The Shotgun Blog
« License to Steal | Main | The torture memos: the continuation of democratic politics by other means? »
Friday, April 17, 2009
Stephen Harper: Go Away!
Stephen Harper is sliding in the polls and I couldn't be happier about it.
You see, Mr. Harper, when you tell your entire base to essentially go fuck itself by under-bussing the social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and libertarians all at the same time, what you have left is the Conservative equivalent of Jason Cherniak beating his tired drum. It's embarrassing.
I do hope Michael Ignatieff wins the next election, because I don't see that he could be any bloody worse than what we have now. I don't. Even social conservatives have shared this view with me in private conversation.
I'm a bitter man about all this. A very bitter man.
Why? Well, I spent the better part of my time for nearly two months helping to organize the ground support in Toronto to get behind the Alliance/PC merger back in 2004. It came a great personal cost to me, in both money and time.
I donated significant money to the ground campaign of the first CPC election in 2004.
(Before Warren Kinsella or Robert McClelland try to make quick use of their Elections-Canada-political-contribution-search-engine-using-skills, I'll point out for everyone interested: my legal first name is not Mike. Mike is not a pseudonym. It's a genuine middle name. But it's not one that generally shows up on government forms.)
Anyway, if the CPC had a refund policy, I'd be returning the goods. I regret it all. This party, under Stephen Harper, has turned into everything I hated about the Liberal Party. It is literally 2003 all over again.
2% GST cut? Fuck you.
Instead of increasing the Canada social transfer to record levels, and ratcheting up overall government spending by nearly 20% in a two year period, maybe you could have actually done something that matters to the base, like oh, I don't know... cut income taxes, or--and I know this is too much to ask--repeal Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, like 99% of the party that employs you, voted for.
You're probably going to tell me you "cleaned up government" by passing your famous Accountability Act. I know you like to mention that. It's really sweet.
Except, of course, you still haven't actually managed to appoint the very independent ethics commissioner you called for. I guess that whole idea was meant for Liberal governments, and not for you.
Don't even get me started on your speech about the need for more government regulation in the market. You know, this one?
You're not a conservative of any flavour. You're certainly no libertarian. You're a power-hungry, anywhere-the-wind-blows, populist, and you need to go, sir.
Posted by Mike Brock on April 17, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Hear, hear! :)
Posted by: K Stricker | 2009-04-17 5:26:09 PM
"Harper has an approval rating of 91 per cent among decided Conservative voters"
Like it or not, those number say he is likely to stay at least until after the next election.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-04-17 5:42:36 PM
Are you people never happy? So what if he's not perfect. He's way better than any conceivable alternative. If Iggy and Jack take over, they'd implement Kyoto and destroy the economy just so they can look good to their overseas "friends", while Ontario's auto industry is exempted. All social services would be disrupted; hospitals and schools outside of the Greater Toronto Area would shut down for lack of funding. Harper is all that stands between the imperfect status-quo and a complete Trudeau-esque take over with massive human rights abuses. If you don't like Harper, move to Cuba.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-04-17 5:44:35 PM
Haha, Mike. As soon as I saw the headline, I knew this had to be one of yours.
Or one of mine. But I couldn't remember putting up the post. :-)
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-04-17 5:46:21 PM
Be careful Mike, the Harper Cultists will be coming after you.
They don't like it when you say nasty things about The Glorious Leader.
Posted by: Gerry Nicholls | 2009-04-17 5:47:02 PM
Stephen Harper should not go away, as I argue here, and Mike Brock should use fewer cuss words. My mother reads this site, please.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 5:51:10 PM
Matthew,
Harper is a lost cause.
The swearing was meant to demonstrate my infinite rage.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-17 5:55:15 PM
Mike Brock hates Stephen Harper with the white hot fury of a thousand burning suns.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-04-17 6:00:16 PM
I share your frustration, Mike, for all the same reasons. I to did my time in partisan politics and I to was assured there was room in the party for libertarians.
But I'm not convinced Harper isn't the best guy the party has to offer at this point, as deeply sad as that is to say.
As for my mom, she'll get over the bad language. And she hates Harper too, but not for the reasons you do. She votes NDP.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 6:02:43 PM
I agree with every word, except the last one. It's far too respectful.
Posted by: Craig | 2009-04-17 6:05:25 PM
Matthew,
The fact that your mom supports the NDP means you're going to be purged when the conservative revolution gets here.
My apologies. But we all know ideology can be genetically transmitted, and it's impossible to get out once it takes hold. :-)
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-04-17 6:05:49 PM
I think Mike meant it in an ironic way.
Like, "Good day to you, SIR. I said good day, Mr. Harper!"
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-04-17 6:07:36 PM
Zebulon, Harper or Cuba? Those are the only two choices. I see.
Before I choose, this isn't one of those silly illogical false choices is it? I just want to be sure.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-17 6:13:00 PM
Is that the gentlemanly Craig Yirush?
Yikes. When a cool-headed fellow like that is at the end of his patience, things are bad. Perhaps Harper's support among fiscal conservatives, classical liberals and libertarians is entirely gone.
It's like being beat up by Ghandi. You just know you had it coming.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 6:15:17 PM
Huh. I thought it was a Big Lebowski reference. John Goodman as Walter Sobchak at Larry Seller’s house: "And a good day to you, sir."
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 6:20:16 PM
ZP -- Does it not strike you as sad that after years of what people like us called socialist Liberal rule, the Conservatives have expanded on that socialism by 20% over two years, according to Mike?
I don't think of you as a blind partisan, and I've been reading your comments for a long time now.
This is not a question of perfection. Mike is not asking for perfection. I get the feeling he'd welcome almost anything resembling a fiscal conservative agenda...anything at all.
Harper needs to do something for his base, something we can all be proud of. I remember when Preston Manning gave an one hour long speech in the House debunking the sciece and politics of global warming. It was inspiring.
I haven't felt inspired like that by the Canadian politician in a long time. So long that I've stopped looking to politics entirely.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 6:33:43 PM
But I'm not convinced Harper isn't the best guy the party has to offer at this point, as deeply sad as that is to say.
What would convince you otherwise? I mean, what is your objective standard for deciding when a leader has to go?
It seems to me you're doing some hard rationalizing.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-17 6:34:03 PM
If Iggy and Taliban Jack take over, imagine a country being run by David Miller. Segregated schools, army shoveling your snow, daily gun deaths, a sharp decline in international stature, and complete irredeemable arrogance. Harper's awesome compared to that.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-04-17 6:36:05 PM
You're a bitter man, Mike? Why, I had no idea. By all means, let's base public policy on your bitterness. Let's pass laws according to your mood. Let's ignore political realities, the economic situation, the long-proven corruption of the Liberals, the even longer-proven dysfunctionality of the NDP, and the rampant parochialism of the Bloc. Let's forget all that and focus on your infinite rage, the only yardstick we require when choosing national leaders. Foooo-cusssss...
We need to decide on a system, though, to interpret your totally unsubstantiated gut feelings into signs other people can read. How about this: "Good" leaders will make your foot pop while you hug yourself, while "bad" leaders make your dick itch? An automatic death penalty for any candidate who makes you talk dirty, and the immediate elevation of any leader to Supreme Dictator-for-Life for legalizing marijuana, should round out the package.
If you're sulking out there somewhere, P.M., this is exactly what I mean when I accuse people of narcissism. Mike's feelings are all that matter. He told us so himself, in no uncertain terms. There's no hemming, hawing, or hedging around it. But go ahead and try your lame impersonation of me, if you want to. No one will mistake you for me, that's for sure. Maybe it's the snotty whine that's the tip-off.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-17 6:41:08 PM
Zebulon,
Wow. You should apply for a job with David Herle. Really.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-17 6:45:17 PM
What would convince you otherwise? I mean, what is your objective standard for deciding when a leader has to go? - How about the availability of a superior leader to take his place? Do you have one? Of course not--all you have is your outrage.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-17 6:51:19 PM
Shane,
I've given up trying to actually understand where you're coming from.
You're one of those people who's on the cusp of being able to have logical and productive thought. But you're not quite there.
This obsession with arguing about what value you place on my feelings, and/or the value I supposedly place on my feelings is boring.
In fact, you clearly do care what I have to say, because you always take the time out of your day to respond to me. Of course, most of the response consists of you explaining how much you don't care about what I have to say, which is somewhat paradoxical; the fact you're responding shows that by the most tenuous definition of caring, you certainly do.
Considering you're investing your time in responding at all perhaps you should make the effort to actually add something productive to the debate.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-17 6:54:20 PM
Shane: MB is a libertarian. Nothing is ever good enough for him. If he hates Harper, nothing will ever please him.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-04-17 7:03:15 PM
I’m not rationalizing, Mike. I look at the Conservative caucus and ask myself: who can handle himself/herself in a national debate and in QP? Who can create a long-term strategy for the party and see to it that his/her caucus stays focused and disciplined in executing that strategy? Who has the best grasp of the classical liberal heritage that should define the modern conservative movement?
Each time I come up with only one name: Stephen Harper?
The only question I can’t answer with “Stephen Harper” is this: Who has the confidence to defend conservative ideas in a general election...who has the confidence to seek a real conservative mandate?
So that’s where I think Harper falls short, but that’s where grassroots pressure can come into play. Party members and supporters need to let him know that they are growing impatient and that a principled party is more important to them than a winning party. The grassroots don’t want a pyrrhic victory. They want the freedom part that was promised to them in the “freedom, faith and family” message.
And that's what I want as well.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 7:05:45 PM
Actually, Mike, what's boring is that you continue to mention your feelings at all, as though they could possibly have any importance whatsoever. If your feelings could, by themselves, produce a superior replacement for Harper, I'd be interested. But since I don't see anything in your future but a spoiled ballot, forgive me for being underwhelmed.
Bottom line: Harper is still the best leader in the running at present. I know it and you know it. But you have allowed your hatred of the man to blind you to this. I don't agree with everything he's done, either, but he's still a sight better than the alternatives, and the truth is he hasn't really had a chance to govern without one hand tied behind his back.
P.S. Cheese the psychoanalysis. Psychiatry is a grotesquely overrated institution.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-17 7:07:47 PM
Mike Brock, well put, indeed. Harper is no conservative, and he's nothing but an incompetent, yet power-hungry moron. Obama is more conservative than Harper. Even Ignatieff, in some ways, is more conservative than Harper. Layton is more conservative than Harper.
The gopher I saw the other day is more conservative than Harper.
Posted by: Werner Patels | 2009-04-17 7:10:20 PM
How about the availability of a superior leader to take his place? Do you have one? Of course not--all you have is your outrage.
Sorry, I've never been one to buy into the best of the worst argument. That's the same argument Liberal partisans tried to use after the sponsorship scandal. And here you are, a Conservative partisan using it, doing everything you possibly can to emulate the same corrupt arrogance that, to you, typifies the Liberal Party.
The rules of the game are different now, then they were pre-2004, when defeating the Liberal Party was a nearly insurmountable task.
Today, neither the Liberals or the Conservatives can take their electoral support for granted, and yet, Stephen Harper does.
He takes his base for granted, and he's counting on blind partisans like you to carry him forward. Sorry, but I don't think it's going to work.
I've spoken to a lot of conservatives. And anybody who was at the Manning Centre conference, will likely echo my assessment that if there was one thing that was a recurrent theme amongst the conservative base, it was this: that they won't be overly upset if Ignatieff wins, because the CPC has lost it's way.
Over and over and over again, I heard that. Even Tom Flannagan, whlist not in that camp, was sympathetic to that feeling when I was talking to him.
It didn't matter who it was, either. Be it the social conservatives, or the libertarians... they were mad. And they weren't buying Harper's bullshit excuse that he has no choice in this minority government.
It's funny that you sit there and pretend like I'm some lone wolf in feeling that way, but nothing could be further from the truth; Harper has pissed his base off in ways that he will soon come to regret.
In fact, Harper better lose the next election, because I think if he wins another election and continues on with this, we're going to see serious fragmentation in the right again and the whole unite-the-right project will have been for nothing.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-17 7:10:29 PM
Mike:
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Posted by: Gerry Nicholls | 2009-04-17 7:18:10 PM
The "best of the worst" argument isn't satisfying, Mike, but isn't that where we are in partisan politics, with few exceptions?
We want the "best" -- and by that you and I would mean the most libertarian, while others might mean the most conservative -- person possible at the head of the Conservative party, even if they are the best of the worst.
In fact, I want to see a free market environmentalist at the head of the Greens; I want to see a civil libertarian at the head of the NDP; I want to see a Laurier liberal as leader of the Liberal party and I want to see a Libertarian at the head of the Conservative party -- but I'll take the closest approximate of each.
Also, there is the “best” as far as ideology goes, but politics is much more than that. Leadership is important. Some have it, some don’t.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 7:28:00 PM
Sorry, Mike. I might be confusing the discussion.
I'm making a case for who is best to lead the Conservative party. You're making the broader argument for who should lead the country.
I'd take the Libertarian Party anyday. It's a good protest vote that would signal to whoever forms a government that at least some Canadians want limited government. As it stands, a vote for the Conservatives right now might actually send the message that we want more of the same reckless spending.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 7:35:18 PM
Mike, I do not disagree with your take on Harper's performance, however I wonder to what extent much of the problem lies with how our traditional parliamentary system has degenerated. For example elections are now run as PR campaigns with most people voting with their emotions based on sound-bytes rather than attempting to understand the difference in policy between parties. Then we have all the lobbying by organised special interest groups along with a MSM which is anything but balanced. This is not a defence of Harper's performance, but it has become a system which has the deck stacked against honest politicians and political parties standing on principle.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-04-17 8:46:00 PM
Oh how I love to witness the self-destruction of my political foes. I know I shouldn't watch, but I just can't turn away!! Maybe Harper's own caucus will offer up a form of a mercy killing and spare the nation the agony of watching the PM's long, drawn-out, self-inflicted political suicide!!
Posted by: Ken S from Ramara | 2009-04-17 8:49:33 PM
>>re you people never happy? So what if he's not perfect. He's way better than any conceivable alternative.
AND HOW DO YOU REALLY KNOW FOR YOU HAVE NOT TRIED ONE..
Posted by: thenonconformer | 2009-04-17 9:14:20 PM
I've seen the alternatives: Trudeau, Chretien, Martin. Harper is infinitely preferable to all of them combined. Trudeau was a heartless dictator in the mold of Pinochet. Chretien was the most corrupt PM Canada ever had - why people bought into him is beyond me. He made Canada a less than secret ally in the Iraq War, yet people bought his "principle" nonsense. Martin was a complete failure. Iggy and Jack worship these people - in fact the son of the Tyrant is in Iggy's party. There's no reason why they would be any different.
Harper may be disappointing and perhaps he could do more, but he deserves more time.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-04-17 9:34:02 PM
Zebulon,
Mulroney and Harper have just been so damned fantastic. They don't fit into the narrative of big government, big deficit spenders, at all.
The only real fiscal conservative with a spine that we've ever seen in the past 30 years was Mike Harris in Ontario.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-17 9:54:38 PM
Sorry, I've never been one to buy into the best of the worst argument. That's the same argument Liberal partisans tried to use after the sponsorship scandal. And here you are, a Conservative partisan using it, doing everything you possibly can to emulate the same corrupt arrogance that, to you, typifies the Liberal Party.
Of course you don’t buy it; like most libertarians, you’re a utopian. You’d rather have nothing than something that isn’t perfect. Well, to those of us in the real world something beats nothing.
The rules of the game are different now, then they were pre-2004, when defeating the Liberal Party was a nearly insurmountable task. Today, neither the Liberals or the Conservatives can take their electoral support for granted, and yet, Stephen Harper does. He takes his base for granted, and he's counting on blind partisans like you to carry him forward. Sorry, but I don't think it's going to work.
This is opinion. And poorly informed opinion at that. It is highly unlikely Harper would take anything for granted after the coalition debacle. And Harper, unlike you, knows that libertarians count for only an infinitesimally small percentage of his vote.
I've spoken to a lot of conservatives. And anybody who was at the Manning Centre conference, will likely echo my assessment that if there was one thing that was a recurrent theme amongst the conservative base, it was this: that they won't be overly upset if Ignatieff wins, because the CPC has lost it's way.
No? Wait until he pulls National Energy Program II. And if you’ve spoken to a lot of conservatives, you should know what they would say, rather than having to guess.
It didn't matter who it was, either. Be it the social conservatives, or the libertarians... they were mad. And they weren't buying Harper's bullshit excuse that he has no choice in this minority government.
Then they’re morons, because that is exactly the case. Harper did initially resist this kind of spending, if you will recall. But then the coalition reared its head and he had a choice of either increasing spending himself, or letting a three-way coalition with veto power in the hands of the Bloc do it—in which case much of that money would have gone to Québec instead of Ontario. But then, politics has always been a game of emotion, and the stupidity of the average voter and his utter unwillingness to use his brain is the reason why.
It's funny that you sit there and pretend like I'm some lone wolf in feeling that way, but nothing could be further from the truth; Harper has pissed his base off in ways that he will soon come to regret. In fact, Harper better lose the next election, because I think if he wins another election and continues on with this, we're going to see serious fragmentation in the right again and the whole unite-the-right project will have been for nothing.
If the Left wins, what does it matter if the Right is united? It will still be out of power. Honestly, don’t people ever think? Or perhaps they have, and this is what they're thinking: Harper has abandoned us, meaning we no longer have power. Well, if we can't have power, no conservative can! Real mature.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-17 10:32:22 PM
AND HOW DO YOU REALLY KNOW FOR YOU HAVE NOT TRIED ONE.. The alternatives are: 1) A man who sympathizes with the Taliban; 2) A man who wants to break the country up; 3) A university professor who hasn't lived in Canada in 30 years; or 4) A fruit loop environmentalist. Running against them during the worst depression in 80 years is 5) An economist (Harper).
Wow. Tough choice, isn't it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-17 10:34:26 PM
"Then they’re morons, because that is exactly the case. Harper did initially resist this kind of spending, if you will recall."
You're partly right, Shane. By the time the coalition threat was on the scene, Harper had already increased spending by 12% over the Martin Liberals, according to a CTF column we ran at the time.
The Fiscal Update -- the Big FU -- did, however, contain a lot of great stuff: the promise to reduce spending, cut waste and sell crown assets. I was very excited at the time and blogged about it.
But the coalition threat and the recession changed everything -- but they didn't have. Harper could have made the case for a conservative agenda as a way out of the recession. And he brought the coalition parties together with his principled by reckless attempt the pull public funding for political parties. I count this as one of only two mistakes Harper has made with respect to managing policy.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 11:47:21 PM
It puzzles me that libertarians frustrated with Harper would look to the Liberals when a principled Libertarian Party is active.
Why are the Libertarians never an option, but Ignatieff -- a dedicated statist -- is?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 11:54:38 PM
"Of course you don’t buy it; like most libertarians, you’re a utopian."
Shane, libertarians are not utopians. Virtually every Canadian libertarian blogger on this web site has had some association with the conservative movement and/or the Conservative party in its various incarnations. It was never a perfect fit, but we are all practical people...practical people with reasonable limits. Mike Brock has reached his limit.
He doesn't expect perfection with a different leader or a different party. He's looking for an improvement on the status quo.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 11:59:41 PM
A homosexuality obsessed Toronto based thirty year old doesn't like Stephen Harper. Yawn.
"I do hope Michael Ignatieff wins the next election, because I don't see that he could be any bloody worse than what we have now."
That's because you are a very stupid boy. Stephen Harper's fiscal record has been outstanding, you're just too economically ignorant to understand that.
"2% GST cut? Fuck you."
Twelve billion dollar tax cuts equal to 5% of government revenues don't grow on trees, commie.
"maybe you could have actually done something that matters to the base"
He has a minority government, retard, they almost shitcanned him in the fall when he didn't panic enough. How fucking retarded do you have to be to consistently ignore that the guy has a minority government and a very hostile media to contend with?
"You're probably going to tell me you "cleaned up government" by passing your famous Accountability Act."
No you immoral piece of shit, I'll point out that no less than Paul Wells and Norm Spector agree he is the cleanest PM in a generation. To the extent you find that laughable, you are - no, wait, I take it back, you are an ANTI-moral piece of shit, the idea of a clean government makes you angry.
"You're not a conservative of any flavour. You're certainly no libertarian. You're a power-hungry, anywhere-the-wind-blows, populist, and you need to go, sir."
If you're talking about yourself, I agree. You misrepresent yourself as a conservative and a Conservative when you are really a flaming socialist with a radical gay and feminist agenda and a not at all concealed hatred of the 80%+ Canadians who are religious. You hate Canada and Canadians. So do I, but for different reasons, such as the fact it is populated by effete, unmanly gay/feminist obsessed little tyrants like you.
Posted by: No Commies | 2009-04-18 12:19:12 AM
No Commies,
I will personally send you $100 by PayPal if you can produce an accurately sourced statement in text, audio, or video form, that supports your claim that I'm a socialist.
I personally self-identify as a free market capitalist on matters of economics. In particular, I am a free market capitalist of the Austrian school.
I just spent about 45 minutes on The Hot Room radio show disparaging socialist economics. I think most people would be strained to consider you a credible commentator after juxtaposing that rant with your claims I'm a socialist.
But the offer is on the table, and I'm a man of my word.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-18 1:10:08 AM
Mike, you'll need a judge to assess No Commies case. Would you accept our editor Peter Jaworski as judge in this contest? He's a fair man. I can't allow any unregulated gaming on this web site. Someone must be deputized. We can't have lawlessness.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-18 1:24:36 AM
Clean? With his Carl Rove tactics how can anyone use the word "clean" for him. Give me a break. I can't take all his lies.
Eric
Posted by: Eric Tramain | 2009-04-18 6:42:29 AM
"Clean? With his Carl Rove tactics how can anyone use the word "clean" for him. Give me a break. I can't take all his lies."
Hahaha, look at the type of commentary Mike Brock attracts, straight from Daily Kos this lad is!
"I personally self-identify as a free market capitalist on matters of economics. "
I personally identify as Adriana Lima's boyfriend, but that doesn't make it so. You're a Marxist Mike, a hardline cultural Marxist obsessed with homosexuality and feminism and with a hatred of religion that would make Stalin blush.
You ignore enormous incursions of liberty with such frequency, such as the fact your own country's capital was taken over by Tamil terrorists for a week with the co-operation of the police and media, that it becomes fair and honest to peg you as an enemy of freedom.
Here's your problem: you want to be politically correct and liberty minded. Can't be done. If you're not getting called a racist or a sexist or a homophobe at least once a week you're going too easy on your enemies, and believe me, I've seen the data and they are your enemies.
Imagine a Venn diagram consisting of a single green circle, where blue is gay and yellow represents Liberal-NDP voters willing to trade massive incursions of liberty such as tax hikes and costly new social programs in exchange for advancing their radical gay agenda. This is only a slight exaggeration, the true number is only 93% of gays who are anti-Conservative according to a recent study, but you see the problem here.
You've made your choice, you've chosen the politically correct left, and now you shall suffer the consequences, such as ridicule and mockery.
Posted by: Liberals Are Fail | 2009-04-18 7:33:05 AM
I hate to say I told you so Mike, but....
;-)
When you speak the truth to power, they respond by calling you a "commie" because its all they got.
Stay true brother. And never forget the taste of disappointment one ALWAYS gets when putting ones hopes for change with statists of any stripe.
(of course, the fact that I am taking your side in this will immediately be used as evidence of your socialist ways, merely because I was once a Dipper before I wised up. Ignore it, I'm probably more libertarian than you now...)
Posted by: Mike | 2009-04-18 8:08:54 AM
I have never belonged to a political party because I have yet to see one that supports the majority of my ideas on the way our country should be run. As for leaders, I don't see much difference between Harper and Ignatieff. Both appear to be control freaks who desire nothing more than personal power and to hell with everything else.
Nor do I see much difference between liberal and conservative idealogy as put in practice when they are in power. Both parties seem to be all about big government and nothing about what is good for a sustainable country.
I always vote in elections, but it usually takes a lot of research about stated policies of all parties to figure out who to vote for. If neither of the big two have enough in their platform to allow me to swallow the rest of it, I vote for a smaller party such as the libertarians. Since I see nothing appealing about the recent government actions of either, in the last twenty or so years, I can only hope enough other people are fed up enough to vote for an alternative to make a difference in the "business as usual" mindset of the old guard.
Posted by: Harold Sharp | 2009-04-18 8:27:41 AM
Matthew, you say that Harper could have "made the case" for reduction in spending. However, the course of governments in this country is determined by the mood of the electorate, and thanks largely to the media, they were of the opinion that massive spending was what was necessary--one of the few times they have been content to ape U.S. policy.
As for the coalition, it was later revealed that Jack Layton and the Bloc had been mulling it over since almost since the polls closed at the last election. They would have launched that ill-fated quest at some point, but Harper's proposal to cut voter subsidies to the parties goaded them to act before they had a Liberal leader who could win. And then there was Dion, who still had a six-figure personal debt left over from the leadership race and thus had a very pressing reason to become P.M., as he could then make that piddling liability disappear.
Harper has done about as well as he could under the circumstances. The feckless voters of Eastern Canada, bristling at Westerner in the top spot, wouldn't give him a proper mandate. Now they're fellating at almost complete unknown who just happens to be a university professor like Dion and who brings almost no other credentials to the table apart from that.
I'm beginning to think the Liberals could run 300 clones of Saddam Hussein and still carry Ontario. After all, Hussein was anti-American, and what else do you need to get an Ontarian to vote for you? Apparently not that much.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-18 8:33:48 AM
Would you accept our editor Peter Jaworski as judge in this contest? He's a fair man.
Matthew, I suggest you review P.M.'s last few posts under Is it Time to Cut the Pentagon's Budget before holding him up as a paragon of objectivity. Now maybe it's me, but people who act like vindictive and spiteful trolls do not represent fairness as I understand the term.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-18 8:38:22 AM
Clean? With his Carl Rove tactics how can anyone use the word "clean" for him. Give me a break. I can't take all his lies. - You prefer Liberal lies then? Is the substance of the lie less important than who tells it, and the way it is told? Interesting.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-18 8:39:56 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.