Monday, June 27, 2005

Natural Opposition Party

If you want proof that Harper's problems are more than image, look no further than this.

*smacks head repeatedly against table*

Now I just feel silly for repeatedly writing that Stephen Harper is a smart guy. The same leader who tried to bring down the government with the help of the BQ now says that Same Sex marriage lacks legitimacy because it's passing due to BQ support. Welcome to Stephen Harper's Canada - a place where 8 provincial courts, the Supreme Court, and a majority of MPs aren't enough for legitimacy. Heck, if we're going to take Harper's conclusions to their logical end, we should just ban separatist parties from running for office.

I've defended Harper more than almost any Liberal blogger out there, but the guy should just resign already, before he embarrasses his party any more.


  • Agreed.

    Fuck that guy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:05 p.m.  

  • No No No.

    It's: Harper should resign AND we should ban separatists parties.

    By Blogger Senator Catalyst, at 7:16 p.m.  

  • Harper's supporters claim he is a "great tactician". These outrageous comments are just further proof the guy has no political smarts whatsoever.

    Please, Harper, stop running our party into the ground and resign.



    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:25 p.m.  

  • I wrote about that stuff on my blog today. It makes you wonder whether he is on any sort of medication, because a sane and adult person would not say things like that.

    When he was in bed with the separatists (and I mean REALLY IN BED WITH THEM), it was fine, and the BQ was all legit to Harper.

    But now that the BQ has decided to end this foolishness that's been going on in Parliament (without, mind you, actually getting into bed with the government the way they did with the CPC), they're no longer a legit party, according to Little Stevie.

    I, too, once thought that he was a decent sort of guy, but I think he's gone around the bend now. He needs to see a shrink and check himself into a facility. He's had it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:58 p.m.  

  • I didn't even have a problem with Harper working with the BQ before. They're a legitimately elected party and if Harper wanted to work with them to bring down the government, that was perfectly fine in my opinion.

    But you can't work with them one week and then say they're illegitimate the next.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 9:16 p.m.  

  • My sentiments exactly. Forming coalition with other parties is part of the democractic process in Parliament. I didn't have any problems either, but, as you say, you can't say it's OK one day and then turn around and demonize them for doing the same thing with somebody else. Harper is clearly off his rocker.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:27 p.m.  

  • This is just more of the same old, same old from the right whingers. Every time they lose a battle they want it to be decided in another forum. The Supreme Court rules against them; they want it put to the members of Parliament. Parliament rules against them; they want it put directly to the people in a referendum. I'd actually like to see that happen just so I could see who they'd want to have decide the issue next.

    By Blogger Robert McClelland, at 11:11 p.m.  

  • When he was in bed with the separatists (and I mean REALLY IN BED WITH THEM), it was fine, and the BQ was all legit to Harper.

    But now that the BQ has decided to end this foolishness that's been going on in Parliament (without, mind you, actually getting into bed with the government the way they did with the CPC)

    Oh, please. The idea that the Tories and Bloc were "in bed" is nothing but pure Liberal spin machine fiction. There was no agreement/deal of any kind between the parties; they both wanted to bring down the government because they both anticipated their party would gain seats in the resulting election (just like the Liberals opposed an election because they anticipated that they'd lose seats). All three parties were acting out of independent self-interest.

    In this case, however, the Liberals actually made a deal with the Bloc to invoke closure and bring C-48 to an immediate vote. (The Bloc most likely went along with it because they knew they wouldn't win anyway, and they wanted to get the SSM bill through.)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:04 a.m.  

  • If that's your measure, Invisible Hand, then the Conservatives were still in bed with the Bloc. They worked together in committee to filibuster the NDP amendments to the budget. They cooperated during those days when they voted to shut down the house. They've been in bed with the Conservatives about as much as they've been in bed with the Liberals. It was wrong to criticize Harper solely on that basis (BQ MPs are as legitimate as any other duly elected MP), but it's hypocrisy for Harper to challenge the Liberals for doing something he himself was quite happy to do.

    And, for the record, I am not a Liberal party supporter. I haven't voted for the party since 1997, and in this election I'm voting Green. Liberal/Tory -- it's the same old story.

    By Blogger James Bow, at 1:20 a.m.  

  • The Liberals and the press have just spent the last three months pillorying the CPC for being in bed with the bloc. As the highly politically involved commenters on this site correctly say, "so what"? The general public didn't see it that way - I've talked to many people who were uneasy about the CPC and the bloc working together. So, the Cons have taken the opportunity to say "the Liberals do it too", in a way that will defuse the accusations the next time the Liberals make them. Hypocritical? Sure. But not on an important issue, and it's a lot better than sounding defensive.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:07 a.m.  

  • Harper is nuking any Quebec votes he might have had. His heavy Quebec campaigning in the past year was part of a long-term Quebec stragey and a medium term Ontario one. I thought it smart. Needless to say, I thought the recent remarks not smart. NDP, here I come.

    (Although I do have some sympathy for the line that it's a tit-for-tat on the Liberals. And I'm waiting for Belinda to jump back to the Tories, saying that "being a minister in the party that has destroyed federalism in Quebec, and makes written deals with Separatists, has made me uncomfortable.")

    Oh, and a shout out to Robert: quit your whining and your "all you right whingers" campaign. All Roberts suck - so there.

    By Blogger matt, at 10:40 a.m.  

  • I'm beginning to suspect the CPC enjoys the opposition bench. Whining, pouting and accusing all Liberals of being thieves and practioners of serial buggery is surelt easier than governing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:08 a.m.  

  • I guess the fact that a majority of Canadian still oppose SSM, and the Liberals are intent on LIMITING debate, forcing their agenda upon all of Canada, while actually signing written deals with the Bloc is ok to the libby left.

    I mean, Harper is 'scary', right?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:25 p.m.  

  • At the risk bringing some facts to this discussion, the reason most Canadians were not pleased with the CPC/Bloc alliance in April/May was because of what the result of that alliance would have been. If the government had been brought down then it was clear that the Bloc would increase it's already substantial seat count in Parliament, and that the CPC had *NO* effective chance of gaining any Quebec seats. So the results would have been the CPC gaining elsewhere in Canada while the Bloc would have increased it's seats and by definition power to present/argue the Separatist agenda. As well, the fact they were willing to work so closely together on that goal left open the question that they might be able to work as a coalition in a minority CPC Parliament. This is what Canadians were unhappy about, and why the CLP was able to spin that alliance against the CPC so effectively.

    Now, the alliances we have seen recently were within Parliament itself to move legislation, not to dissolve Parliament. That all by itself it a significant difference, and something to be expected when a minority government situation exists, especially when there is no working coalition majority to be gained. The CLP will not work that way with the Bloc or the CPC, and the NDP are short the seats needed for that coalition. Therefore cooperation between various opposition parties and the government in passing different legislation is not abnormal, rather it is expected.

    This is the main difference between what we have seen these last couple of weeks versus the Apr/May partnership to dissolve Parliament. Canadians are generally aware enough to grasp this difference, and then having Mr. Harper call anything the Bloc votes in favour of as illegitimate is just the icing on the cake in showing the CPC opportunism and moral relativism in action. By doing this he only further undercuts what little credibility he and the CPC had, as well as show himself yet again for the political opportunist so many Canadians suspected he was.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:26 p.m.  

  • Harper a great tactician? I'd like to know where he got that reputation.

    He didn't get it in the middle of the last election, when, just as the polls suggested that his party could possibly eke out a minority victory, he announced to the nation that a Conservative majority was now a certainty and the election was essentially over. If there was one moment that guaranteed a Liberal victory, that was it.

    He didn't get it a couple of weeks ago when he decided to play football for photographers on Parliament Hill (any Conservative staffers ever heard of Robert Stanfield!? He WAS a former leader of yours, ya know).

    He didn't get it when he refused to retract a Conservative press release that essentially called the Prime Minister a pedophile. (And that's not to mention his dim-witted staff -- no doubt tactical geniuses in their own mind -- who put out the press release in the first place.)

    Oh yes, and then there was standing up for J. Edgar Grewal. That was a brilliant tactical move. Harper managed to make a couple of desperate trolls like Tim Murphy and Ujjal Dosanjh look like hapless victims entrapped by a Conservative-sponsored dirty-tricks sting.

    I hate to give him credit, but Ralph Klein had Harper and his Calgary School of white-assed neocons figured out back in 2001, if not earlier. That's when Ralph, who was still a wine-guzzling barfly at that point, surprisingly backed away from the infamous "Alberta firewall" manifesto. Ever since then, Ralph has not had much truck or trade with Harper or his disciples.

    I used to think that Klein was just jealously hostile toward any other conservative who claimed to speak for Alberta. There might have been some of that, but I'm now thinking that Klein knew Harper and his coterie of cloistered debating-club cronies had no idea how to subtly charm their way into the voters' psyche, and considered them to be nothing more than neocon jihadists who thought the path to glory consisted of blowing themselves up. That's probably the first time the word subtle has ever been associated with Klein, but I'm prepared to grudgingly give him props on this one. I'll gladly buy him a Black Russian the next time I see him holding court with Rod Love at Caesar's.

    What can you say about Harper in 2005? He has had every opportunity to roll out some kind of governing blueprint, and instead staked all his credibility on opposing same-sex marriage and whipping the corruption horse. In the latter case, he should have let the media carry the spear on the tawdry Gomery testimony while he told Canadians the Conservatives would do this, this and this to make sure it never happened again.

    Instead of just getting the hell out of Ottawa and meeting voters, he had to let his staff trumpet this common political duty as some kind of monumental event. Say what you want about Preston Manning and Stockwell Day, at least they looked forward to rubbing shoulders with the riff-raff and treated it as a privilege rather than a chore. It's as if the guy doesn't really want the job.

    I mean Jesus H Christ, if Prime Minister Wire Brush and his regicidal court jesters are outwitting you on the PR end, it's time to go back to the National Citizen's Coalition. At least there you can be irrelevant and not drag the rest of your party down with you.

    So the question is, if not Harper, than who? MacKay? Solberg? Flaherty? Is there a betting pool?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:53 p.m.  

  • Calgary Observer says: "Forming coalition with other parties is part of the democractic process in Parliament. I didn't have any problems either.."

    That's because you were still a Conservative at that point. At that time, you left a post including this comment on my blog:

    "We have a strong Opposition in the House that is ready to govern this country. [We have] a number of concerns about the budget."

    The funny thing is, in that same post, you wrote this:

    "People can change their views over time, but it is impossible to do a one-eighty literally within days. This just goes to show that Belinda Stronach does not have any true convictions or principles. What an asset to the Liberal party, indeed!

    A person without convictions and principles, such as Belinda Stronach, is a nobody and should not be in politics, let alone hold a Cabinet position."

    Of course, EVERYBODY knows that within the next few days, YOU did a "one-eighty". How amusing is that?

    Any google search on the "Calgary Observer" can turn up 1000 examples of you shameless contradictions. You can't bury them all.

    People don't read your blog because there is nothing original about you. You simply repeat the things that the Liberal party says. You did this because you have a personal vendetta against the Conservative party. You are motivated by nothing other than anger.

    Take a lesson from Calgary Grit - he's a good blogger. Despite being a Liberal, he has his own, original beliefs. He recognizes that no party is perfect, and he tries to be consistent. That's why his blog is so popular.

    Get an original opinion, dial down the hatred a little, and try to mature as a blogger. Then, people will start taking you seriously.

    I know you won't like what I'm telling you here, but take some time to think about it. I expect you'll just respond by attacking me.. but believe it or not, I'm actually trying to help you.

    By Blogger Michael Fox, at 3:36 p.m.  

  • DC-MAC:

    So Canadians were upset because the CPC-Bloc partnership to bring down the government would have made the bloc more powerful in the next election?

    Yet, the Liberal Parties rule in Ottawa has seen seperatist sentiment rise to its highest levels ever, and similar sentiment is rising in the west. This is better for Canada than an election?

    A Liberal government is the WORST possible alternative for Canadian unity, hands down. But then again, once Quebec and Alberta are gone, what is Canada anyways?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:59 p.m.  

  • @Toronto Tory: As I have already explained numerous times, I did not really blog much at first. The postings you refer to were made by a co-blogger of mine at the time, and she, sadly, turned out to be quite the right-wing extremist.

    She was out of the gate with her blog first (CalgaryCafé), and that was several months before I even thought about doing a blog myself.

    I have to admit that I initially merged my spanking-new blog with hers, because I wanted ride on her coattails to "higher ratings".

    When it became clear to me what she stood for, I severed all ties with her and her blog and went solo.

    Unfortunately, thanks to Google, her old traces are still out there somewhere, and because of our deal at the time, she would then also post using the "Calgary Observer" user name.

    She has now disappeared from the blogosphere, I believe, but she may be blogging under some pseudonym I am not aware of.

    This is absolutely the last time I'll explain that situation. If you Tories can't read, it's not my problem, but don't go around spreading false information or you'll face the consequences.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:29 p.m.  

  • @Toronto Tory:

    And one more thing: I know, based on Harper's performance, that you Tories can't really think logically, but think about this:

    Why would I ever subscribe to such right-wing extremist views about Quebec and bilingualism? I am a translator, for Pete's sake. I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I advocated the CPC line on Quebec and official bilingualism

    Plus, Belinda and I share Austrian ancestry. I certainly would not attack her.

    Yes, I did develop an arcane sort of theory behind her defection, but the theory, if true, would only serve to heap tons of credit on the Liberals for pulling it off. That theory was what got me into trouble with my co-blogger and with the rest of you Tory people. That was the moment when I realized it was time to tell my co-blogger to go and beat it.

    Yes, I was a Red Tory (because I just could not stomach Chretien), but now I am back where I was before 1993.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:37 p.m.  

  • "If you Tories can't read, it's not my problem, but don't go around spreading false information or you'll face the consequences."

    Again with the insults. What are you going to do - threaten me with a lawsuit like you do to everyone else?

    " Tories can't really think logically"

    There it is again.

    Nobody buys the co-blogger excuse - even Liberal bloggers. Face it, you got mad because Rempel called you nutty HERE

    I think you're just some upset kid. Some day - hopefully - you'll realize that there are better ways to work out differences.

    By Blogger Michael Fox, at 5:51 p.m.  

  • @Toronto Tory:

    You can believe whatever you want. It's really not my problem that you people play fast and loose with the truth. This is something you'll have to deal with.

    For the record: my co-blogger's IP address was 142 something something, while mine is 251 or 252 (I forget now). If you dig up the records and compare this information, you'll find that you have been barking up the wrong tree.

    Character assassination has become par for the course for the CPC, so I am not surprised at all.

    Now, if you don't mind: take your personal insults to your own blog, but don't abuse other people's blogs for your childish and libellous actions.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:03 p.m.  

  • James Bow: [The Bloc has] been in bed with the Conservatives about as much as they've been in bed with the Liberals.

    That was pretty much the point I was making; sorry I wasn't clear enough. I would still rate the Liberal/Bloc co-operation as being (slightly) closer than the Tory/Bloc one, since as I understand it there was an actual "we'll push SSM if you help invoke closure" deal, instead of independently working toward the same goal.

    Calgary Observer: Why would I ever subscribe to such right-wing extremist views about Quebec and bilingualism? I am a translator, for Pete's sake. I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I advocated the CPC line on Quebec and official bilingualism

    So you're saying that following is a "right-wing extremist" position that would put your job in jeopardy?

    The Conservative Party believes that Canada’s official languages constitute a unique and significant social and economic advantage that benefit all Canadians.

    i) A Conservative Government will support the Official Languages Act ensuring that English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.

    ii) The Conservative Party will work with the provinces and territories to enhance opportunities for Canadians to learn both official languages.

    Plus, Belinda and I share Austrian ancestry. I certainly would not attack her.

    Uh... you would never attack anyone of Austrian ancestry?

    (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:42 p.m.  

  • Anything can be written on a piece of paper. I don't care what it says in the CPC policy paper about bilingualism; the statements made by BOTH party members and supporters speak a different language. So much for the "hidden" agenda ...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:32 p.m.  

  • anonymous at 1:59 pm:

    It is Adscam and the inflammatory Gomery testimony that had this Bloc support at the levels it was in Apr/May. Indeed, I believe it is already coming down slightly now that there is not the daily revelations from Gomery and the rhetorical firestorms the Bloc *AND* the CPC that helped to fuel this support for the Bloc. So while the Liberals are still in power, the support for the Bloc has not remained at that constant high it would have been for a Spring election had the Bloc/CPC alliance succeeded in bringing down the government.

    As for the Separatist Albertan movement, I've been hearing this for a quarter century now, since the "let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark" sentiment was expressed. Yet I do not see the same infrastructure for such a movement in Alberta that exists in Quebec, so I am forced to conclude that it is simply nowhere near the same concern/threat in Alberta as in Quebec, despite the various attempts by CPC supporters there to claim otherwise.

    That reminds me, why does the CPC accept Albertan separatists in their party? I would have thought that any national party would not consider separatists of any kind to be welcome in their midst, yet I find a remarkable amount of Alberta Conservatives at places like Free Dominion are also big on Albertan separation, and that even some CPC MPs do not denounce such thinking/people, indeed, they refuse to even state whether they would support such a move. Makes me wonder how much of the CPC are like Mulroney's Quebec conservatives, namely more interested in what is good for their Province if they don't get everything they think they deserve, regardless of the effects to the rest of the country, even using the threat of separation to do so.

    In any event, that is also a reason why I and other Canadians find the idea of a Bloc/CPC alliance last Spring and even the idea of a Bloc/CPC minority coalition as plausible, and something to be vigorously opposed. Besides, according to Harper, the Bloc and whatever they vote to support is illegitimate to most Canadians as of yesterday, but the opposite was true when they were trying to bring down a government a couple months back. Got to love those constant flip-flops by Harper and the CPC, it makes it ever so much easier to describe the CPC as having hidden agendas as well as being hypocrites willing to say whatever they think will help them, regardless of whether it directly conflicts with previous statements and positions by the CPC and it's leader.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:27 p.m.  

  • I wouldn't complain about any party accepting the presence of Alberta separatists or any type of separatist. They're simply individuals trying to use the framework and procedures of this country to make life better for themselves. They're simply trying to make Canada work, even if at the back of their mind they suspect it can't work.

    If nothing else, we can't complain about Alberta separatists in the CPC as long as Jean Lapierre -- the co-founder of the Bloc Quebecois -- sits comfortably in the Liberal caucus.

    By Blogger James Bow, at 10:16 a.m.  

  • James Bow:

    I'm not sure I can agree with you. I watched Mulroney deal with soft nationalists to gain his majorities, and the Bloc was born from that act. It is not inconceivable that something similar could happen from the CPC if there is too much sympathy for this idea of Albertan separation within that party. I do not think it is fair to describe those that advocate "Alberta needs to separate if Harper does not get elected next time" as trying to make Canada work. I got my fill of that from 1984-93.

    Now, if they want to renounce separatism that's another story. I believe your example of Jean LaPierre formally renounced Separation before he was taken into the CLP, did he not? I am a Canadian nationalist Mr. Bow, and I find the idea that using the threat of separation to increase one's Provinces' standing in Confederation quite distasteful. I also after the Mulroney years distrust any party claiming to be a national party that does not take a firm stand regarding support for Separatism within it's ranks, be it Quebecois or Albertan.

    I realize that this is a sensitive issue, and is a position that can cause some difficulty, but I really have a problem with this. How can people advocate separation as a viable/valid approach at the same time be working for the greater good of Canada and Canadians? I'm sorry, I just can't get my head around that one. Former separatists that have renounced such, that's one thing, I can accept that within political parties, but those that either will not denounce separatism or even think it is a viable/valid alternative, now those I have difficulty accepting.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:55 a.m.  

  • "Now, if you don't mind: take your personal insults to your own blog, but don't abuse other people's blogs for your childish and libellous actions."

    It's not enough that you censor any dissenting voices on your own blog - now you want to police other blogs as well?

    Give it a rest, kid.

    By Blogger Michael Fox, at 12:01 p.m.  

  • @Toronto Tory:

    Your comments here were not only off-topic, but libellous. If you have to engage in such idiocy, please do it on your blog. Don't do it on mine or anyone else's. That's all I was asking you to do. But it's too much to expect reason and common sense from a Tory, eh?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:18 p.m.  

  • @Toronto Tory:

    You are lying through your teeth again (as usual). There are plenty of opposing viewpoints on my blog. I don't censor them at all. I only remove garbage from my site (off-topic remarks, foul language and personal insults). You lost your posting privileges on my blog because of your incessant foul language and insults.

    If a Tory comes to my blog and posts an opposing view and does so in an objective manner, his or her comment will not be deleted at all. Foul language and insults, however, result in immediate deletion, and the poster is banned permanently.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:28 p.m.  

  • Mr. Observer,

    "Incessant foul language".

    Now who's lying through his teeth? Provide ONE example of foul language on my part on your blog. While you're at it, try to find foul language used by me anywhere.

    What a joke... have a nice life.

    By Blogger Michael Fox, at 5:11 p.m.  

  • @Toronto Tory: You'll have to check with my blog provider. Once these things are deleted, they're gone.

    But the comments posted by Tories and others who oppose my view in a reasonable manner are still there and serve as PROOF that YOU were lying about me censoring "any dissenting views". That was a bold-faced lie, so we can't really believe anything you say or write.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:36 p.m.  

  • Well, that's a new one! The Calgary Observer being inconsistent. Threatening with facing consequences?

    I think he has concocted the whole story of there being some other blogger to hide his idiocies; a female to boot, perhaps to hide that fact that he is a cross-dresser. R U, CO? We know he's a turncoat, so that's not too far off.

    Oh, and he's a tad tribal. He does not attack people of the same ancestry. Never mind character or ideas. Blood is what matters. Uhhmmmm! I seem to recall one other Austrian for whom that stuff was crucial too!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:23 a.m.  

  • CO says: "Character assassination has become par for the course for the CPC, so I am not surprised at all."

    Ok, but shouldn't he have a character first? Sounds like a required thing to me.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:34 a.m.  

  • Really helpful information, lots of thanks for your post.

    By Anonymous sex life, at 3:23 a.m.  

  • By Blogger jeje, at 4:02 a.m.  

  • By Blogger Unknown, at 9:41 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home