The Leaders

The Leaders

DasFX

#1Dec 6th, 2005

If you ask me, I would prefer to vote none of the above. All the leaders have issues with them, which makes me cringe.

The worst of them all is Mr. Harper. I think Stephen Harper has to go, he is so dull and so uninspiring. When I look at him, I don't see Prime Minister. There is something about that guy that I don't like. He looks sinister and seems like he would be a real jackass if I met him. I mean look at the previous leaders of Reform or PC. Joe Clark at least looked like a decent guy. Stockwell Day was kind of cool and had some personality. Preston Manning was even better than Harper; at least he could smile and joke around. Peter McKay would have done much better, I would consider voting Conservative if he was at the helm.

Mr. Martin, well what can you say? He was a good finance minister and Paul would have been a good PM, but his buddy Jean screwed him over with this scandal. Perhaps he was not directly involved, but he must have know something was up. I really don't think this guy can rebound, especially in Quebec. He is paying the price for Chretien's arrogance and golf ball collection, much like Kim Campbell took it on the chin for Mulroney.

Jack seems good, but the NDP is not the type of party you want at the reins. Opposition party yes, but not governing party. The NDP has noble intentions and good ideas, but I think they would bankrupt us in the process of implementing them. If money grew on trees, I'd elect the NDP.

As for Gilles, I think he is good, he seems the most straight forward and he is very smart. He's come a long way since that hair net in the cheese factory. Too bad he's a separatist. I can see why Quebecois like this guy, he was charisma and can be inspiring. Lucien Bouchard was equally as good. The Bloc doesn't have bad policies and would be an asset to parliament if it didn't focus on sovereignty and if it would fight for all Canadians instead of a quarter of them.

Breakthrough2006

Re: The Leaders

Dec 6th, 2005

You seem to have some logical views on all the candidates.

However, "There is something about that guy that I don't like. He looks sinister and seems like he would be a real jackass if I met him."

is not a "legitimate" reason.

The fact of the matter is, the Conservatives could have Brad Pitt as their leader and some people would portray him as sinister and evil.

DasFX

Re: The Leaders

Dec 6th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Breakthrough2006

You seem to have some logical views on all the candidates.

However, "There is something about that guy that I don't like. He looks sinister and seems like he would be a real jackass if I met him." is not a "legitimate" reason.

I disagree. Most people don't sit down and compare party platforms on all the major issues before marking their X. Most go on emotion, appearance and instinct. Image is big in politics.

Do you for one second believe that Mr. Harper tabled all these policies? I mean, the party sets the policies and the leader sells them.

Two people trying to sell the same product can have vastly different outcomes. Mr. Harper is drab, dull and devoid of life. Not voting for him based on my instinct that he would not be a good leader for Canada is quite a legitimate reason.

Ocean Breeze

Free Thinker

Re: The Leaders

Dec 6th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by DasFX

Quote: Originally Posted by Breakthrough2006
You seem to have some logical views on all the candidates.

However, "There is something about that guy that I don't like. He looks sinister and seems like he would be a real jackass if I met him." is not a "legitimate" reason.
I disagree. Most people don't sit down and compare party platforms on all the major issues before marking their X. Most go on emotion, appearance and instinct. Image is big in politics.

Do you for one second believe that Mr. Harper tabled all these policies? I mean, the party sets the policies and the leader sells them.

Two people trying to sell the same product can have vastly different outcomes. Mr. Harper is drab, dull and devoid of life. Not voting for him based on my instinct that he would not be a good leader for Canada is quite a legitimate reason.

good post. effectively reasoned.

yballa09

Re: The Leaders

Dec 6th, 2005

it is not a legitimate reason at all, but unfortunately many people do vote that way.

DasFX

Re: The Leaders

Dec 6th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by yballa09

it is not a legitimate reason at all, but unfortunately many people do vote that way.

So voting for someone who you feel won't be a good leader is smart?

All the good policy in the world won't help someone who is ineffective at delivering the message and implementation. This country needs a person who can lead, not a person who can simply read pre-written policies from a piece of paper (ie. Mr. Harper).

Breakthrough2006

Re: The Leaders

Dec 6th, 2005

Quote:

This country needs a person who can lead, not a person who can simply read pre-written policies from a piece of paper (ie. Mr. Harper).

With all due respect Das, every leader reads pre-written policies from a piece of paper. (ie. Harper,Martin,Layton,Duceppe,Harris)

DasFX

Re: The Leaders

Dec 6th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Breakthrough2006

With all due respect Das, every leader reads pre-written policies from a piece of paper. (ie. Harper,Martin,Layton,Duceppe,Harris)

Fair point, but that is all Harper does. Watch him as he delivers a speech and listen. He just reads notes. If someone stole his notes, he wouldn't have a clue what to say to people. Speaking of just Conservatives, you can't tell me that Day or McKay aren't better image wise. I mean Harper is just dead to the world. I'm sure the man isn't as cold as he appears, like I'm sure he is different with his wife and kids (as least I hope he is), but for a person who wants to be "THE" public figure in our country, his personality isn't right for the job.

Papachongo

RE: The Leaders

Dec 7th, 2005

just this morning i was reading the paper and there was the usual articles about the different parties. what got to me was the picture of mr.harper, he was smiliing and holding babies. i was surprised to read that harper hadn't eaten a single baby, nor did he kick any kittens or punch any nuns. maybe, and this seems like a stretch, hes an actual human being and not some neo-con cyborg hell bent on starting the apocalypse. i might not vote conservative but i really don't think any party leader, even harper, could utterly and completely destroy the fabric of canada. this country pretty much runs itself.

Reverend Blair

#10

Re: The Leaders

Dec 7th, 2005

Quote:

i was surprised to read that harper hadn't eaten a single baby, nor did he kick any kittens or punch any nuns.

Actually he did all of those things...the corporate press just refused to report on it.

Papachongo

#11

RE: The Leaders

Dec 8th, 2005

Really? and i was almost swayed by his rugged charms. Us western voters always fall for cowboys, we have a thing for big hats.

Colpy

Conservative

#12

Re: The Leaders

Dec 8th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by DasFX

Quote: Originally Posted by Breakthrough2006
With all due respect Das, every leader reads pre-written policies from a piece of paper. (ie. Harper,Martin,Layton,Duceppe,Harris)
Fair point, but that is all Harper does. Watch him as he delivers a speech and listen. He just reads notes. If someone stole his notes, he wouldn't have a clue what to say to people. Speaking of just Conservatives, you can't tell me that Day or McKay aren't better image wise. I mean Harper is just dead to the world. I'm sure the man isn't as cold as he appears, like I'm sure he is different with his wife and kids (as least I hope he is), but for a person who wants to be "THE" public figure in our country, his personality isn't right for the job.

So, let's get this straight. You think Harper isn't the right man for the job because he is not a great public speaker.

Meanwhile Martin, leader of the Liberals, runs all over the country with transport trucks full of our money, shoveling it out at every stop. This is the party that has mobsters running the show in Quebec (according to the former Director-General of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec), that has driven Quebec back into the arms of the separatists, that has corrupted the RCMP by treating it as an arm of the Liberal Party, that has lied, stolen tens of millions of our dollars, that has no vision whatsoever, that has leaked stock information in the last two weeks, and that is about to launch another completely idiotic scheme to steal from me so voters in Toronto (the centre of the earth) will be sure to vote Liberal.

Martin is a complete meglomaniac. He is scum. You can see the panic in his eyes every time there might be a threat to his government. He has never met a promise he hasn't broken. He would say, or do, anything to stay in power. Martin is the scariest politician in Canada today.

I'm beginning to think I liked Don Jean better.

But, I'm sorry, Harper isn't good at playing the kissing-baby game. So vote for Martin instead.

What do they put in the water in Ontario?

no1important

#13

RE: The Leaders

Dec 8th, 2005

Well if people liked Harper why is he constantly stuck around 28% and Martin in last poll is at 40%? All of "H's" promises don't seem to catch on with the public. I guess they know he is a big old scarey boogyman. A real leader could of capitalized on Gomery and the Liberal corruption, but Harper can not, must be more to it than that, like people do not like or trust "H" maybe? What else could it be?

Bon Voyage Harper after this election, the neocon knives will be out when he loses. Maybe he will get a shadow cabinet position if he is lucky.

Colpy

Conservative

#14

RE: The Leaders

Dec 8th, 2005

It's like Churchill said;

Democracy is the worst possible form of government......except for all the others.

The Liberals have managed to demonize every leader of Reform or the old CA.....and have successfully carried it forward to Harper.....despite the fact he has dragged the CPC right into the middle of the road.

There is simply no reason not to trust Harper. None. It makes no sense, it is a matter of perception, and mistaken perception as well. It's a damn shame. Especially when you look at the Liberal record. It couldn't be much worse.

Canadians have become afraid of change.

Actually, I would trust Layton much more than Martin.........but he is soooo far out in left field.

I think the most honest of the bunch is Duceppe....But.....

Reverend Blair

#15

Re: The Leaders

Dec 8th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by papachongo

Us western voters always fall for cowboys, we have a thing for big hats.

Odd, I've never voted for a cowboy. Not that Harper can claim that anyway...he was born and raised in Ontario and in the picture of him wearing a hat he looks like he's headed for a gay pride parade. Of course the eyeliner and mascara don't help him out much there either.

I think that might be the real reason why he re-announced his anti-SSM stance...he seems far less than secure about his own sexuality.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

So, let's get this straight. You think Harper isn't the right man for the job because he is not a great public speaker.

Naw, Martin is an even worse public speaker. I think Harper is the wrong man for the job because he's mean and greedy and would spend so much time kneeling in front of George Bush that he wouldn't have time to run the country.

Quote:

Meanwhile Martin, leader of the Liberals, runs all over the country with transport trucks full of our money, shoveling it out at every stop.

Harper has been trying to buy votes in exactly the same way. I always find the Conservaties laughable when they make this charge, because the pot/kettle factor is so ridiculously high.

Quote:

What do they put in the water in Ontario?

Mike Harris put poison in it.

DasFX

#16

Re: RE: The Leaders

Dec 8th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

There is simply no reason not to trust Harper. None. It makes no sense, it is a matter of perception, and mistaken perception as well.

Canadians have become afraid of change.

Based on fact and record, you are absolutely right that there is no logical reason no to trust Harper. But that isn't the issue in Ontario. Ontarians are worried that he will do what he is saying that is why he is not popular.

Canadians are afraid of change when it is perceived to be for the worse. If any of them actually came up to revolutionize Canada, we'd be for it.

The only province that is really for Harper is Alberta and it isn't because of his social policies, it is because of his economic policies. This all makes sense; Alberta is booming and stands to do the best under the CPC policies. Ontarians and Quebecers are neither booming nor busting so the focus is on social issues where the Liberals and NDP/Bloc are leaders.

We have different perspective across the country and unfortunately, some (ie. Albertan) vision only extends as far as their provincial boundaries. I think if oil ever drops or becomes less significant then we will see a change in Albertan policies. We all know that the next valuable commodity in the world is going to be water, something Albertans do not have a monopoly on.

The other thing that irks me about Harper is his love affair with GWB's ass. I mean, I can just picture the sequel to Mulrony and Regan’s duet happening with Harper and Bush. I do not want to be aligned with the US. I want to trade with them, I want to have fair and prosperous bilateral treaties, but I want to be independent and sovereign.

no1important

#17

Re: The Leaders

Dec 9th, 2005

No more Canadian troops to Afghanistan, Layton says

A teaser:

NDP Leader Jack Layton called for an immediate halt to sending more Canadian troops to Afghanistan, warning that Canada must not "drift into a war blindly."

"We appear to be drifting from our original mission there – which was to provide security in the capital region – and into a combat role side-by-side with American troops," Layton said in a statement.

Layton's announcement follows NATO's approval of a plan to send up to 6,000 troops into southern Afghanistan in a major expansion of their mission. [end teaser]

I agree. Way to go Jack. Hopefully if the NDP have the balance of power after next election (or a majority, I can dream) they can make the Liberals pull our troops out. This conflict has no sight of ever ending, it is a quagmire (like Iraq)and we should cut our losses now.

missile

Conservative

#18

Re: The Leaders

Dec 9th, 2005

As there are 2000 on their way there,will some of them be returning home in body bags in the near future? Of course

no1important

#19

RE: The Leaders

Dec 14th, 2005

Harper responds to pro-American label

A teaser:

WASHINGTON — It seems that even Conservative Leader Stephen Harper isn't anxious to appear too cosy with American politicians while he's trying to win an election.

A recent commentary in the right-wing Washington Times newspaper called him the "poster boy" for President George W. Bush's ideal foreign leader.

**Sad but true**

But Harper objected to being described as "pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto and socially conservative," saying in a letter published Sunday that it "greatly oversimplifies my positions.'' [/end teaser]

Why would he object? That is exactly his stance. He will try to not appear to cosy as not to lose votes, but if he ever was to win, he would snuggle right up to bushie and the rest of the Bush Crime Family.

BTW- Paul Martin was at the high school across the street yesterday. I should of gone over and made a scene or something.

Reverend Blair

#20

RE: The Leaders

Dec 14th, 2005

Harper looked like an idiot for issuing an official denial.

He is anti-Kyoto, he is pro-Iraq, he is pro deep integration (which includes a hell of a lot more than trade, BTW), and he is socially conservative.

Harper's position on SSM is so convoluted that only a desperate lunatic with no spine could come up with it.

MMMike

#21

Re: RE: The Leaders

Dec 14th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

BTW- Paul Martin was at the high school across the street yesterday. I should of gone over and made a scene or something.

Yeah, go throw rotten tomatoes at him and ask why he is "pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, and anti-Kyoto"!

Reverend Blair

#22

Re: The Leaders

Dec 14th, 2005

Quote:

Yeah, go throw rotten tomatoes at him and ask why he is "pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, and anti-Kyoto"!

Because he lives in many of the same pocketsa as Stephen Harper.

Karlin

#23

Re: The Leaders

Dec 14th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Breakthrough2006

You seem to have some logical views on all the candidates.

However, "There is something about that guy that I don't like. He looks sinister and seems like he would be a real jackass if I met him."

is not a "legitimate" reason.

The fact of the matter is, the Conservatives could have Brad Pitt as their leader and some people would portray him as sinister and evil.

Harper isn't trustworthy. We hear him say things like
"Canadian troops won't be dispatched to fight on Iraqi soil if the Conservatives form government in January, Stephen Harper declared"
http://tinyurl.com/9lte4

But then, we see "a recent column in the right-wing Washington Times declaring that Harper is a true "social conservative," would be Bush's best ally if he became prime minister, and is "pro-Iraq war."

See? Harper would have sent troops to help the USA's illegal and imoral incursion in Iraq. Now he says he won't, but changing his mind once means he can do it again.

No doubt, Harper is a Hawk. He doesn't come out and say the Iraq War is a bad thing, but he did say this:
"I must admit great disappointment at the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction," he wrote
.... so, he KNOWS there was trickery, but doesn't add two and two and get the result of criminals in the White House, he just feels some "disappointment".

Harper on several occasions in 2003 blasted Chretien's decision to not join the U.S. and Britain in Iraq. But he maintained Tuesday, as he did in last year's campaign, that he never believed Canada had the military capacity at that time to actually join U.S. and British forces.
...and he'd support Canada joining Bush's missile shield initiative.

Just that Canada doesn't have "the capacity", but otherwise he would have sent them?
No wonder we don't trust him.

one last quote:
Prime Minister Paul Martin said there are clear distinctions between what his party and the Tories would do with a strong military, suggesting that Harper is too prone to follow the U.S. lead on defence policy, and that he [Harper] would support the Americans on ballistic missile defence."

MMMike

#24

Re: The Leaders

Dec 14th, 2005

Quote:

But then, we see "a recent column in the right-wing Washington Times declaring that Harper is a true "social conservative," would be Bush's best ally if he became prime minister, and is "pro-Iraq war."

See? Harper would have sent troops to help the USA's illegal and imoral incursion in Iraq. Now he says he won't, but changing his mind once means he can do it again.

Quote:

Prime Minister Paul Martin said there are clear distinctions between what his party and the Tories would do with a strong military, suggesting that Harper is too prone to follow the U.S. lead on defence policy, and that he [Harper] would support the Americans on ballistic missile defence."

There is a big difference between what people say while they're in opposition or not in power to what they actually do when they are in power. Take Martin for example. Previous comments of his suggest that he would have preferred Chretien go to Iraq as well. Same on BMD: Martin supported Canada's involvement. Once he got the reins of power he switched to a different tune because of public opinion.

If Harper is 'scary', or a 'hypocrit', or has a 'hidden agenda', so does Martin!

DasFX

#25

Re: The Leaders

Dec 14th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by MMMike

Once he got the reins of power he switched to a different tune because of public opinion.

What is wrong with that? He is a civil servant; that means his role is to serve the public and their wishes (so long as it doesn't violate the constitution and charter). I mean in a democracy, don't the people rule?

Similar Threads

Where Have All The Leaders Gone?
by Cannuck | Nov 17th, 2009

If the leaders come out swinging, who would win?
by Machjo | Jun 8th, 2009

No Leaders in Congress Against This War
by mrmom2 | Sep 29th, 2005

Leaders, followers, and CREATORS.
by Gordon J Torture | May 26th, 2005