It's hard to go far in the blogosphere these days without running into someone advocating a Conservative minority government as the best election outcome. The theory seems to be that it gives us a way to punish the Liberals and lets us test drive a Conservative government without them being able to bring in their most extreme policies. I wonder if anyone suggesting this has actually given it more than three seconds thought.
I'm all for punishing the Liberals although my personal preference is to take the entire caucus and party executive to Manitoba, strip them naked and tie them to trees for a few days at the height of mosquito season and then take them to an archery range and make them hold targets for a bunch a really bad archers. Punishing the Liberals by voting in a Conservative government is a lot like punishing the Americans for the softwood lumber duties by putting a 20% duty on American fruit and vegetables. We may be punishing them but we're still the ones who have to pay.
Thinking that we can test drive the Conservatives by electing them in a minority is just silly. If we are concerned enough about their more extreme tendencies that we have to have three other parties to keep them in check, why would we even want to test drive them? Besides, a minority government would be like going on a first date - they would be on their best behaviour. Would you propose to someone after the first date? If not, why would you consider electing a government on that basis? Just because someone shows up for the first date wearing a suit and tie and acting like a perfect gentleman doesn't preclude the possibility that his favourite way to pass an evening is sitting around in his underwear watching television, drinking beer and scratching his balls.
One of the biggest reasons why this is a bad idea is how would such a government function at all? The Liberals would refuse to support them on general principles and I have a hard time conceiving of any legislative agenda they might propose that the NDP and the Bloc would support. As dysfunctional as the last Parliament was, it would be a model of productivity compared to a Conservative minority. Such a government would be lucky to survive its first budget.
A Conservative minority would also play right into the hands of the Bloc. The Bloc only has two things on its agenda - discrediting the Liberals as much as possible and showing Quebecers that Canada doesn't work. Forcing this election helped accomplish the first of those Bloc objectives. Despite the multitudinous failures of the Liberals and whatever benefits there might be to electing either the Conservatives or the NDP, neither of those parties has any credibility in Quebec and neither will form a Quebec provincial government before the crows turn white. The Conservatives and the NDP helped the Bloc discredit the federal Liberals (who provided no end of assistance in that regard themselves) and, by extension, the provincial Liberals.
Any version of a Conservative federal government is a separatist's wet dream. What better way to show Quebecers that Canada doesn't work than to replace a corrupt Liberal government with a Conservative government with no representation from Quebec and a strong anti Quebec element? In the case of a minority, you have a government that doesn't work at all. This is all the reason the Bloc needs to refuse to support a minority on anything. And in the case of a majority, you have a government that will offend Quebec with almost everything it does. Short of sending in the army to burn down the National Assembly, a Conservative government is the best way to guarantee a "yes" vote on the next referendum.
Not that a majority Liberal government would be much, if any better, when it comes to Quebec. These are great days for Quebec separatists. Lets not try to help them.
About the only government that accomplishes anything is a Liberal minority that provides the Liberals and the NDP combined with an absolute majority. I don't have any trouble restraining my enthusiasm for that result but anything else is just a bad idea.
I have been bemused by this reasoning as well. I see the CPC in government as a gift for the BQ as well. You listed my basic concerns already, although I would also add that the CPC and the BQ do have some common ground where the devolution of federal powers to the Provinces are concerned, and that is one of my worries for maintaining the country as a whole. I understand the desire to teach the Liberals a lesson for their arrogance, especially regarding Adscam. The problem though is that the Liberals deserving of punishment are not the Liberals currently constituting the government. No, that was Chretien, Gagliano, and other Chretienites.
One of the things that has most amazed me is how this was clearly dumped onto Martin by Chretien when Chretien held the AG report until Martin took over, making it the first thing for Martin to deal with. It was clearly an attempt to destroy any chance of Martin gaining an election win by Chretien, somewhat of a scorched earth approach of saying well you wanted me gone and to lead, well here you go may you choke on it. So now this is a Martin scandal despite his clear lack of involvement in it.
I do not understand why so many fail to understand that when they punish the Martin Liberals for the sins of the Chretienites that they are furthering the plan of Chretien himself. Indeed, one could make a good case for the idea that electing Martin to another government would be more of a slap in the Chretienite Liberal faces than defeating him would be.
Then there is the impact of having the CPC as a minority/majority government would have on the country, and I do not think it would be a good one. Their social policies are not shared by a majority in this country, their issues with the Charter are also not shared by the majority in this country, and I really expect that if they win, especially a majority, that we will see that their vision of Canada is significantly different than most Canadians would prefer. For me the main cause I have in this election is to see that the CPC do not form a government, majority or minority while it is led and it's leadership dominated by the former Reform/CA elements, as it clearly is currently. That is MY election goal. Your preferred outcome is one I can easily live with also, indeed probably would be the best outcome, although I could also live with a Liberal majority provided it is a very slim majority of no more than a half dozen seats.
Good to hear there are voices who clearly see what is going on this province and the potential ramifications for Canada should Harper sit in the PM's chair. Harper doesn't even care to know the names of his own Quebec candidates for goodness sakes. He has no respect for Quebeckers and what platitudes he does make are mere lip-service. Martin is no saint and continues to show he is lacking in political smarts.
Some people bent on punishing Martin may well realize that they're furthering Chretien's plans. They just don't care. It's not like Martin is honest or anything. I mean, sure, the inquiry didn't manage to pin anything on him, but then nobody's managed to get proof of very much to stick to Lyin' Brian either. It just means he doesn't have a paper trail, it doesn't mean a Quebec MP who happened to be the minister of finance had no idea there was money being funneled to the Liberal party in Quebec.
Meanwhile, Martin is a backroom boy par excellence--how d'you think he managed to become leader of the winningest political party in Canada with all the charisma of a week-old halibut? By systematically making sure all the Liberal party bagmen were his, packing nominations, yadda yadda. The Gomery thing is just the flashpoint for the general perception of a Liberal party dominated by exactly the kind of shenanigans Martin is adept at. It's the party that's wearing it, not any individual apparatchik.
And then, plenty others don't care. What are the Conservatives or NDP gonna do, be nice to the Liberals just because Chretien wants them to shaft the Liberals?
i am one of the folks that gave three seconds to the idea of a cpc minority. god forbid anything more than a minority. there is a sort of give 'em enough rope logic to it. it would allow/force the liberals to clean house and layton would likely stay pretty much where he is. but at this point i'm willing to look at lots of scenarios and hunt for silver linings in those clouds. or in a harper minority it would be more like looking for tinsel in a cat turd. on the other hand, i'd be thrilled to see one of those rebellious backlash votes that put the ndp in a minority government. oh hell, make it a majority, just so i could see harpers head explode on tv in slo-mo from six angles.
I think it is ridicules to say that a Conservative minority guarantees Quebec separation you even said they would be on their best behaviour so what makes you think they will offend Quebecers. Secondly parliament would have to make it work some way none of the parties can afford another election. Lastly I believe Harper and Charest can work on issues like the fiscal imbalance and many other areas where they can build federalism.
How did Paul Martin and the Liberals become the saviours of Canada? The sponsoship scandal did more to promote the Seperatist cause in Quebec than any party or coalition. The Liberal government did a fine job discrediting themselves when they stole from Canadians and then tried to purchase Quebec support as if it were a call girl on Rue St. Denis. Furthermore, Canada does not work when it conducts business in the manner the Liberals have over the past 13 months. A Conservative government (minority or otherwise) will at least return a level of credibility to Ottawa. This can only be good for the whole of Canada.
Mathew - Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the Liberals are the saviours of Canada - I said the Conservatives are not.
I find your position that the Conservatives will definitionally bring credibility to Ottawa amusing to say the least. I have had a great deal of dealings with Conservatives over several decades and I have found them, without exception, to be crooks and liars of the highest order just like all other politicians.
It isn't membership in a particular political party that makes one dishonest. It is being a politician that does that. When you have been around as long and been invovled in the internal workings of as many political parties as I have, there is an unpleasant lesson you learn. The adage that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is not true. What is true is that only the corrupt seek power and the absolutely corrupt seek absolute power.
All politicians and rulers regardless of era, country, ideology or party have more in common with each other than any of them has with the people they govern.
Most people want only a measure of control over their own lives. What sets all politicians apart from everyone else is the desire for power over other peoples' lives. That makes all of them definitionally suspect.
I was at a campaign meeting in a rural area many years ago where a friend of mine, who was running as the Conservative candidate, was told by one of the local farmers "I have never met a politician yet who wasn't crooked enough to slide through a 6 inch grain auger". The farmer was close to right. When it comes to politicians, guilty until proven innocent is a reasonable and prudent precaution.
If anyone is really interested in honesty in a federal government, he should be voting for the NDP. Considering the party has never been in government and isn't likey to be any time soon, anyone who was stupid enough to join that party with the intention of lining his own pockets, is too stupid to actually be able to do it.
Matthew:
I also do not see the Liberals or Martin as the "saviours" of Canada either. What I do see them as is the least bad choice given the current options available. I'll tell you this, if the PCPC had not been betrayed by their leader and had still existed in the last election I would not only have voted PCPC, I would likely have worked for my local candidate. I am not a fan of the idea of one party government, not even when it is a party I generally tend to be in agreement or near agreement with on basic policy and principles.
The problem though is that the alternatives are worse to my perspective than leaving the Liberals in with another government. The CPC is not the answer, seeing as it is clearly the Reform/CA in yet another set of clothing. It is clearly dominated by the CA wing, it is led by a major player in Reform when it started out, and Harper in the Grewal scandal clearly proved his so called personal honesty is as much a figment of the imagination as anything else. Anyone that refuses to clean up a serious scandal when they are in opposition is hardly going to suddenly as a government become the accountability party/leader.
Harper owes me and all Canadians an explanation for how that May 31 recording was edited for content, who did the editing, when did Harper find out they were edited, why was Grewal not expelled from the party, why was there no explanation of how Harper and the CPC could make such specific claims of criminal wrongdoing claim to have incontrovertible evidence only to have that evidence turn out to be fraudulent in nature. Until he comes clean instead of hoping Canadians forget all about this and it can be swept under the rug the idea that a Harper CPC government would be inherently any more honest than the Liberals is complete and utter nonsense. If he is not honest and accountable when he is in opposition then the idea he and the CPC will suddenly be so in government has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Points well taken. "Saviour" is too loaded a word and suggests that federalism needs saving which I feel it doesn't. A little refitting perhaps. As for Grewal, I feel that does need to be explained in better detail. I notice he is not running this time around and speculate that this may have been at the CPC's request. I'm sure the Liberals are saving this one for when the mud really begins to fly.
I just hope that everyone fully appreciates the damage the sponsorship program has done in Quebec. I think that if the rest of Canada supports a government that treated Quebec votes as the Liberals did it will only alienate them further. Quebec seems to have found a good alternative. I hope we can as well.
Matthew - Good to see you back. Just for the record, I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of the Liberal party.
I make a very simple distinction between the CPC and Liberals. I wouldn't vote for Harper if he was the only candidate on the ballot and someone held a gun to my head. I would vote for Martin...if he was the only candidate on the ballot and someone held a gun to my head.
Nor am I all that enthusiastic about today's NDP. I grew up in Saskatchewan during the Tommy Douglas era and I think I still consider myself to be a CCF supporter more than an NDP supporter. Regardless of how one feels about Douglas' politics, when it comes to honesty, integrity and visionary leadership, he set the bar rather high. No one has accused anyone in the NDP of visionary leadership in at least the last 15 years.
I think a choice between the CPC and Liberals is a terrible choice for the country. Giving Quebecers a choice between a bunch of crooks and a party in which they have no representation and has an anti Quebec bias is an even worse situation.
One real irony of this is that, if Peter McKay hadn't demonstrated his total lack of integrity by selling out the party he was elected to lead at the first opportunity, he might well be out getting quotes from the moving companies for a move to 24 Sussex.
Undoubtedly, the outcome would be a CPC-LPC coaltion in the event of a CPC minority. The Libs like power, and so they are not about to waste time with principles that will get in the way. The NDP will be irrelevant, as usual.
I tried to comment earlier but it wouldn't take. A Harper Conservative government would be a death-knell for the federal cause, partly because he burned his bridges with Quebeckers over Same-Sex Marriage; partly because he is too far to the right for us, and won't budge on anything substantial policy-wise, even for the Quebec wing of his own party:
Hasn't anyone noticed he has virtually no support here and little hope of electing even a single MP from this province? He didn't even care to introduce any of them to the media. One wonders if he even knows any of their names!
Layton has the same problem (support-wise) but has a better shot of being accepted here because his priorities and the BQ's are almost identical, save for the sovereignty issue.
That leaves the Liberals, so we'll have to see if Quebeckers' feelings are still as hurt next month as they were in 2004.
mahigan:
What really is ironic is that if the CA and the PCPC had both existed in 2004, I strongly suspect the outcome would have been a PCPC/CA coalition minority government. The PCPC would have done well in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, and the CA would have done well west of that, and the Liberals would have been cut off at the knees. Instead though the merger created a situation which left us with the situation we have now. If the "merger" had been a genuine merger as opposed to the clear hostile takeover it was and therefore the PCPC voters would have come along instead of either voting Liberal or not at all in 2004 and quite possibly again this time out the Liberals would already be out of power and indeed potentially looking at an extended time out fo power instead of the reality we see today.
Matthew:
Harper has a lot to answer for as related to Grewal. I agree that he was likely told not to run again, although whether that was the CPC or internal polls within his riding is open to debate. Harper spent weeks making specific criminal allegations with the Grewal tapes. He claimed this was proof that Stronach was bought off and cited these recordings as evidence of this happening. He claimed the evidence was incontrovertible in nature and clearly backed up this allegation of Senate seat selling for MP votes. Once it came out though that there was massive editing done to make this allegation appear supported he went silent. To this day the CPC has only accounted for maybe 30 seconds of a missing 35 minutes, claimed it was technical error in origin, and the silence has been deafening from Harper about how any of this happened. I know of no other example in our federal political history where any party leader made a specific criminal allegation against a sitting government and PM, claimed to have conclusive evidence to corroborate this allegation, only to have it come out that this evidence was a fake, and that indeed the full set of recordings conclusively showed this specific allegation had no basis whatsoever, indeed was definitively refuted in this evidence. That makes this an unprecedented scandal in our history, and Harper's silence and hoping for Canadians forgetting all this are not the actions of an honest man or a man of integrity, they are the evidence of a liar, a cheater, and someone willing to do and say anything to gain power, be it truthful or not.
This is conclusive evidence that Harper is not Mr. clean/honesty/integrity/ethics pure and simple. As I said previously, if he will not deal with scandal within his ranks while in opposition, why should anyone believe he would as a government? This is why the Grewal scandal is so serious in it's implications and insights into Harper and the CPC itself. It also raises the question that if he is willing to use faked evidence against one political opponent, what would stop him from doing it against another, or even Canadian citizens themselves who hold views that he opposes?
Yet whenever I raise these points with CPC supporters I get lambasted as a political operative, brainwashed, a dupe, etc. What I never get is an explanation, nor even any sign of understanding the seriousness of the issue and the actions taken by Harper and the CPC. This refusal to deal with what was clearly a fraudulent scandal hyped and pushed by Harper and the CPC leaves me with the inescapable conclusion that either these people do not understand the severity of this matter or they do not care because it would interfere with their team getting elected. That of course is not the actions/conduct of a person more motivated by principles than by political expediency, and it forces me to wonder how many CPC supporters online and offline are more interested in power at any cost than they are by the principles they so emphatically claim are motivating them. That this is not understood by so many CPC supporters does not give me any reason to believe that these people understand basic politics to begin with and therefore have not an informed opinion but rather one more faith based than fact based.
Interesting post and discussion-- I agree that letting Harper become Prime Minister would be a disaster -- mainly because of the tidal wave of nuts and dolts who would sweep into Ottawa with him, trying to make Canada into Bush 43 Lite and trying to do it overnight -- dump Kyoto, dump bilingualism, dump same-sex marriage, join the Americans in Iraq, support missle defense...
Lets see:
1) DND in better shape now than when Libs took over?
2) Streets in TO safer with 2B gun registry?
3) Feel that every tax dollar has been accounted for?
4) Taxes gone down?
5) Kyoto any closer to being reality?
I could go on, but you get the point. Why are people like Cathie so against conservatives and Stephen Harper? Has he said "dump bilingualism?" Has he said "Join the Americans in Iraq"? Has he said "dump same sex marriage"? I think if we go back into the actual quotes, you might hear some common sense policies.
Read something other than the Star or listen to something other than the CBC. Maybe learn about the policies(!) before posting such blither.
You get the government you deserve.
Really the facts for not re-electing the liberals and supporting another party Conservative/NDP are obvious.
1. The Liberals have caused more damage(Ad scam)
to the unity of this country then any other
single party in the history of this nation.
2. They are thieves.
3. The people in the Liberal party now are the
same one's who were there for Ad scam.
4. They have had twelve years in power and there
only real country altering policy has
been 'gay marriage'?
5. They have ignored serious economic issues
affecting the future of this nation for the
last 12 years (see 4).
Our government is a mess. It is disorganized wasteful, incompetent, and unable to meet the needs of Canadians. Again I ask is 12 years not enough time to fix these problems? I mean really, how much time do they need?
rocks off:
I guess then in your books eliminating a 42 billion dollar deficit and reducing a 600+billion dollar debt, significantly reducing the debt to GDP ratio as well as buying back a significant percentage of the foreign held debt is not something that is a "real country altering policy". Now, if you are incapable of comprehending that this was a policy that had very significant impacts on the country then you more or less disqualify yourself as an informed political observer regardless of your political affiliation.
I guess you also do not think the Clarity Act is of any importance either. Nor the refusal of joining America in the ill fated and idiotic invasion of Iraq in 2003. Man, I knew partisanship can put blinders on a person, but this is ridiculous.
Let's see Jim, did Harper really say things like that? He couldn't have. What Canadian with firing synapses would vote for someone like that, right?
HARPER ON BILINGUALISM:
"It is simply difficult – extremely difficult – for someone to become bilingual in a country that is not. And make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it less bilingual today than it has ever been... So there you have it. As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions."
- Stephen Harper on bilingualism, Calgary Sun, May 6th 2001.
================
ON JOINING THE IRAQ "WAR":
"In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."
- Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.
================
"Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory."
- Stephen Harper, supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, April 1, 2003.
================
"It was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win."
- Stephen Harper supporting the US-lead war on Iraq, Montreal Gazette, April 2nd 2003. Harper also called then-Defence Minister John McCallum an "idiot."
================
ON NATIONAL UNITY:
"Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan... Collect our own revenue from personal income tax... Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts... [E]ach province should raise its own revenue for health... It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta... "
- Stephen Harper in an "Open letter to Ralph Klein," January 24th 2001.
================
"Whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be."
- Stephen Harper in a 1994 National Citizens Coalition speech.
================
"Continental economic and security integration" with the U.S. as well as a "continental energy strategy" that should be broadened "to a range of other natural resources."
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper.
You can get a pile more quotes from Harper and his ilk here: http://www.intheirownwords.ca/harper.html
And an O/T rant: I am getting sick of the hypocrisy surrounding the feigned moderate contention that it's time for change simply because having one party in power too long is counter to healthy democracy. I imagine Alberta is exempt from this health assessment of democracy. Certainly - by virtue of sitting on a pile of oil Alberta's economy has been great. Even Mike Harris could govern Alberta effectively. Canada's economy, trade surplus, and dollar are all experiencing records highs, while our unemployment is at records lows. Corruption, embarrassment? Apart from his legal tangles, does anyone have some coins for Klien to pelt at some homeless people?
/soapbox
ScottS: Thanks for the advice, I'll get those synapses checked right away!
I was not aware of the quote wrt the comment on the Iraq war, and I'll look that up. Thank you.
I am certain that I could find useful quotes on (the innocent) Paul Martin and his ilk as well. I will need to spend some time doing this, as I could only find quotes from conservatives on the site - almost as if the site was selective in it quotes - nah, that wouldn't be balanced would it? I guess I'll have to scour the conservative sites for quotes.
Unfortunately, I continue to believe is time for a change. I don't see Paul and Belinda (oh, shes a cabinet minister now?) showing any great moral fiber - perhaps the alternative is worse, I really don't think it can be. But then, I don't live in Ontario and perhaps my perspective would be different if I did. Perhaps Belinda can enlighten us as to the "hidden agenda".
You may not like punishing the liberals for lying, and being deceitful and for gutting the military, and oh yeah, lying about the GST - but I damn sure do.
BTW, although I agree with reducing the cons. strength of power in Alberta (I voted independant), you have conveniently omitted several key facts. The price of oil was NOT 60/bbl when Ralph took over as Premier - if I recall correctly it even dipped down to 11/bbl back in 97. Alberta's economy was not always in good shape - as a matter of fact, it was in poor shape when Ralph took over.
Ralph has a record to stand on. St. Paul had a record of fiscal restraint, but now is spending worse than a drunken sailor. Paul wants to be prime minister and by god, he'll get there - no matter who or what stands in his way.
I will continue to look for the proper balance in Canadian politics. It is not with the libs as ruling party right now.
Jim,
I never suggested the site for Harper quotes gave a balanced collection of quotes. It's a collection of Conservative quotes highlighting the true spirit of their values - towards Canada, unity, health care, equal rights, race, immigration, etc. If you can find some good Liberal quotes from an MP who suggests that we should simply "round up all the indians and move them to labrador", or perhaps some from a Liberal party leader suggesting we should abolish federalism and try a Belgian style governance, please share.
I am no fan of the Liberals. The point is that the alternative is much, much worse.
Scrapping the GST, oh no! Who gave it to us in the first place? Fairly short memory there. Now Harper will cut it by 1% and then 2%. Wow - I wonder who that will help. And another great initiative $1200 tax break disguised as "child care benefit" I guess a woman's place is really in the home anyway (look up Harper's quotes on that if you like).
The conservatives represent some of the finest minds of the 13th century. Whether you like it not Jim, Canada is a progressive, inclusive and multicultural democracy. It is not - nor will it ever be - a theocratic, regressive republic. If that's the country you desire, you don't have far to drive.
A government's have their share of scandals. It's not rhetoric, it's fact. The only party's that could possibly be given a pass on that on a federal level would be the NDP and Greens.
Our economy is in fantastic shape, better than it has been in ages. Took a while to repair the damage Mulroney did, but it's done. If Martin's government are spending like drunken sailors, they need to have another drink - given the amount of surplus. If you're pissed about the spending promises being made on by the Liberals, you'll be no happier with the Conservatives, as Peter McKay guaranteed that the Conservatives will KEEP ALL OF THEM.
So if' it's not the economy, and it isn't about scandal (as all governments have that), then what? Please summon the fortitude to be honest - at least with yourself. You're either a regressive fundamentalist or a bigot - or - as is the case frequently - both. Being honest would be a terrific place to start. And if you're TRULY not a bigot or fan of theocracy, kindly take the time to understand that the party you're going to vote for will govern with the values of these two groups as a base. Oh, Canada!
I'm finding it really difficult to trackback to this thread. Methinks you have the antispam timer turned on too long.
1) The economy IS in fantastic shape. However, I would beg to differ that it was exclusively Mulroney who created the issues although I believe that he contributed. I suspect that Pierre may have had something to do with it. My memory is a little longer than yours I guess.
2) Multiculturism is a failure. Why? Because we, in our naive way, expect that people will come here bring only their good - and leave their negative issues behind. Bigotry is a knife with two edges, and frequently I am berated simply because I am white, middle aged and by nature, conservative. This from a first generation immigrant. I didlike the fact that we MUST celebrate multiculturism - why can't we accept without celebration? Isn't this more discrimination?
3) "Rounding up the Indians" is not what I believe in - I would say that dismantling the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is a good start. This is a 7B dollar per year sinkhole, and the Libs continue to pee money away - and then we get issues like the Keesookoose (sp?) reserve - with squalid conditions more to be found in Brazil than Canada. Is this YOUR version of progressive? It is not mine.
4) Not everyone is equal. Like it or not, the fact that I work harder and save my money vs. persons who don't should not exclude me from spending it the way I want - including health care. Just as I might envy those who have more than me, I don't expect the government to pay for my vacation, food or gas this winter. I also expect the most for my money. This Libs have not provided that.
5) I suspect that the person who suffers from myopia is not me. I am a Canadian first, not an African Canadian, German Canadian or anything else. CANADIAN. I did go to university in the US, and I do admire what they have accomplished. They too are not without their warts (witness George W. Bush as president) but overall they are everything that Canada wants to be - except we now look down our noses at them. Carolyn Parrish anyone?
You may claim to be, but if you desire the benevolent monarchy that we have are becoming, then go ahead and vote for the political party who bought Belinda Stronach and gave her a cabinet position. (With one year of college.)
6) One thing that I have been told; be careful when dealing with someone who claims to be more liberal than you - for they are frequently less tolerant of opposing views. Please don't ever call me a bigot again or suggest same. My Canada includes even bright eyed, naive kids like yerself.
Someone said
"I could go on, but you get the point. Why are people like Cathie so against conservatives and Stephen Harper? Has he said "dump bilingualism?" Has he said "Join the Americans in Iraq"? Has he said "dump same sex marriage"? I think if we go back into the actual quotes, you might hear some common sense policies."
People like Cathie don't run around with blinders on. I have met some of the Conservative foot soldiers who are active in the party, and they do cheer for the policies that Cathie mentions. (And they do cheer for Bush. I have seen this bizarre behaviour.) They just don't do it in public. All their foot soldiers have one slogan: "keep on message." Many of these guys are Straussians. They believe they are better equipped (mentally? physically?) than the average joe to decide what is best for the country. They just need to get into power.
"Please don't ever call me a bigot again or suggest same"
Jim, I don't like it when my doctor says my blood pressure is high-normal, but that doesn't make it any less true. "high-normal" really means high, but "high normal" sounds less ominous while underscoring the reality of the situation. So, feel free to substitute "bigot" for "regressive" if you prefer.
"I suspect that the person who suffers from myopia is not me. I am a Canadian first, not an African Canadian, German Canadian or anything else. CANADIAN"
Looks like ignorant could be added to the list of descriptors. ALL Canadians - unless they're first nation - have lineage that traces back to somewhere else. And whether they're first generation or fourth generation, they call have something in common: they're ALL Canadians first. Acknowledging and celebrating the respective cultures and religions of our ancestors while respecting those of other Canadians, IS Canada.
"My Canada includes even bright eyed, naive kids like yerself."
And arrogant. Lovely!
Here's a little excerpt from our Multi Cultural Act that are relevant to our topic... and which underscore the vision of Canada - as supported by the majority:
(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada's future;
(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.
If you believe that Canada (or the majority of Canadians more accurately) desire Canada to be more like the US - you'll continue to be very disappointed. Quite simply, your value system doesn't mesh with the vision and direction of Canada.
If voting a Minority goverment is like a first date then I guess voteing a new party to a majority after the election process is kinda like proposing to some one after walking by them in a bar.
If you think the rest of Canada voting Libreal is going to send a message to Quebec that Canada is functional you must think majiuana is already legal. The province that most wants to see the Liberals punished is Quebec.
The idea that after a second minority goverment any party is going to want to force a third election in 4 years is ludicris. The one thing politicans hold onto more than anything else is power. A Conservitve goverment is going to bend over backwards to stay in power this will be there first goverment ever. If they do not make a minority goverment work they may not see power again for another 20 years.
Well Scott, it appears as though you wish to get personal with the cheap shots, while providing significant quotes to appear as though you are taking the high road. Nice way to move your "progressive" perspective. I guess my point about a liberal perspective being less tolerant of diverging opinions is valid. Course, I am a regressive bigot or arrogant bigot, or whatever other combinations you care to bring up.
1)You completely disregarded my point about the native Canadians. The question remains: are you satisfied with the job the Liberals have done on the reserves? Yes or no?
2) Are you satisfied that every tax dollar has been accounted for? Yes or no? HRDC, Adscam, etc.
3) Are you satisfied that the Department of National Defence can capably do the job that todays world demands? Including kill (though I hope it never comes to that) if necessary?
There are other points, but lets just use these for now shall we? Lest I get inundated with reams of copy-paste quotes.
What are you so afraid of Scott? Are you scared that we will end up like the Americans if a conservative government is voted in? If your Canada is as strong as you say, then we have nothing to fear. C'mon, has 40 years more or less of liberal government indoctrinated you that the only option to the scary ones are the same old, tired group? I'd rather judge a man on his actions, not his words. The Libs have lost this one. I can't believe that the cons. will be that much worse.
You call me a regressive/bigot, but I honestly believe that I am more open minded than you (admittedly self defeating) - I treat people equally no matter what colour (oh look, not american spelling!) or language. You seem to be selective in who you want in your Canada as long as they fulfill YOUR criteria. Just not conservative white guys - they can all go to hell or the US or whereever.
Oh, and the comment about "naive bright eyed kids"? That was originally meant as a joke - it appears that you don't have much of a sense of humor either. But then you openminded progressive types rarely do.
Thanks Scott - post what ever you want, but I don't think we will ever agree on this. I consider this discussion closed.
Per the last sentence in your first paragraph, I agree.
See, we're not all that far apart!