[web]http://torontotories.blogspot.com/2006/12/if-harpers-despot-what-hell-was.html[/web]

   

Good read. Biased, but still good.

   

Extremely Biased in my opinion, but not a bad read like you said.

However, it si all a matter of opinion as to what people need to do. Cons think Harper's done great, Libs think he's bad news.

   

Dead and 35 years too late.


Oh you asked "was"

   

The only mistake Harper has really made is not explaining his decisions better to the Canadian public. I mean a lot of us get it, but some have to have it spelled out to them.

   

Granted it's biased.. it's a Con blogger, posted in the Con Section.

I agree that explaining may have helped on more things but many things are works in progress, like the budget, or not exactly within our control, like Afghanistan. Explaining things also leaves them open to more flack or even countermeasures from the opposition.

   

Trudeau worked for and made changes for Canada. Trudeau did what he had to do to deal with terrorists right here in Canada. I don't envy any PM that would have had to handle "The October Crisis". It was the 9\11 of its time. I dare say he did it well! I don’t think Harper would have done quite so well.

Harper works for himself. Despot, no but I think he is the worse kind of politician. Self serving and arrogant. Hum reminds me of an other Tory Leader....Big Brian....for the younger posters...Ben Mulroney's dad. At least on some level, I think he thought he was helping the country. I have know idea what or who Harper thinks he is serving other than himself and the party.

   

Maybe you can show me the political debates that lead to the addoption of "multiculturalism" in Canada? That has had a very long lasting and unflattering effect on Canada, yet there has been no discussion reguarding it.

   

I've been impressed with Harper. The recent straight up vote on SSM was encouraging. I'd love to support a "c"onservative party but I'm not going to play with the Fundies. Going on the vote as promissed, when promissed, while keeping control of the freaks is working for me.

I'm not a fan of Toews and some of the law and order crap. Particularly the drugs. I'm a strong proponent of legalization. I believe most of the crime and many of the negative aspects of drugs come from it being illegal. I often think in terms of market behaviors. If you put a huge artificial barier in a market, the market's liable to do some pretty f'd up stuff. It's doing it. The Hells Angels would dry up over night if the Province were cashing the checks.

I think Harpers done a decent job of doing Afghanistan to back up the US but I hope he keeps an eye to not holding the bag at the end of the day. I think I read something a few days ago on Canada changing it's role in Afghanistan away from the intensive combat zones. This of course would be good if none of the other countries are going to back Canada up Canada shouldn't take it on the chin. Anyway, Harper seems to have some sense of reality on the issue which is more than can be said of anyone South of the border.

Soveriegnty and the NW passage Harper has done no wrong in my eyes (ok, have the new ice breakers been financed yet?). Anyway, I'm all for the sovereignty card, it works on me.

Which brings up Quebec. At the very least, couldn't he have said that there were many Nations within Quebec, including the francophones? I'm a big fan of Provincial rights but it seemed that this could have been played better. Not being an expert by any stretch of the imagination on the question of Quebec, I could be wrong on this.

Ok, done with my little rave.