Every time I read a comment on this blog or others from a Conservative, or perhaps I should say a Harper supporter, I am perplexed.I understand that they support who they voted for, but they seem to have an amazing ability to ignore the fact that Harper has failed to provide what he said he'd do. He did of course lower the GST, but he's not implemented important aspects of the Accountability Act and he's not made government more accountable nor transparent. In fact, he's done the opposite.
Robert Marleau, the information commissioner of Canada, says that contrary to Mr. Harper's election pledge to make transparency a hallmark of his administration, a "fog over information" has crept across the government's activities.
Marleau said complaints to the commissioner's office about lack of access to government information have doubled in the past year.
Transparency and 'cleaning government up' was his whole platform. With each day that passes, we see more lies and cover up from this government yet his cheerleaders are desperate to defend him. Why?
I promise you, if the Leader I backed ended up going back on all he promised, I'd be angry. I'm not against compromise based on principled reason, but that is not what Harper is doing. No, he appears to be poll chasing and thus far, it's not stood him in good stead. If I had backed such a Leader I would feel that I'd been deceived and that my vote was no more than a pass for that person to gain power and exercise his/her own vainglorious aspirations.
That is not the case with con's who call talk radio or the one's that blog and/or comment. The question is why?
It defies human nature in my view. Who among us continues to support a best friend who blatantly deceives us? Very few in my experience. For that matter, in business if a contract is breached you generally do not continue to endorse that partner. To the contrary in fact. You go out of your way to discredit them. What of religious Leaders? When they preach one way then it is learned that they have participated in a contrary manner, pedophilia for instance? Only the inculcated, some would call them cult followers, would not speak out against them. Another instance in which I can see public support continuing for someone who had deceived you is when it's a family member. Within the family the rancour may be front and centre, but when in public, sticking together is the unspoken rule. There does seem to be that split in the Conservative Party in Quebec at the moment but the family is perhaps trying to not say that in public.
In the case of bloggers etc., all of that reality does not seem to be the case. I have no doubt that there are Conservatives, dare I say Progressive Conservatives who are exceptionally disappointed but their voice is muted in both alternative and main stream media. Not dead, because you certainly read editorials that appear to be PC and they do show their frustration, but muted. We've also heard from many economists who are disappointed in what Harper and Flaherty have brought in yet the supporters think it is great. How can you think that something that is wrong for the country as stated by experts is great?
It's a mindset I do not understand. If you have strong convictions and believe your leader supports them and then he doesn't, where is your conviction? Nowhere in my view. You're apparently happy to relinquish all that you stand for, so long as your guy will stay in power. He's not doing what you want but you want him there and that is all that matters. Very odd.
Perhaps these con's are just so thrilled to be in power that they will prostitute their convictions to maintain it. That of course goes against everything they stand for or so they say. Maybe if you go beyond the literal interpretation of that statement, you might discover that that it is true. Ironic isn't it? They just might share that vainglorious dream.
Knock yourselves out Con's, I say. All it takes is a view to the South to see that your sway has be marginalised. I'm sure that you thought you could ride the wave of the Republican support in the States, you even revert to using their phrases in your rhetoric. What you've failed to realise in my view is that the tide has shifted. That's dangerous business in reality and in politics. One that I think is difficult to navigate.
I truly do not understand you so I'm more than prepared to hear your side. Tell me why you defend Harper and all he hasn't done for you.
15 comments:
knb:
The problem is many of these Conservatives are so consumed with hatred for the Liberals that they just do not care. As long as Stephen Harper can keep the Liberals from power he can do no wrong.
Stephen Harper knows this and that is one reason why he trashes the Liberals at every opportunity.
Some say that his hyper-partisanship is over the top but he knows that every time he calls Liberals "Taliban lovers" or some other insult his base eats it up.
It's a minority govt, knb.
Unless a confidence vote, the Libs Dippers and Bloc get exactly what they want.
The Conservative's Accountability Act was watered down by the opps.
The Conservative's crime bills were watered down by the opps, and now the Liberal Senate WON'T let the bills come to the House.
So yah, under the circumstances, PMSH has done a fantastic job, not perfect.
Libs struggled with the separatists for a decade; PMSH was able to unite the country, setting the separatists back a generation, in just a few months after taking power.
He is within days of having the longest running minority government in the last 80 years.
If PMSH and his Conservatives were half as bad as you make out, Dion would already be PM.
But, alas, the Libs keep abstaining.
What does that tell yah?
Tells me that you have your head in the sand.
I'm just guessing here but, George Bush best President ever?
Ugh.
Stephen Harper is a great strategist but not the one you should parade out front as leader.
Plus, and I just cant turn away from this but man, the Conservatives are imploding, Just not built for the long term.
"The Conservative's crime bills were watered down by the opps, and now the Liberal Senate WON'T let the bills come to the House."
And with that statement you have proven that you are ignorant of the facts and will swallow any talking point that comes out of the conservative war room.
Here are the facts:
All but one of the bills passed with little or no amendments in June, 2007. They would have been passed earlier, but Harper refused the liberals' request to bring them forward and pass them. Once passed, they went to the Senate, where they sat for 100 days (fewer days than the conservatives allowed them to languish in the House, by the way), before they died on the table in September when Harper prorogued. Now the conservatives love to point to those 100 days and complain about the liberal senate, but they always fail to mention those 100 days occured during the months of June, July and August. Maybe it is just me, but I did not notice Parliament passing a lot of legislation over the summer break...
Once Harper prorogued parliament he had the option of reintroducing his crime bills at the stage they were when they died. Rather than do this, he opted to reintroduce them in the House as part of an omnibus bill and threated the opposition with an election if they were not passed. This was largely an empty threat as part of his posturing in the fall, since, as I said, all but one had already passed. The one bill that had not passed is clearly unconstitutional.
It was quite obvious Harper was expecting the opposition to refuse to pass this bill because it is unconstitutional, and then he could go to an election on the whole "tough on crime" thing.
Alas for poor Harper that was not to be. By the time the omnibus bill came before the House for a vote the whole Chalk River thing was making headlines, and he was starting to drop in the polls. Well he certainly did not want to go to an election over nuclear safety and medical isotopes, so he shelved the crime bill yet again. You can expect it to rise from the ashes just before he expects an election.
That is our PM - playing politics with our safety.
(Not that I think the bills are necessary for our safety, but that is how he is trying to sell them so one must wonder why he does not bring them forward for a vote).
Wilson, I thought the sit-com writers were on strike?!
You've come up with an incredibly hilarious story there, as partially de-liced by Gayle.
Are you trying to sell us that the opposition forced Harper to slot his best bagmen in jobs they are totally unqualified for? That he had his hands tied, that's why he's been busy gagging everyone to and fro (but then again, he started that during the last election and you didn't seem to mind). Are you telling us that the idea to poll and focus group to a new Canadian record was pushed upon him by the opposition? That he lied on numerous occasions isn't a character trait but actually something the opposition has demanded?
Wilson, do you have a job? I think Carrot Top would like to hire you...
Indeed ottlib, his base eats it up. MacKay was just shy of restating that ridiculous claim today.
I still do not understand a mentality that can ignore fact to support a leader that has ignored their views.
It rivals what I know to be, common sense and I find it disturbing.
wilson, sadly you are making my point.
The process with bills is guess what? Debate and offering ammendments that make them more comprehensive. As it relates the the Accountability Act, that is what happened.
Here is where your logic breaks down. If the Opposition "watered down" the Act, why is it that the government hasn't enacted some of the toughest portions of it? They weren't watered down, but if enacted they will make the government more accountable.
The guy you hired to be more accountable, is less, yet you give him a pass.
Gayle did a great job of laying out the other argument on Crime Bills, so I'll leave that alone.
The point is that you are blinding yourself to what are supposedly your core principals. That is not something I understand.
It tells me you have none and like your leader you are prepared to compromise them if it translates to power.
That is not an ethical stance, it's dishonest, imo.
Gayle, thanks for your succinct description of the truth. Your input is
always appreciated.
Burl, yours too. You always wrap it up in humour but hit the high notes accurately.
Oh and wilson, your comment on uniting the country makes me laugh out loud. Here's what's going on in Quebec.
Harper has done nothing to unite the country. That perhaps, after Canada is Back, lame comment is one of the most specious.
Harper played a game with Duceppe and had to call Dion in to write the motion. Oh, I suppose you forgot about that?
Look wilson, this is not about attack or hate, I just don't get it and I'm trying to understand.
What can I say? I'm an artist so I need to understand what I'm looking at to the best of my ability, in order to interpret or represent it.
I know many people think that artist's are just flakes, but that would be a horribly simplistic view. We do actually think.
Harper is the best person to govern this country right now whether the liberal left likes it or not it is a fact!
Don't give me progressive this or progressive that. Progressive means moving forward. You mean to tell me that harsher penalties for criminals is not progressive? Lower tax's is not progressive? An elected senate is not progressive? Smaller government is not progressive? What am I saying here the left reading this about smaller government.The left must be pulling their collective hair just about now.Of course for the left if it is not BIG government it's not progressive enough.
What I really find perplexed to be honest with you is how can anyone vote for a party that has robbed us tax payers blind. I'm not talking about 20 years ago here.
When we see the liberals at the ethics committee trying so hard to tie in the Mulroney Schreiber affair to Harper I find it disgusting. These are the people that you support.When will you and your Liberal leader Mr.Dion demand that Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez be called in,in front of the ethics committee? Let me tell you when if I may "when the cows come home" right? I could go on but it would take all night.
KNB
"Oh and wilson, your comment on uniting the country makes me laugh out loud. Here's what's going on in Quebec."
The Liberals did a nice job uniting the country in 1995 right? Nice job!!
For someone who says that they don't put much stock in polls you certainly go to it enough to make a point.
First let me tell you why it isn't good news for Mr.Dion here.
1)Chalk river was in the news for a long time.
2) Mulroney Schreiber affair.
3)The Afghan detainees.
If I were you I would be worried about my liberals. They should be running high in the polls right now.
Why is it the Liberals are not to keen to make this government fall? Could it be because they don't think they could win?
Right:
Considering all of the troubles of Mr. Dion last year the Conservatives should have been able to secure their majority government last year.
Indeed, they had two opportunities. In the spring after the budget and in the fall after Outrement and they could not close the deal.
Now as you say they have all sorts of troubles and a very long winter/spring Parliamentary session ahead of them.
As well, I would point out that except for the period of Jean Brault's testimony and the release of the first Gomery Commission Report the Conservatives never led the Liberals during Paul Martin's tenure. And even in those periods their lead was short lived.
So the fact that recent polls have put the Liberals in a dead heat with the Conservatives or even a small lead should be worrying Conservatives to no end.
We are about two months away from an election and they are tied. During the two months before the last election the Liberals had an eight point lead over the Conservatives. So the Liberals are actually doing better than the Conservatives did during the same time in the election cycle.
ottlib I do not put any stock in polls. I'm just answering KNB that she has said in the past that she also doesn't put much stock into polls. But everytime she wants to make a point and a poll is out she refers to it that is all.
You say an election is about two months away well we'll see about that. We've seen this movie play out before.
In this election ottlib
the NDP is the Conservatives best friend. Remember the 90's when the P.C party split the vote of the right. same thing can happen here.
Don't bet your house that we are going to have an election this spring. The Liberal caucus is split just the way they are split with Afghanistan. I for one I hope we do have one this spring.
TRIWIA, you seem not to understand the definition of progressive.
I get it that you think what Harper is doing is that, but it's simply not. This is the most regressive government I've ever seen.
Rodriguez? Please, get a grip. If your goof of a rep Del Mastro pushes that canard, you guys are in for a basting. You forget obviously how much you depended on media input during Gomery.
You know I don't put stock in poll's, meaning that I do not bet the farm on them, but I cite them to point out the obvious.
The issues you point to that should have Dion up obviously have Harper's number depressed. More exposure to those issues will push that trend.
Okay by me.
Right,
I was just using the same argument you were using.
If all of the troubles that the Conservatives are facing is not helping the Liberals the same could be said of how all the troubles Mr. Dion faced did not help the Conservatives.
In other words it is a wash. Neither party is really connecting with the electorate right now and neither is either leader.
As for polls, I used to work for a polling company so I know a thing or two about them. Enough to consider most of them to be absolute BS.
Post a Comment