Yes, I’m scared of Stephen Harper!

Brian Mulroney may have been corrupt, but if it wasn't for the GST and the NAFTA, Paul Martin wouldn't have much of a record to boast about. Granted, they were short term solutions to long-term problems. But do you really expect Mr. Dithers to come up with something new? The Mulroney government was many things, but more corrupt than the Chretien/Martin government? Are you high or just incredibly dim? The Liberals have exploited our out-dated political system in the past twelve years, more so than at any other time in our history.

You're looking at things a little backward. The Conservatives, should they form a minority government will faced nearly the same numerical odds the previous Martin minority government face in the House. And I would like to point out a few things.

I can't imagine the Bloc or the NDP voting against the Federal Accountability Act, or the Liberals for that matter. No party wants to appear to endorse government corruption. So consider that passed. Secondly, if the NDP and the Bloc are as serious about political reform as they would like us to believe they would surely support legislation aimed at fixing election dates and reforming the Sentate by making it a democratically elected body for a change. So consider those two reforms past.

That is of course depending on whether or not the Conservatives are true to their word. For them they have the opportunity to bring about reform that their power base in the west have been screaming for for the past couple of decades, so there's incentive there. There is also the chance to push through legislation that the opposition would be foolish to vote against. Appearing to be able to work with other parties would go a long way towards improving the Conservative image. So there's plenty of incentive for them to do the right thing, especially while in a minority setting. To be elected into power in this country while not being a Liberal is a tremendous acheivement and happens probably once every other decade or so, so if they come to power they should surely count themselves lucky.

All of this though depends on many factors and their word to follow through with their promises. The old Progressive Conservative Party's record is well known, but this party under this leader has not had the chance to prove themselves one way or the other whether. It would be foolish to criticse them for things they haven't done yet and it would be embarrassing to excuse the pathetic record of the Liberals under Chretien and Martin in comparisson.

I agree though, this election should have been between the Conservatives, the Greens, and the New Democrats with the Liberals taking a time out in the corner for bad behaviour. I believe though that the Liberals will get in again and will continue to to govern this country until things become so bad that country finally comes to the brink. Don't say we didn't warn you. And by we, I mean everyone who is not a Liberal, which sadly is 28 out of 32 million Canadians. Give or take a few Red Tories.

From Harper's Civitas speech:

"Conservatives must take the moral stand, with our allies, in favour of the fundamental values of our society, including democracy, free enterprise and individual freedom. This moral stand should not just give us the right to stand with our allies, but the duty to do so and the responsibility to put "hard power" behind our international commitments."

Another fundamental value of free societies is rule of law and the requirement that governance be equally bound to it ...

"We also need to rediscover Burkean conservatism because the emerging debates on foreign affairs should be fought on moral grounds."

... which Mr. Harper apparently eschews in favour of "moral grounds".

"Conservatives have to be more than modern liberals in a hurry."

Sounds like a textbook definition of neo-con if I ever heard it, Stephen.

Harper is dangerous, as much to conservatives as to liberals. From an ostensible basis in individual freedom and free enterprise he somehow distills a belief in the "moral" (as opposed to legal/constitutional) state. To him it would seem, "liberals" (the thinkers, not the party) are a single hive-mind that thinks inconsistently and therefore irrationally; an absurd notion unless you are fundamentally incapable appreciating ideas about individual freedom. If he wins we can expect more of that cult of personality that is quietly encroaching upon the olde-tyme notion of responsible government.

"Conservatives have to be more than modern liberals in a hurry."

Indeed, apparently they have to be Burkean conservatives in a hurry.

I am from Quebec and I think the Conservatives are the worst choice from Canada. They are a bunch of clones of the US extremist right wing.

The conservatives are by far the most racist of parties and a lot of their support comes from groups that are extremely anti-immigrant / anti-ethnic.

I like the NDP but they have no chance in Quebec so I will vote Bloc. This is not becuase I like the Bloc but rather because I want the Liberals to lose some seats and be forced to ally themselves with the NDP and adopt more of a Left wing stance. I think the NDP will keep the Liberals in check. I am of Asian ethnicity so I dont love the Bloc, but they are the lesser of all the evils.

The Liberals suck, they are corrupt, moving to the right and their security certificates which target miorities are ridiculous.

You took the words out of my mouth Reverend Blair! Deep Integration or North American Union … I suggest people look these phrases up and wake up. The liberals have already negotiated a North American Union with the US and Mexico. Whereas the Europeans publicly negotiated their union and then held referenda in each country affected, Canada has negotiated a “union” by stealth. The conservatives are only different in style. The end result will be identical. Decisions affecting Canadians will be made south of the border more or less in corporate board rooms. Meanwhile people are still going on about right and left. You’re missing the point! You’ve been successfully conned.

Mike form Winnipeg

I agree, if the Block can errode the Liberals in Quebec, and the NDP can get a few more seats than last time, we may see an alliance that will help center the Liberals (who are becoming more and more right wing) and keep them in checks.

Would any of the Harper Conservatives who are responding here please address this issue, as raised in this entry: How do you feel knowing that your party, in its current form, has been/is being bankrolled by the US Neocon Apparatus? This scares me. Does it scare you? No? Then why not?

Which ignores the fact many Canadians have SOME right wing views. Don't expect the lefties to save us, they are clueless if well-intentioned in many areas.

---
"A Liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in a fight".

-Robert Frost

>>>and those are your thoughts?<<>>I neither fear nor respect trolls<<<<

Yup…

Vote Green is a solution? They are okay but what about CAP? Green has good money policies but is just as business oriented, they just emphasive environmental rights.

---
"A Liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in a fight".

-Robert Frost

>>>run the bankers off?<<<<

LOL!

Thanks for posting Anonymous. There are increasing numbers of us who are aware of the necons and their desire to ensure the US remains the numero uno, single superpower, and top dog over the rest of the world and their advocacy of the idea that the US should without hesitation uses it's military might to display to the world its inention to maintain that status and to ensure that no powers or alliances are ever allowed to form which could potentially challenge it militarily. However, the neocons connections to Strauss' Machiavelllian, "the end justifies the means" teachings are much less well known. Another aspect of Strauss' teaching was the idea that political leaders could and should use religion as a means of manipulating and controlling the public. Political leaders would not be religious believers themselves, but Strauss advocated that they should play to the religious sentiments of the people. It gives them a powerful means of exercising control over the population if the people perceive their leadership to be somehow endowed with authority from God and believe that their policies and pronouncements therefore have divine approval. Remember the "divine right of Kings" which Charles I lost his head trying to defend? Now we've got a large segment of the US population (the fundamentalists) believing in the divine right of Presidents (or at least the divine right of the current presidential pretender). For a more in depth explanation of how this type of Straussian/neocon policy has been used by the Republicans in the US, see the following article: The Despoiling of America How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State By Katherine Yurica The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.[2] On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition. Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church. Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation. As Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court explained a few months later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe “… that government …derives its moral authority from God. Government is the ‘minister of God’ with powers to ‘revenge,’ to ‘execute wrath,’ including even wrath by the sword…”[3] George W. Bush began to wield the sword of God’s revenge with relish from the beginning of his administration, but most of us missed the sword play. I have taken the liberty to paraphrase an illustration from Leo Strauss, the father of the neo-conservative movement, which gives us a clue of how the hiding is done: “One ought not to say to those whom one wants to kill, ‘Give me your votes, because your votes will enable me to kill you and I want to kill you,’ but merely, ‘Give me your votes,’ for once you have the power of the votes in your hand, you can satisfy your desire.”[4] SNIP Leo Strauss was born in 1899 and died in 1973. He was a Jewish scholar who fled Germany when Hitler gained power. He eventually found refuge in the United States where he taught political science at the University of Chicago. He is most famous for resuscitating Machiavelli and introducing his principles as the guiding philosophy of the neo-conservative movement. Strauss has been called the godfather of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” More than any other man, Strauss breathed upon conservatism, inspiring it to rise from its atrophied condition and its natural dislike of change and to embrace an unbounded new political ideology that rides on the back of a revolutionary steed, hailing even radical change; hence the name Neo-Conservatives. SNIP To understand the Straussian infusion of power that transformed an all but dead conservative realm, think of Nietzsche’s Overman come to life. Or better yet, think of the philosophy most unlike Christianity: Think of pure unmitigated evil. Strauss admits that Machiavelli is an evil man. But according to Strauss, this admission is a prerequisite to studying and reading Machiavelli: the acknowledgement is the safety net that keeps the reader from being corrupted. One is tempted to talk back to Strauss and point out an alternative: the admission could be the subterfuge that keeps a man from being ridiculed and rejected for espousing Machiavellian methods. In one of the most important books for our times, Shadia Drury’s Leo Strauss and the American Right, undertakes to explain the ideas behind Strauss’s huge influence and following. Strauss’s reputation, according to Drury, rests in large part on his view that “a real philosopher must communicate quietly, subtly, and secretly to the few who are fit to receive his message.” Strauss claims secrecy is necessary to avoid “persecution.”[36] SNIP Strauss’s teaching incorporated much of Machiavelli’s. Significantly, his philosophy is unfriendly to democracy—even antagonistic. At the same time Strauss upheld the necessity for a national religion not because he favored religious practices, but because religion in his view is necessary in order to control the population. Since neo-conservatives influenced by Strauss are in control of the Bush administration, I have prepared a brief list that shows the radical unchristian basis of neo-conservatism. I am indebted to Shadia Drury’s book (Leo Strauss and the American Right) and published interviews for the following: First: Strauss believed that a leader had to perpetually deceive the citizens he ruled. Secondly: Those who lead must understand there is no morality, there is only the right of the superior to rule the inferior. Thirdly: According to Drury, Religion “is the glue that holds society together.”[40] It is a handle by which the ruler can manipulate the masses. Any religion will do. Strauss is indifferent to them all. (my emphasis /spanky) Fourthly: “Secular society…is the worst possible thing,” because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, all of which encourage dissent and rebellion. As Drury sums it up: “You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty.”[41] (My emphasis /spanky) Fifthly: “Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.”[42](My emphasis. Remember how the neocons said they needed a "New Pearl Harbor" to get the US population to go along with their plans. Coincidentally or not, they got their Pearl Harbor in the 9/11 attack /spanky) Sixthly: “In Strauss’s view, the trouble with liberal society is that it dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries to found society on secular rational foundations.” /End excerpt After you click on the following link, just scroll down a bit if you don't see the text right away. Here's the link for the complete article "The Despoiling of America: <a href="http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm">The Despoiling of America</a>

These last two comments made me decide to stick with Vive.
Before that, too many Anonymous This and Anonymous That,
couldn't offer an idea without slinging mud ... what's the point?

more facts on Harper and the Neo-con-servatives

Facts on Harper & Conservative Party
Posted by Facts on Harper & Conservative Party on December 29 (24.67.193.173)
Like the Bush Republicans, the Harper Conservatives would take Canada into dangerous territory:

· Harper, like Bush, favours Canadian involvement in the ongoing U.S. war on Iraq.

· Harper would take Canada into deficit in order to pour billions into the military. Bush has already taken the U.S. into trillions of dollars of debt to fund militarism.

· Harper, like Bush, denies the reality of climate change and the threat to the whole planet, and especially Canada, from our continued reliance on fossil fuels.

· Harper, like Bush, rejects the Kyoto Protocol. Harper has said he would rescind and not implement this international treaty which Canada has already ratified. Harper s actions could place the entire international regime to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change at risk.

· While Bush is far more socially conservative, Harper would not defend the Charter of Rights and would allow for open votes. His caucus is largely made of the socially conservative Reform and Alliance Party supporters who would defeat many hard won rights. Charter Rights protecting women, gay and lesbian Canadians, and actually all Charter Rights protecting all Canadian citizens and residents would be at risk. The impact of Harper policies on these issues would not differ from those of Bush. Harper has said he would consider using the notwithstanding clause to limit the application of Charter Rights. No Prime Minister has ever said using the notwithstanding clause would be considered.

· Harper, like Bush, would challenge a woman s right to choose. Harper has said he would allow the issue of access to legal abortions to be re-opened through an open vote in the House of Commons.

· Bush was responsible for more executions than any other U.S. Governor of recent times. Harper has suggested the prohibition of capital punishment would be re-opened in Canada.

We must not sleep walk into electing a Canadian version of George W. Bush. Challenge Stephen Harper on these positions.

Harper tells Canadians we should Demand Better. First, Canadians must Demand the truth about the new Canadian Republican Party, masquerading as the Conservative Party of Canada.

We do not have much time.

>>>>The Liberals suck, they are corrupt, moving to the right and their security certificates which target miorities are ridiculous. <<< 
 
Paul Martin pledged last night to repeal his controversial $975 landing fee for immigrants as the Liberals move to shore up support among Canada's multicultural communities. 
 
The party is stepping up the battle on the policy front as the race for the Jan. 23 election tightens. The Liberals spent most of the first five weeks of the campaign promoting their record and ceding much of the policy ground to the Conservatives. 
 
The immigration fee was implemented in 1995, when Mr. Martin was finance minister, as a deficit-fighting measure. The charge had become a significant irritant in immigrant communities, key backers of the Liberals. 
Mr. Martin said the government must support immigrant families and help them reunite with relatives from abroad. 
 
"But there is a barrier in place for such immigrants, indeed for all immigrants to overcome," he told a small rally in Victoria. 
 
"I am announcing that over the course of the next mandate . . . a Liberal government will eliminate the [landing fee]." 
 
A Liberal news release said last night that the commitment would cost $225-million over the next two years, with a further anticipated loss of revenue of $210-million annually. 
 
The fee would drop to $600 a person in year one, to $300 in year two and would be eliminated over the third year. 
 
<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060103.wimmitax0103/BNStory/specialDecision2006/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060103.wimmitax0103/BNStory/specialDecision2006/</a> 
 
Canada is trying to import 250,000 to 350,000 immigrents a year. This is going to do more to impact your culturial identity then any phony "deep integration(TM)" plan. 
 
THIS IS CANADAS LAST CHANCE TO ADDRESS THE IMMIGRATION POLICY OTTAWA ADVOCATES TO KEEP THE LIBERAL'S IN POWER. 
 
Last Chance.

No, the money for the military would allow us to defend our arctic sovereignty better, and replace the very small amount of military hardare we do have with replacements if we're lucky. We should have an expansion but that won't happen any time soon.

Why did you have to bring up the poor or hospitals? What does this have to do with the military? We have money or SHOULD have money for both.

We also owe our military safe equipment, and must defend half a continent if we are to keep it. Don't try to play the morally superior card with me. You'd have us shooting with peashooters. We have to defend ourselves too.

---
"A Liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in a fight".

-Robert Frost