Bullying Tactics

[scribblet]

Chrétien's was the Shawinigan bully boy with his street tactics and as Larry Zolf of CBC said back in 2002 "To these Liberals, Chrétien is a bully trying to push the caucus around, trying to get an agenda passed, which is really no agenda at all, simply a Chrétien ego exercise." Guess it depends on where you sit LOL

[Who's Doing What?]

It seems strange that in such an active political climate as that of the USA right now, that an American comes to a Canadian political forum to get his kicks.

Why not? We've got many Canadian posters here who are obsessed by the evils of George W. Bush.

Sauce for the goose and all that...

Well it's like owning an F1 car and borrowing your neighbours moped.

You have one of the biggest political landscapes in the world.

In an election year.

Corruption abounds.

Scandels are occuring almost daily.

High level officals are being investigated, indicted, and jailed.

I would think there is way more than enough to discuss.

As for G.W., he is a man who affects the world with his decisions. As with any American President the world should pay attention.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well it's like owning an F1 car and borrowing your neighbours moped.

You have one of the biggest political landscapes in the world.

In an election year.

Corruption abounds.

Scandels are occuring almost daily.

High level officals are being investigated, indicted, and jailed.

I would think there is way more than enough to discuss.

As for G.W., he is a man who affects the world with his decisions. As with any American President the world should pay attention.

Cue "Hail To The Chief".....the world should pay attention? The world pays attention to Microsoft, YouTube.com, and Moon landings....not the POTUS.

2007 is not considered an "election year" in the USA.

Mopeds get better gas mileage.....real "green machines".

[Who's Doing What?]

Well it's like owning an F1 car and borrowing your neighbours moped.

You have one of the biggest political landscapes in the world.

In an election year.

Corruption abounds.

Scandels are occuring almost daily.

High level officals are being investigated, indicted, and jailed.

I would think there is way more than enough to discuss.

As for G.W., he is a man who affects the world with his decisions. As with any American President the world should pay attention.

Cue "Hail To The Chief".....the world should pay attention? The world pays atention to Microsoft, YouTube.com, and Moon landings....not the POTUS.

2007 is not considered an "election year" in the USA.

Yes the world should pay attention. The man in the whitehouse has the power to, and the history of, using the military to further his agenda or deal with people he deems a "threat to national interests or security".

Still with all that is going on with Microsoft, Youtube et al it makes me wonder why Canadian politics gets your attention.

Oh right, not an "election year" just electing/nominating candidates for election. Every year is an election year from what I see on the American TV channels. If they aren't electing a president, they are electing a congressman, or a senator, or a DA, or a sherriff, or schoolboard officials, or dog walkers, or food tasters, or carny workers, or .....

[Canuck E Stan]

Still with all that is going on with Microsoft, Youtube et al it makes me wonder why Canadian politics gets your attention.

A perspective from a different view makes for interesting thought.

I welcome it.

After all Canada is a multicultural nation.

I wish there was more from other people in other countries.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes the world should pay attention. The man in the whitehouse has the power to, and the history of, using the military to further his agenda or deal with people he deems a "threat to national interests or security".

Still with all that is going on with Microsoft, Youtube et al it makes me wonder why Canadian politics gets your attention.

Oh right, not an "election year" just electing/nominating candidates for election. Every year is an election year from what I see on the American TV channels. If they aren't electing a president, they are electing a congressman, or a senator, or a DA, or a sherriff, or schoolboard officials, or dog walkers, or food tasters, or carny workers, or .....

Sorry, 2007 is still not an election year as it is commonly understood. Not any nominations worthy of mention either. But don't fret, you can have an election year every year, just by having a confidence vote on the budget!

All US presidents use the military to further an agenda....that's why we blow $500 billion a year on it. Besides, aircraft carrier traps in an S-3 are fun!

As to your question about why I buzz this site, it goes back to 2002 and the now defunct CBC Forums, then the now defunct Politics Canada site (hope the Editor's health is OK), and then MLW. My stated mission is to be the Ugly American stereotype that you love to hate, and moniker "bush_cheney2004" is a reminder that America democratically chose to give the world a middle finger.

Now back to PM Harper...a fine choice!

[BC_chick]

Chrétien's was the Shawinigan bully boy with his street tactics and as Larry Zolf of CBC said back in 2002 "To these Liberals, Chrétien is a bully trying to push the caucus around, trying to get an agenda passed, which is really no agenda at all, simply a Chrétien ego exercise." Guess it depends on where you sit LOL

A smart-ass, okay. But when was Chretien mean-spirited? I don't remember him belligerantly accusing the opposition of being traitors....

[gc1765]

The US race frankly makes me sick. Hilary Clinton and Barak Osama Obama are such piss-poor candidates that they will make inevitable the election of another Republican, of however dubious quality.

I find this quite ironic, considering this from the same poster:

Why force an election when the opposition can sit back and watch Steve implode.

The polls hardly show an implosion. And get his name right.

[Remiel]

My stated mission is to be the Ugly American stereotype that you love to hate, and moniker "bush_cheney2004" is a reminder that America undemocratically chose to give the world a middle finger.

[August1991]

There's an interesting article in (Ken Whyte's!!!!) current Maclean's issue called "Why are the Tories so Mean?" It begins by touching on the numerous periods throughout Canadian history where partisan politics have taken over the House, resulting in ugly baseless accusations against party leaders instead of politics themselves.

Once again, Toronto media.

Look, there are some voters who hate Harper and will, in time, grow to hate with him a vengeance. Their votes were a lost cause anyway.

In addition, the Toronto media is, well, the Toronto media. They will never admire a guy who went to Etobicoke High and then, even worse, moved further west to Calgary.

Finally, Canada's federal politicians have never been well liked. Even Laurier was defeated at the polls and St-Laurent resigned before defeat.

Being PM of Canada is not a popularity contest. With luck, Harper will gain begrudging respect.

In short, Harper's no bully. On the contrary, he's bending over backwards to try to accommodate people. All things considered, I think he's bending too much but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. When the next election rolls around, I'll pay attention to what he ahs to say.

[betsy]

A smart-ass, okay. But when was Chretien mean-spirited? I don't remember him belligerantly accusing the opposition of being traitors....

Maybe because his 'mean-spiritedness" was being done behind closed doors......and mostly directed at....Martin?

Besides, it's pretty hard to be "mean-spirited" with the Tories in public when you're too busy defending yourself from accusations of corruptions and fraud!

However, it's so easy to mask mean-spiritedness by just using a few spins....such as taking cheapshots at our neighbors.....perhaps in an effort to cause some distractions.

[betsy]

A smart-ass, okay. But when was Chretien mean-spirited?

"Canada's healthy economy, Manley said, was the "result of the determination and discipline of the Prime Minister and my predecessor as Minister of Finance, the Honourable Member for LaSalle-Emard."

In case you didn't know -- and who does? -- the MP for LaSalle-Emard is Paul Martin.

Such obtuse praise for the Heir Apparent certainly marks this as Jean Chrétien's "legacy budget."

A tad mean-spirited, but necessary. After all, how could the PM take all the credit for Canada's alleged prosperity without mentioning his former finance minister?

Then again, how could he give credit to Paul Martin by name, when he fired the guy without cause after a job well done in a churlish attempt to sabotage his succession chances?"

http://www.canada.com/national/features/bu...4D-46B268F87C66

Uh-oh....I hope we don't have to do any lengthy explanations about "various degrees" or definition of "mean-spiritedness."

[Guest coot]

Besides, it's pretty hard to be "mean-spirited" with the Tories in public when you're too busy defending yourself from accusations of corruptions and fraud!

I realize it's difficult for some to mention the Liberals without mentioning corruption and fraud, but your sense of political history is wrong. Chretien never had to defend himself while PM over adscam because that didn't come to light until after he'd left office. So your point is, kind of, pointless.

[Michael Bluth]

Besides, it's pretty hard to be "mean-spirited" with the Tories in public when you're too busy defending yourself from accusations of corruptions and fraud!

I realize it's difficult for some to mention the Liberals without mentioning corruption and fraud, but your sense of political history is wrong. Chretien never had to defend himself while PM over adscam because that didn't come to light until after he'd left office. So your point is, kind of, pointless.

Chretien was defending himself from the HRDC scandal and Shawinigate.

[Argus]

I made the comment because this slavishly anti-Harper nonsense threatens to become a Canadian version of Bush derangement syndrome. I thought we might as well accuse the guy of eating kittens, or at least start a rumour to that effect. I hear he's been caught looking sideways at dogs too, but not with eating in mind, if you catch my meaning. Boy dogs, too.

There's no need to refer to fabricated kitten eating or caninophilia. Why not just focus on Harper's actual actions and statements?

Which was my question. What tactics? What tactics are you accusing Harper of employing that makes him a "bully"?

None of you are very clear about that in your anti-harper ranting.

[Argus]

To get back to Harper's bullying tactics....

There's an interesting article in (Ken Whyte's!!!!) current Maclean's issue called "Why are the Tories so Mean?" It begins by touching on the numerous periods throughout Canadian history where partisan politics have taken over the House, resulting in ugly baseless accusations against party leaders instead of politics themselves

Yes, moist recently under Chretien and Martin. I can't recall you guys complaining about that, though.

However, interestingly enough, apparently this is the very first time in our nation's history that a sitting prime minister, and not the opposition leader, is the one hurling the petty insults.

Bullshit. Diefenbaker was great at insults in the House, in a very British way. Trudeau was good too, but a lot more arrogant and contemptuous. He gave them the finger and fuddle-duddle both literally and figuratively. Mulroney poured scorn on the opposition, and wasn't above gutter obscenities. Chretien just sneered and taunted them and called them names. Martin was a blowhard that hurled accusations at every opportunity and reveled in pissing the opposition off.

How old are you? I mean, really, that you would believe a bullshit statement like that? Are you out of high school yet?

[Argus]

Chrétien's was the Shawinigan bully boy with his street tactics and as Larry Zolf of CBC said back in 2002 "To these Liberals, Chrétien is a bully trying to push the caucus around, trying to get an agenda passed, which is really no agenda at all, simply a Chrétien ego exercise." Guess it depends on where you sit LOL

A smart-ass, okay. But when was Chretien mean-spirited? I don't remember him belligerantly accusing the opposition of being traitors....

I do. He and his cabinet basically called the Reformer "un-canadians" for demanding the government take a firm position on how Quebec could secede legally. Martin questioned Harper's patriotism for not immediately shouting "I love Canada" in response to a stupid question from an idiot journalist. As for "mean spirited" Chretien's vengefulness was infamous on the Hill. Any who opposed him paid a steep price, inside the party or out. You want a good example, look up what happened to Francois Beaudoin. There's a story which should have gotten Chretien's party turfed all by itself. It's something out of a police state.

[Keepitsimple]

Further to Argus' mention of Francois Beaudoin and Jean Chretien's bullying - here is a link to the entire story. As Argus said, this story itself should have been enough to throw the Liberals out of power. Can you imagine if Harper actually did something like this?

Link: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/T.../pf-989928.html

Sun, April 10, 2005

The terrifying reign of 'da Boss'

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

As AdScam drowns the Liberals in a torrent of sleaze, many in the party are looking back fondly to the reign of Jean Chretien.

Chretien, they say, would never have allowed the sponsorship scandal to spiral out of control the way Paul Martin has.

Chretien, they say, would never have called a public inquiry.

Instead, he would have toughed it out, or handed the whole mess over to the RCMP and then refused to comment.

That so many Liberals buy into this belated Chretien worship shows the complete moral bankruptcy of their party.

Sure, Martin has been a bust as prime minister.

And if he didn't know about AdScam, he should have.

But Martin isn't the thug Chretien is.

[Figleaf]

... this story itself should have been enough to throw the Liberals out of power. Can you imagine if Harper actually did something like this?

Myself, I called for Chretien's resignation when he brutally attacked, choked, and broke the teeth of that little guy in the funny hat, before flinging him to the feet of his attendant pack of loyal RCMP hounds.

But alas, many rightwing Canadians and Liberal footsoldiers rallied to Chretien's defence at the time, so moderate centrists like myself were drowned out.

[Michael Bluth]

Myself, I called for Chretien's resignation when he brutally attacked, choked, and broke the teeth of that little guy in the funny hat, before flinging him to the feet of his attendant pack of loyal RCMP hounds.

But alas, many rightwing Canadians and Liberal footsoldiers rallied to Chretien's defence at the time, so moderate centrists like myself were drowned out.

Absolutely, and still do to this day.

Chretien's protection from the RCMP was a joke.

I understand that it's tough walking through a crowd with a PM to provide the adequate level of protection. But in that instance it wasn't even close. That guy came way to close and was definitely threatening Chretien.

"Little guy in the gunny hat" my arse.

That guy crossed a line.

Yeah, Figleaf you are a moderate centrist.

[Figleaf]

Which was my question. What tactics? What tactics are you accusing Harper of employing that makes him a "bully"?

Falsely and maliciously impugning the motivation of any and every critique.

[BC_chick]

There's an interesting article in (Ken Whyte's!!!!) current Maclean's issue called "Why are the Tories so Mean?" It begins by touching on the numerous periods throughout Canadian history where partisan politics have taken over the House, resulting in ugly baseless accusations against party leaders instead of politics themselves.

Once again, Toronto media.

Look, there are some voters who hate Harper and will, in time, grow to hate with him a vengeance. Their votes were a lost cause anyway.

In addition, the Toronto media is, well, the Toronto media. They will never admire a guy who went to Etobicoke High and then, even worse, moved further west to Calgary.

Finally, Canada's federal politicians have never been well liked. Even Laurier was defeated at the polls and St-Laurent resigned before defeat.

Being PM of Canada is not a popularity contest. With luck, Harper will gain begrudging respect.

In short, Harper's no bully. On the contrary, he's bending over backwards to try to accommodate people. All things considered, I think he's bending too much but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. When the next election rolls around, I'll pay attention to what he ahs to say.

Ken Whyte has been the editor of Maclean's since summer 2005. He was born in Manitoba, grew up in Edmonton, was the editor of the National Post, a good friend of Conrad Black, and anything but a Liberal sympathizer. The sharp turn the magazine took upon his arrival only reinforced that - any publication which dedicates regular columns to Mark Steyn and Barabar Amiel cannot be brushed off as a typical left-wing "Toronto Publication."

Now, having established that killing the messenger in this case is not a valid argument, maybe you would like now to address the message itself.

As I said before, yes, partisan politics have plagued the House before, but it always the opposition leader, never the sitting PM. Steve is the first to usher in this new era of attack ads when it's not election time and calling opposition members traitors amongst other things.

Whether or not you think Harper is a bully is not the issue, everyone has their own opinion.

The real question is - are you disagreeing that this is the first time in Canadian history that a sitting PM is acting like an opposition member and resorting to the measures cited above?

[betsy]

It seems strange that in such an active political climate as that of the USA right now, that an American comes to a Canadian political forum to get his kicks.

Why not? We've got many Canadian posters here who are obsessed by the evils of George W. Bush.

Sauce for the goose and all that...

Amen to that, August!

[Argus]

Myself, I called for Chretien's resignation when he brutally attacked, choked, and broke the teeth of that little guy in the funny hat, before flinging him to the feet of his attendant pack of loyal RCMP hounds.

But alas, many rightwing Canadians and Liberal footsoldiers rallied to Chretien's defence at the time, so moderate centrists like myself were drowned out.

Absolutely, and still do to this day.

Chretien's protection from the RCMP was a joke.

I understand that it's tough walking through a crowd with a PM to provide the adequate level of protection. But in that instance it wasn't even close. That guy came way to close and was definitely threatening Chretien.

"Little guy in the gunny hat" my arse.

That guy crossed a line.

Chretien got pissed off at protests and charged off unexpectedly into the crowd, leaving his RCMP guards, who had been standing protectively around him, with their jaws dropping, and charging after him to try and catch up. The little guy didn't so much as come at Chretien as he stood in his way, and was grabbed by the throat, throttled, and thrown aside, to break his glasses. That might impress you but it never impressed me.

Chretien later blamed the RCMP bodyguards - he was in the habit of always blaming people for his misdeeds - and they loyally took the blame without protest, just as they did when he ordered the cameras turned away from his residence and then didn't turn on the alarm and a man broke in.

Yeah, Figleaf you are a moderate centrist.

I think he only says that to be ironic.