Why Stephen Harper is unfit to be prime-minister
For those of you who say Stephen Harper is a safe moderate alternative try riding this
I find this downright scary and I hope this will make some who are planning to vote Stephen Harper re-consider. I have a tough time believing his views have really changed that much since 2003. And if they have, how can we trust that he won't change his views again. Either way, Stephen Harper is unfit to be prime-minister.
I find this downright scary and I hope this will make some who are planning to vote Stephen Harper re-consider. I have a tough time believing his views have really changed that much since 2003. And if they have, how can we trust that he won't change his views again. Either way, Stephen Harper is unfit to be prime-minister.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 4:38 AM
35 Comments:
Miles,
Could you speak up a bit, I can't hear you over all the talk of another Liberal corruptions scandal.
What was that, something about Harper being fit to be prime-minister? I totally agree.
Geez, did you see the CTV, traders are coming forward saying they were tipped off by senior Liberals.
So lets go through it:
RCMP investigates, Goodale denies any involvement by "his office" but admits the PMO was in the know. Hmmm, I'm thinking Martin's crew leaked it rather than Goodale's.
What do you think Miles, was it Martin or Goodale's office.
Paul Martin's liberals pointing to the "boogy man in the closet", while he goes through your side table and wallet. By the time you figure out there's no boogy man he's off with your money.
Miles, your such a chump.
This is the other anonymous again. I am a little disgusted at the previous posts. No need to go to that level. Lets leave that for the Marinites.
Smaller government. Getting rid of the coporate welfare. Choice for the family.
Your fear mongering is falling way too short.
Hey guys - don't shoot the messenger. I am simply pointing out a speech that Stephen Harper made. He made the speech so he has to explain it to the public. If what he said in the speech are his plans once he forms government, I want no part of it. That is not my Canada, It will never be my Canada. I have strong libertarian leanings, but I am not a social conservative and anyone who wants to run on social conservative agenda will not get my support. I also disagree with him that opposing the Iraq war is moral nihilism, if anything supporting the slaughter of 30,000 innocent Iraqis (this is the number Bush claims have been killed) is moral nihilism.
I have read the article and don't have a problem with it at all. In fact it shows that he is willing to stand for something.
On the social conservative point of same sex marriage, Harper is standing for an open vote on the issue and it will be a dead one once the vote goes through. Other than that it will be status quo on such socially charged issues.
However, I will agree with you on one point, I don't think it's moral nihilism to oppose the Iraq war. I would say that point is going overboard.
I'll admit he is a very smart man and it was a well thought out speech. But I think he is totally wrong here. I don't see classical liberalism and Burkean conservatism coming together. That may be happening in the US, but not Canada. Burkean conservatism is strongest in rural areas and not all those areas are right wing economically i.e. Saskatchewan, Kootenays of BC. On the other hand classical liberalism is more in the wealthy suburbs like North Shore and Richmond in BC, West Montreal in Quebec, and the 905 belt in Ontario, which are areas that elect parties on the right provincially, but go Liberal federally.
hey Miles,
I'm not sure what all the censoring is about, but I'm sure you have your reasons.
Stephen Harper stands for something. He stands for the protection of the family and for a halt to the "social experiment" of the last 30 years, which has had the wonderful affect of creating ghettos full of gangsters with guns who will shoot anyone that happens by!
The restoration of real order and morality to government are the only hope for Canada to be more than another failed experiment. The Moral relativism of the federal Liberals seems to have given them the idea that there's "nothing wrong" with stealing from the public purse because, from a morally Neutral point of veiw, there really isn't.
Scandal after scandal will show up because these people are bereft of honor. They really have confused themselves so that they cannot tell right from wrong or help from harm. It's a sad day for Canada.
If Harper will stand for ethics and integrity then I will stand deside him. Canada needs honest, open and accountable government above all. If it doesn't then please tell me what is more important?
If I think I am hearing you correctly, you are suggesting that those who are conservative in the rural area will be voting conservative solely on social issues ie same sex marriage.
Well, I agree Harper is one of the sharpest knives in the drawer and I am quite confident that he can navigate around this issue.
I think that is the main reason he wants a free vote on the matter so the people can feel they have been heard and then let the issue rest once and for all.
Having said all that. You say you can't see a coalition coming together. What about the BC Liberals?
A quote from Harper from the speech you posted:
Whatever attraction a coalition of parties may have, we need to concentrate on what is actually doable. That is, we need to form a coalition of voters and, to attract them, a coalition of ideas.
Is that not what Gordon Campbell has done? Was he wrong? Hasn't his coalition government built the stronges provincial economy in decades?
So, why can't Stephan Harper do the same for Canada?
And besides, how do you know that Gordon Campbell isn't Federally Conservative. His brother Micheal is and is quite vocal about where he stands federally which is pretty far right.
The issue then is to have a leader who is able to be even handed, cool and not easily flustered like Campbell. Someone who can look past his own personal ideologies and be pragmatic without compromising his own core values. I think Harper will be able to strike that balance.
one more thing, Classic Liberalism and Burkean Conservatism have already come together. The right is united in Alberta (it's not that we are philisophically uniform that we elect conservatives). It's in Ontario, and to a lesser extent BC, where it has not happened yet, but it is happening, and you will see a positive conservative agenda in this country after the 23, where we can finally start rebuilding Canadian Democracy.
I guess that's what i hope anyway...
Brad - All the deleted ones were only insults and swearing, no actual intelligent thought. Any comment that gives an honest and intelligent opinion will be left alone even if I personally disagree with it.
As for the moral decline, that is complete nonsense. In the United States they have a large religious right yet they have far more social problems than we do. Trying to impose morality on people doesn't work and it is also not the type of society I want to live in. As a non-religious person, I have the right to abstain from religion and I don't want a government imposing its religious views on myself and others. I for one don't believe gay marriage causes more social problems, in fact it will solve them by creating more tolerance for different lifestyles. Likewise tough drug laws haven't worked in the US. I am not a supporter of drug use, but I believe addiction treatment not more jail time is the solution. Contary to what you think, I don't think Canada is declining, I think we are a great nation who has a great potential and I am really excited about our future as a nation, but I don't want us to go backwards.
Classical liberalism and Burkean Conservatism have not come together. In Alberta, the PCs have elements of both, but the purists of Burkean conservatism are in the Alberta Alliance. The Ontario Progressive Conservatives are classical liberals, not burkean conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. John Tory is a supporter of gay marriage, while Mike Harris was quite liberal on social policy. In BC, there are very few burkean Conservatives in the BC Liberals and they play a rather marginal role, while in Quebec they are non-existent in either the Quebec Liberals or ADQ. I don't think combining the two will result in a good government. The two are opposing ideas since one believes in big government the other in small government so they really cannot come together.
Miles, this is starting to get out of hand.
What you're essentially saying is that people like you and I can't be in the same party, unless I happen to be marginalized.
I'd like to think that's being said in the heat of the moment and doesn't reflect your real views, even with the leftward drift of late.
I've read a lot of your comments and it seems that you've pretty much been brainwashed by Liberal propaganda about the Tories' "extremeness" and "right-wing" agenda. I would even go so far as to wager that you're so paranoid that you would never vote Conservative, no matter what the Liberals did.
This speech from Harper is nothing new, Andrew Coyne has excellent commentary on it right here:
http://andrewcoyne.com/archives/003739.php
As a social liberal, I'm perfectly comfortable in the new Conservative Party. If you actually buy into this "scary" business, you're pretty naive.
Anonymous - I don't know what Gordon Campbell is federally, but I do know that most the people he surrounds himself with are federal Liberals. Besides if I lived in New Brunswick I would vote Bernard Lord who does support Stephen Harper. The big difference between the BC Liberals and federal Conservatives is the BC Liberals stick solely to economic issues, the federal Conservatives are a socially conservative party, which the BC Liberals are not. I don't mind a few social conservatives here and there, but when they dominate the party I have a problem.
ALW - I would vote Conservative if they got a new leader. What I won't ever vote for and you are right here is party led by someone from the Reform/Alliance. I read his civitas speech in the unedited version and this thing scares the living hell out of me. Considering the number of religious conservative candidates running and how many moderates have quit the party, I do have every reason to be paranoid. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am not going to take any chances.
Anonymous - on the gay marriage issue, it was settled through a free vote, so we don't need to bring it up again.
Miles-
You can't have a free vote with a whipped cabinet. Especially when you're Paul Martin and you have one of the largest cabinets in Canadian History!
And whether or not YOU think Canada is in decline is of no consequence, what i am speaking of is Canada's presence on the world stage, which of late has been reduced to 2 things: Reactively opposing US policy, and pandering to the human rights nightmare that is present day communist China!
Don't buy into PMPMs "I love Canada, it's the greatest country in the world" rhetoric. It might get him elected but it isn't the truth. He loves power. He loves wealth. If he loved Canada he would have sailed his ships under Canadian flags and hired Canadian sailors.
There are too many casualties to partisan chest-thumping in this country already, and not enough people with their eyes open to the truth. Endevour not to be one of them.
I care more about what we do at home than globally. And besides we did quite a bit when it came to helping after the Tsunami disaster, we have sent $300 million to help the Iraqi people who have been victims of war. Paul Martin has shown leadership in trying to create the L-20, we have shown leadership on UN reform. As for opposing US foreign policy, I am glad we are opposing them since I generally don't support the Bush doctrine. As for our ties with China, China has a billion people so there are many economic opportunities that could benefit Canada.
My point on the same-sex marriage issue is even if cabinet had a free vote, it still would have passed. Also with 95/98 Conservatives supporting Harper's position, it is not really much of a free vote when his caucus is pretty united on the issue. On the contrary 35 Liberals broke party ranks, 7 Bloc members broke party ranks, while 1 NDP member did so on percentage basis, the Conservatives were the most united on the issue, which I suspect means either the party is a narrow tent or there was a lot of arm twisting behind the scenes. Either way the party is unfit to form government.
His ships used more Canadian flags than most shipping companies. Any shipping company that doesn't use flags of convenience and only hires domestic workers would go out of business. CSL has a better record than most shipping companies so that is what matters.
It's all apologetics Miles. It's all an argument of degrees where nothing is "that bad" which makes it okay. It justifies that the Libs stand for nothing, and do nothing. Some examples:
-CSL has a better record than most
That doesn't make the practice ethically right. If Martin wants the moral highground he has to hold it, not pretend to hold it because he's better than the other deadbeats.
-we did quite a bit
But how much of the aid for the tsunamis made it there?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover123005.htm
And with our late reponse and few feet on the ground the issue is an embarassment.
-trying to create the L-20
But obviously not succeeding.
-it still would have passed
So, wouldn't it have been better done more democratically, and not had debate cut off early so it could sneak in the back-door? My issue here is not with the policy but with the implementation.
-economic opportunities that could benefit Canada
At the expense of the repressed Chinese working class, and to the enrichment of thier oppressors, the enrichment of Canadians too? Doesn't that make us just as guilty of supporting a dangerous work environment as those in China who oppose positive change. Think about it.
All in all I find you tiring and utterly unconvincing. Vote for a tired political theocracy if you wish. Canada is what you make it, and nothing more. Ignoring incompetance and avoiding positive change and real "progressive" political movement may pass as "enlightened" to you. You will get the government that you deserve.
Sorry to waste your time,
Brad
Yeah Brad, you are not going to change my views, but I have my reasons for voting Liberal just as you have your reasons for going Conservative. I happen to see things differently, but since you've made up your made I don't think anything is going to change your views on the Liberals. Hopefully at least any undecideds reading this page, if any do, will go Liberal.
Miles,
Why is everyone "scared" of social conservatives? What on earth could they do that would be scary? Ban abortion and reverse gay marriage? If they ever somehow managed to do such things there would be an uproar and they'd be booted from power at the next chance, never to return, andb both abortion and gay marriage would be restored. So what's to panic about?
This vague notion of them being "scary" usually just means a difference of opinion - be careful or you might find yourself actually being bigoted towards social conservatives, rather than the other way around.
I like people who can think, who can reason, who have a sense of perspective, who believe in this country enough to have a vision for it, and who get things done.
That's Harper. It's certainly NOT Martin. And I truly believe that if Harper and the CPC form a government on Jan 23rd, we are going to see a great PM emerge. Besides, there's nothing "thin" about folks like John Baird or Tony Clement who, if elected, will be solid and experienced cabinet ministers.
Yeah, he will make mistakes. He's made quite a few along the way, but learned from them. And he's still growing. And to me it's the man and his principles that's a whole lot more than the sizzle ... when steaks are concerned.
So let's stop with the "scary" parroting of the LPC line. Break out of your straight-jacket Miles. Expand your horizons. Embrace change. Become part of the solution .... (sorry, got carried away). Well, you know what I mean.
alw - Perhaps I am a little over paranoid, but my reasons are quite valid. If seen how powerful social conservatives have become in the United States and the role they played in re-electing Bush. While it is true the social conservative movement is a long ways away from that stage, I won't stop it in its footprints. And you are right that at the moment a government that overturned abortion and gay marriage would be booted out and it would be re-instated, but why go through the divisive debate again. Finally my worry is they have a longer term plan like US social conservatives to re-align Canadian political thinking. If they do it gradually enough, they could get away with it as Harper advocated in Civitas. I for one don't want Canada to be what the United States is like today in 40 years, yet that seems to be the plan of Harper and his gang.
Erik Sorenson - I too like people who can think reason and have a vision for the country. But I also want them to have a vision similiar to mine if they are to get my vote. Harper's vision for Canada as he explains in his speech is radically different than the type of Canada I want. I don't want a more decentralized federation, since we are already amongst the most decentralized countries in the world. I am not interested in deeper integration with the United States, which make it even harder to disagree with them when they make decisions we don't like. The party is overwhelmingly made up of social conservatives so lets stop this free vote argument. If Harper won a majority government, gay marriage would be repealed and abortion would at the very least be restricted if not banned. If Harper wins a minority government, it won't last more than a year, since who will they rely on to support them without significantly alienating their base. Even one Conservative I talked to said his hope was that the Tories would come close to winning, but if they did win it would be a majority, since a Tory minority government would be dysfunctional.
I have embraced change before - In 2001 I worked hard to defeat the incompetent NDP here in BC and I am very proud of the role I have played in helping the BC Liberals. However, the change Gordon Campbell advocated were changes I was comfortable with. He also didn't have a shady past like Stephen Harper. On the other hand the changes Stephen Harper advocates are changes I don't want, and I am not talking about the official policies, I am talking about what he advocated in the speech here. The official policies if popular enough will get implemented by the Liberals anyways since they always implement popular policies from other parties.
Finally, I have spent a lot of time around both Tories and Liberals and after talking to them on several issues, I felt my values were closer to that of the Liberals I met than Tories I met. I am not saying there is anything wrong with you being a Tory, but this election as Paul Martin says is about values and my values are closer to the Liberal Party than Conservatives. If the Conservatives change their leader and clean up their party of the extremists, I may re-consider my decision to leave.
I noticed a number of comments, which I have since deleted are from people who want to put nothing but swearing. I don't have a problem with nasty posts that attack my beliefs. As a true Liberal I believe in free speech, however I will be removing the swearing posts since this website is meant for viewing for all.
I also find it interesting how nasty some have gotten. I suspect this just re-enforces my belief many Conservatives are an angry minority who think everything is wrong with Canada and cannot accept that some people have a different vision for Canada. I use to be a Conservative, but after the merger, I was embarassed to say I supported the Conservatives and would always call myself a Progressive Conservative since I never supporter Harper and his gang. Today I am very proud to say I am a Liberal supporter since despite the party's problems, they stand for values that I and I believe the majority of Canadians support. Conservatives will only win on the issue of desire for change, not on values issues. I plan to vote based on values and while neither party perfectly reflects my values, the Liberals are closer to mine.
Finally, I not only believe I have the right, but believe I have the duty to expose Harper's very right wing views from the past. If we are going to vote for change, I believe all individuals have the right to know what change is being advocated. If that is the kind of change you support, then fine vote for it, but I don't want the Conservatives to get elected on anger alone when people don't agree with what they stand for.
Who was it awhile ago said to watch the polls for a Liberal drop six days after Christmas.......oh yeah, Me! (You can't see me but I'm patting myself on the back right now.)
My prediction was in two parts. The other part was the fact that once the Libs slide began they would never recover.
Happy New Years
anonymous - Who know for sure what will happen, but I wouldn't start gloating yet. There are a lot of Canadians who are still frightened about Stephen Harper becoming prime-minister and so as long as Stephen Harper is leader of the Conservatives the party is quite limited in its growth. If they dumped Harper and chose someone else, they would almost certainly be on their way to forming government and perhaps even a majority if they could get someone who is popular in Quebec. Neo-Conservatism as practiced by the Republicans in the United States has no traction in Canada so they are best to stop dreaming about one day implementing those policies here in Canada, since Canadians won't ever allow it to happen.
Ron - good analysis, even though I am voting differently, I agree with pretty much everything you say. I won't be voting until January 23rd. Also here in BC we have quite a few of the more radical members, whereas I believe you are from Quebec, where pretty much all of the members are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. I agree with your 1/3 vs. 2/3 analysis and certainly I agree the NDP vote will collapse. Even the decima poll that showed the two parties essentially tied pointed out that NDP support unlike Liberal and Conservative support was quite soft and would switch to the Liberals if a Tory win looked likely. If you check the comments in the other post where I give a link. I agree there are many good Conservatives including some candidates that I should mention that I do like: Peter MacKay, Gerald Keddy, Bev Oda, Garth Turner, Rob Nicholson, Helena Guergis, Tony Clement, John Baird, Dave MacKenzie, Allan Cutler, Stephen Fletcher, Jim Prentice, Lee Richardson, Rona Ambrose, James Moore, Tony Fogarassy, and Kanman Wong. Off course I wouldn't vote for them simply because it would be a vote for Stephen Harper, but if we used US style elections where we voted for candidates separately from prime-minister they would get my vote.
Off Course I have ones I dislike which include: Rondo Thomas, Andrew House, David Sweet, Pierre Poilievere, Cheryl Gallant, Joy Smith, Vic Toews, Andrew Scheer, Maurice Vellacott, Leon Benoit, Rob Merrifield, Myron Thompson, Jason Kenney, Rob Anders, Art Hanger, Dick Harris, Mike Scott, Ronald Cannan, Derek Zeisman, Stockwell Day, John Duncan, Gary Lunn, John Weston, Cindy Silver, Marc Dalton, Paul Forseth, Randy Kamp, Russ Hiebert, Phil Eidsvik, Nina Grewal.
Thanks for posting the article Miles,
I am a conservative, but I did not know Harper was such a brilliant intellect. Thats quite a change from 99% of politicians who are worse than lawyers.
Anyway, at least you have the decency of letting people speak for themeselves. That is unlike most lefties, who only understand distortion and slander.
I agree Harper is quite smart, being smart doesn't automatically make one fit to be prime-minister. Pierre Trudeau was also quite smart, but was not a good prime-minister in my opinion (I am a right-leaning Liberal while he was a left-leaning Liberal). Harper is smart, but still too right wing, at least for myself, but if you are comfortable with his views, that I will not discourage you from voting for him. I only want voters to know what this guy truly stands for and then they can make their own decisions from there.
The only problem, Miles, is you are clearly not interested in what Stephen Harper "truly stands for", only outrageous Liberal misrepresentations of his views.
Stephen Harper has made it clear what he stands for and what a Conservative government would do in power:
• Cleaning up government by passing the Federal Accountability Act
• Cutting the GST
• Cracking down on crime
• Helping parents with the cost of raising their children
• Working with the provinces to establish a wait-times guarantee for patients
I realize these ideas might be scary to Liberal die-hards like Miles, but they're certainly not scary to most Canadians.
Let's talk about what Paul Martin stands for. Oh wait, nobody really knows what he stands for because he'll say anything to get elected, and his tune changes depending on the day of the week and where he is in the country. Martin's credibility is shot. He contradicts himself more times than I can keep up with, and his principles shift in the wind.
Joel - I have no problem with the Conservative platform; as I have said before and will say again, it is Harper's positions as Alliance leader and president of the National Citizen's Coalition that I have a problem with. Harper needs to come clear on those issues as well as the speech at Civitas, which I like in this story. Read the speech and if you don't find it scary, then good for you, but I do and I don't want such person becoming prime-minister of Canada. Paul Martin may have many flaws, but the economy has never been better and lets remember he was finance minister for much of the time that so Canada turned around so he at the very least deserves credit for his strong leadership as Finance minister. Besides neither Stephen Harper nor Jack Layton have either held a private sector job, whereas Martin was a successful CEO of Canada Steamship Lines. Also unlike Bush, he wasn't handed down businesses which he ran into the ground, but rather was a self-made millionaire and successful businessman. Now I am not saying someone needs to be a millionaire to be prime-minister, but I do believe success in the private sector even if it is running just a small business are essential for someone wishing to be prime-minister. The Liberal record speaks for itself and as I have said before the corruption issue is a non-issue for me. This election is about values, and whose values are closest to you. I believe that Paul Martin's values are closer to mine than Stephen Harper's. If the Tories got rid of the Reform/Alliance element and brought back someone from the PCs I would support them, but until then I am staying with the Liberals.
Two things: one, Joe Clark took his ball and went home long ago. Two, pining for him is equally unbecomming.
Your high and mighty moral inablity to accept Stephen Harper is misplaced hooey.
Paul Martin voted in the House of Commons in favour of traditional definition of marriage. Let me repeat - Paul Martin voted exactly as did Stephen Harper on gay marriage.
While Mr. Martin talks about minority rights, you'll notice he never once defends gays. He isn't worth your so-called offended social conscience.
I know I'm not going to change yur mind, nor you mine ..but all your harping sounds much more like an extension of the "Joe Clark Hissy-Fit" than something reasonable that is based on facts.
It's over Miles. Harping on Harper isn't going to bring the PCs or Joe Clark back.
Reform didn't kill the PCs. Alliance didn't kill them. Brian's ego, Kim's inattention and the death of corporate support for what became a rump party is what killed the PCs.
All Stephen Harper did was to arrange to pay the bankrupt PCs bills and agree to a leadership vote based entirely on PC rules - that being an equal vote for each constituency regardless of membership.
And Stephen Harper still won.
I just don't know what more anyone can do. Honestly. At least in a democracy.
Support who you will, but please spare us this moral superiority tripe.
Paul Martin's so-called moral superiority falls like a house of cards when exposed to scrutiny.
And, from the crew that spent $2-billion on a gun registry that hasn't saved a single life but gets a few votes I guess, while keeping extra police officers off the streets - I don't need lectures on who and what is scary.
From the gang who couldn't steal enough of our money that they couldn't resist stealing still more through the trust-fund markets, I need no pointers on ethics.
You are, as David Dingwall - the man Paul Martin paid off (with still more of our money)-said, "entitled to your entitlements."
Anonymous - Joe Clark is a man of great integrity who is well respected by all of those not on the far right. Besides he is not alone, many others agree with him. I initially supported the merger until Stephen Harper was chosen as leader and which point I could no longer support the party.
Paul Martin did vote in favour of the traditional definition of marriage in 1999, but that was before the lower courts ruled on the issue. I disagree with his decision then, but at least he understands that when the courts strike down a law as violating the Charter you don't use the notwithstanding clause to skate around it. The only way Stephen Harper can re-instate the traditional definition of marriage is to use the notwithstanding clause, which is where the difference between the two are. Paul Martin even explained his reasons for changing his opinions during his speech in the house of commons on the gay marriage issue here is what he said "Four years ago I stood in the House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same sex couples were a function of my faith and my perspective on the world around us, but much has changed since that day.
We have heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We have come to the realization that instituting civil unions, adopting a separate but equal approach would violate the equality provisions of the charter. We have confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms.
Where does that leave us? I believe it leaves us staring in the face of the Charter of Rights with but a single decision to make. Do we abide by the Charter of Rights and protect minority rights or do we not?
I urge those who would oppose the bill to consider that the core of the issue before us today is whether the rights of all Canadians are to be respected. I believe they must be: justice demands it, fairness demands it and the Canada we love demands it", which can be found at http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/058_2005-02-16/HAN058-E.htm#Int-1132348
3. Yes the PCs may be gone, but I am not going to go and join a party whose values are so out of whack with mine. As I have said in other posts and will say here, my second choice was the Liberals not the Canadian Alliance. Since the Progressive Conservatives don't exist anymore, that is where I will go. I have moved on and that is why I am supporting the Liberals this election. I am simply pointing out to others I am not a blind Liberal partisan. However, I will not ever support the Reform Party or Canadian Alliance and as long as the leader of the Conservatives cames from one of those parties, I will continue to vote Liberal. Yes Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell may have done a lot to destroy the PCs, but that doesn't mean they had to be swallowed up by Reform. I would rather support a party I agree with in principle even if it cannot win many seats than one whose values I strongly disagree with.
4. I don't agree with the gun registry either, but unless you are a blind partisan, I don't think you will find many people who agree with every party's policies. You support which party's views are closest to yours even if you disagree with some.
5. As for the corruption, please lets stop it. Honestly, corruption is a relatively minor issue for me. I am more interested in the party's policies and what it will mean for the future of Canada. Issues like the Sponsorship Scandal don't affect me personally, but issues like the economy, taxes, health care, crime, environment, education, national unity, and foreign policy do actually have an impact on my personal life so those are the areas I do care about.
It's the new Liberal slogan:
"Honestly, corruption is a relatively minor issue."
Only a Liberal would put honestly and corruption in the same sentence.
I gather then that you would vote for the Institutional Ruling Party in Mexico? I mean, as corruption isn't an issue.
Phaw!
Anonymous - it was a few individuals, all from the Chretien wing who were caught in the sponsorships scandal, not the entire party. We have a legal system to deal with it. Also Paul Martin set up the inquiry rather than shuffling it under the rug and Gomery exonerated him. Besides I would rather have the government we have here now in Canada, then one like they have in the United States, which is what Harper would be like. So take you pick, Martin of Bush-lite i.e. Harper.
Post a Comment
<< Home