The Good side of Harper

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Hmm... I hope I'm not in a minority here, but I would vote for a politician with the charisma of a wet fish if he had character.


You are, Machjo, you are. At least that is my opinion.

Indeed, there are so many examples. Reagan is a prime example, he was full of charisma. Incidentally, charisma has nothing to do with sex.

When people were asked by the pollsters if they agreed with Reagan policies, answer usually was no. But to the eternal frustration of Democrats. People voted for Reagan, largely because of his charisma.

Indeed, the 1984 election was a stark example of the power of charisma. Opinion polls showed that people agreed with Mondale’s policies. They agreed that Mondale is a decent man, that he cared for the average person. But when asked who they were going to vote for, the answer was invariably Reagan.

Reagan won the election by a landslide, largely because of charisma. Indeed, Reagan’s policies did not survive him. Bush, while paying lip service to Reagan, veered sharply to the center in 1988.

So don’t underestimate the power of charisma. It can be a very powerful force in politics. So did Trudeau have charisma? You bet. Do conservatives wish they had a leader with Trudeau’s charisma? Double bet.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Hmm... I hope I'm not in a minority here, but I would vote for a politician with the charisma of a wet fish if he had character.

Many people would. That's why so many voted for Harper and Dion over Smilin' Jack. Only shallow people will take charisma over character
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Many people would. That's why so many voted for Harper and Dion over Smilin' Jack. Only shallow people will take charisma over character


The APPEARANCE of no charisma is what sunk Joe Clark. He was probably 3 times better than Trudeau and Mulroney put together- he has something totally foreign to them- HONESTY.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
11
Aether Island
Getting ready for the Fox.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
The APPEARANCE of no charisma is what sunk Joe Clark. He was probably 3 times better than Trudeau and Mulroney put together- he has something totally foreign to them- HONESTY.

Agreed, JLM. Clark was a good man, a decent man, but a lousy politician. In that respect he was similar to Paul Martin.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
The APPEARANCE of no charisma is what sunk Joe Clark.

No. The desire to increase the price of gas and the willingness to slay the deficit is what sunk Joe. He didn't do a good enough job selling it to Canadians. I've said it before and I'll say it again deficits were not and are not a right/left issue. Canadians were not willing to demand or support balanced budgets during the Trudeau, Clark, or Mulroney eras. Clark misread the voters. That is what sunk him.
-
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Agreed, JLM. Clark was a good man, a decent man, but a lousy politician. In that respect he was similar to Paul Martin.

I'm not sure that Martin was a decent guy......I find it hard to believe that Martin, the consumate party inside guy, knew nothing about the Sponsorship scandal.......

but he was certainly head and shoulders over Chretien. And maybe he didn't know anything, he did kinda have an aura of........I don't know....unawareness. And he did call the Inquiry.

Chretien, on the other hand, was a complete scumball. What a piece of work! Vindictive, manipulqative, arrogant, corrupt, violent.....I really can't think of a good think to say about him.

If you doubt me, just ask Martin.

As for Joe Clark, he was desperately in need of one thing to be a successful politician......a brain.

I will never understand how that idiot came to be so respected in PC circles.
 

mit

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2008
273
5
18
SouthWestern Ontario
Harper got his job by following the Liberal playbook - Previous Conservative leaders (since Mulroney) focused on the West and Ontario - The East is unimportant if you are looking for a majority. They left Quebec out of the picture. Martin's defeat was from one word that Harper uttered "Nation" - By saying (not necessarily believing) that Quebec is a nation he cut out most of the fear that Quebecers had regarding a Conservative government. Once elected he proceeded to spend both time and our money in Quebec. Harper's principles are a Libertarian - smaller government but he has not shown much in his policies or practices after blowing much of our tax dollars during the windfall years to get a majority. His spending spree blew what could have been a $100 Billion reserve fund - Our debt is mostly manageable with low rates of interest however what is not sustainable is the bloated civil service that has swelled under Harper. When Harper talks about job created under his tutelage he fails to mention that most of these full time jobs came at the expense of taxpayers whether directly through the Feds or through the provinces that hire with Federal money. Harper is the reddest Conservative we have seen in this country since perhaps Sir John A.
It is a game to him - after all he is an economist - Watch what he does next - If Ignatieff can be proven as a weak leader without ideas (No-Policy Policy Convention coming up for the Liberals) Harper will pull the no-confidence trick again and likely get his majority - institute a rash of cost cutting measures to save the country from himself and get turfed in to the backwoods after a major reshaping of the country similar to the Conservatives success in Ontario after the Mike Harris government.
Harper needs to start showing fiscal prudence now - Not for the purpose of winning a majority but for the sake of the country and our people's future.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Harper got his job by following the Liberal playbook - Previous Conservative leaders (since Mulroney) focused on the West and Ontario - The East is unimportant if you are looking for a majority. They left Quebec out of the picture. Martin's defeat was from one word that Harper uttered "Nation" - By saying (not necessarily believing) that Quebec is a nation he cut out most of the fear that Quebecers had regarding a Conservative government. Once elected he proceeded to spend both time and our money in Quebec. Harper's principles are a Libertarian - smaller government but he has not shown much in his policies or practices after blowing much of our tax dollars during the windfall years to get a majority. His spending spree blew what could have been a $100 Billion reserve fund - Our debt is mostly manageable with low rates of interest however what is not sustainable is the bloated civil service that has swelled under Harper. When Harper talks about job created under his tutelage he fails to mention that most of these full time jobs came at the expense of taxpayers whether directly through the Feds or through the provinces that hire with Federal money. Harper is the reddest Conservative we have seen in this country since perhaps Sir John A.
It is a game to him - after all he is an economist - Watch what he does next - If Ignatieff can be proven as a weak leader without ideas (No-Policy Policy Convention coming up for the Liberals) Harper will pull the no-confidence trick again and likely get his majority - institute a rash of cost cutting measures to save the country from himself and get turfed in to the backwoods after a major reshaping of the country similar to the Conservatives success in Ontario after the Mike Harris government.
Harper needs to start showing fiscal prudence now - Not for the purpose of winning a majority but for the sake of the country and our people's future.

I have a couple of problems with that.......I agree we need fiscal prudence, I agree Harper was spending too much, but try cutting to unessentials such as culture....and you see what happens....I agree the gov't went overboard recently....they are desperately trying to hold on to power (mistakenly, in my books) and so brought in an insane spending spree, to get the Liberals to back the budget.

Harper is much more centre of the road than I like, being an old reformer....I would have cut spending and paid down debt while we had the chance, but....

unfortunately, Harper is the best offered, as far as I can see at the moment. Jack is, of course, a complete idiot.......and although I haven't completely made up my mind about Ignatief....I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.....he seems to have taken every possible position available as long as it paid....a political prostitute if there ever was one.....

So, it looks like I vote Conservative still.
 

mit

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2008
273
5
18
SouthWestern Ontario
Most Canadians are Conservative at heart - Even Sir Joseph - We watch our money carefully - However Canadians have a socialistic heart and soul which other than fear is the strongest guides to our votes. We sacrifice ourselves both in war and the economy to help others. I am not saying that is a bad thing unless it is used against us. Mike Harris tapped in to Ontario's Conservative hearts and gutted a high tax - income spreading - socialistic government that took from the middle and spread to the poor to such a level that a person on welfare had more than a low income earner. Why work was the question of the day? Harris likely went too fast rather than too far. Right now the struggling middle class likes to beat up on Autoworkers while Ontario teachers can bring home $100,000/yr with a sweet pension fund that has likely turfed more people out of work than the combined work force of GM through it's investments. Universities and colleges still graduate more people in to negative employment fields than ones that are hiring. "How many English majors, Graphic Artists, Journalists, Archeologists, political scientists and Arts majors do we need in this country every year? The universities are guided by a highly paid administrative staff and tenured professors that keep the funding stream going by keeping these programs to maintain their head count funding. They are profitable courses as they require little investment in new technology have little hands on requirements to be taught so class sizes can be swelled to the point of an over crowded theatre and they are popular as they are filled with people who just do not know what they want to be when they grow up.
We are a nation that no longer views working with ones hands or creating a product that is not bits & bytes as a valuable effort. You would think that after the Dot Com collapse people would have been a little more shy about betting on future profits. RIM in Waterloo has a hold in your hand product that uses cyber technology - not the other way around and makes money - in Canada in Ontario and in the Southwestern portion of the province.
We need a leader that recognizes we have resources - that we can add value to them, compete in the North American market due to our trained workforce - and our proximity to the largest consumer market in the world and be able to maintain our identity - NAFTA allows this to happen - unfortunately our governments and business leaders are looking at greener pastures elsewhere not recognizing the value and potential of our homeland.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Chrétien, on the other hand, was a complete scumball. What a piece of work! Vindictive, manipulqative, arrogant, corrupt, violent.....I really can't think of a good think to say about him.

Colpy, try “he cleaned up the huge, gigantic mess left by Mulroney. He turned Canada’s economy around; it went from being a basket case to roaring ahead like a lion. For his efforts, Canadian rewarded him with three back to back majorities.”

Also try “he gave equal rights to gays, welcome then to Canadian society as full citizens, with equal rights.” Gays will forever be grateful to Chrétien and Martin.

And maybe he didn't know anything, he did kinda have an aura of........I don't know....unawareness. And he did call the Inquiry.

Exactly and that is what makes him a decent man but lousy politician. Launching the inquiry was the right, decent thing to do, but politically it was stupid. There was no upside for liberals from inquiry. Even if they had been vindicated, they would not have benefited politically. On the other hand, if they were implicated, they would pay a huge political price.

Chrétien or Harper would never have set up the inquiry. They would have simply referred it to RCMP and left it at that. Lot less political risk that way.

So yes, I think Martin was a decent, honest man, but a lousy politician.

So, it looks like I vote Conservative still.

Big surprise there.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Chrétien, on the other hand, was a complete scumball. What a piece of work! Vindictive, manipulqative, arrogant, corrupt, violent.....I really can't think of a good think to say about him.

Colpy, try “he cleaned up the huge, gigantic mess left by Mulroney. He turned Canada’s economy around; it went from being a basket case to roaring ahead like a lion. For his efforts, Canadian rewarded him with three back to back majorities.”

Yep. He was fiscally responsible. So was Lucky Luciano.

And, as I've said before, his job was made much easier by the burgeoning gov't revenues brought on by the swelling economy........his task was made easy by the GST and Free Trade. Both things the Liberals promised to dump. They lied, of course.

Now, let's go to the negatives about Chretien:

The FIRST thing he did in office was cancel a badly needed helicopter contract....which cost several hundred million dollars in penalties for nothing,. except several dead Canadian soldiers.

Then he spent the rest of his time in office changing the military requirements so that when the chopper finally was chosen, it wouldn't be the Cormorant....the best offered....as that would have been a political embarassment. So we still don't have choppers.

He took 100 million dollars from the military so he and cabinet could fly around in style in a new Dash 7......while soldiers' families were gouing to food banks, and the military could not afford rifle ammunition.

He spent most of his time in office trying to cut Paul Martin's throat.....while Martin tackled the deficit.

He oversaw the Sponsorship scandal, the theft of at least 25 million, and probably over 100 million dollars of taxpayers' money, with the help of the Montreal mob. Remember? The President of the Quebec Liberal Party was so terrified he initially refused to testify at the inquiry. Chretien was in office, and responsible, and he knew.

He used his position to get money for a convicted felon.....a friend....that owed him money.

He brought Galliano into cabinet....a man accused in New York courts by a Mafia informant of being a made member of the Mafia. How would he even have HEARD of Galliano???

He protected the above-named scumball from corruption charges by making him an ambassador.....unbelieveable!

He used the RCMP as his own personal Gestapo.......at APEC, against Mulrooney, to find the source when newspapers released documents that exposed his corruption, and most shockingly, in a personal vendetta against the President of the BDC when he refused to go along with corrupt loans.

He assaulted a protester.

He ignored the will of Parliament.

He wasted billions on an idiotic and unworkable gun registry, which includes several clauses that are obvious violations of the Charter.

As i've said before, his greatest achievement was making that other arsehole Mulrooney look like a relatively honest man.

But he did make the fiscal trains run on time.

If you liked Chretien, You'd have LOVED Mussolini.

Scum. Absolute scum.

The scary thing is I could go on.........
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
No. The desire to increase the price of gas and the willingness to slay the deficit is what sunk Joe. He didn't do a good enough job selling it to Canadians. I've said it before and I'll say it again deficits were not and are not a right/left issue. Canadians were not willing to demand or support balanced budgets during the Trudeau, Clark, or Mulroney eras. Clark misread the voters. That is what sunk him.
-

Yes, it's quite ironic isn't it? It was when he wanted to cross the threshold of two bits a litre that sunk him. As for slaying the deficit (debt) Martin took a big bite out of that and got nothing but praise for it. BTW S.J.P. made a valid point in comparing Clark to Martin. Clark was 39 when elected P.M. Martin was over 60 but that is the only basic difference.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Harper is a manipulator and power control freak.

That statement is not original and I don't know if he is or not. However I do know that those in charge (the head honcho) often gets those accusations no matter what he does. If they are justified he gets them from knowledgable, responsible people and if they are not he gets them from "the hard done by" and the cry babies, so you just can't win with a statement like that. I don't pretend to particularly like Harper, but he DOES some things right and income tax splitting is one in my opinion. Martin could possibly be doing a better job, but he's out of the picture. Ignatieff is unproven and has a few whiskers to grow yet, Layton is a comedian and should be in Hollywood. Duceppe should probably be hanged for treason.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
As for slaying the deficit (debt) Martin took a big bite out of that and got nothing but praise for it.

He can thank Klein for that. Ralph and Alberta were the first once to put their foot down and say enough is enough. There was a lot of howling and crying. People said that he would destroy the province. It's still here.

What's interesting is that a "right-wing" politician like Ralph and a "left-wing" politician like Martin slew the deficit in exactly the same way. They both increased taxes and downloaded expenses onto the lower levels of government and the supporters of each will criticize the other.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
He can thank Klein for that. Ralph and Alberta were the first once to put their foot down and say enough is enough. There was a lot of howling and crying. People said that he would destroy the province. It's still here.

What's interesting is that a "right-wing" politician like Ralph and a "left-wing" politician like Martin slew the deficit in exactly the same way. They both increased taxes and downloaded expenses onto the lower levels of government and the supporters of each will criticize the other.

Yep, I don't know who got it through their thick head that paying bills is a left wing or right wing trait. It's basic family financing- pay off what you owe before squandering more money.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Chrétien, on the other hand, was a complete scumball. What a piece of work! Vindictive, manipulqative, arrogant, corrupt, violent.....I really can't think of a good think to say about him.

Colpy, try “he cleaned up the huge, gigantic mess left by Mulroney. He turned Canada’s economy around; it went from being a basket case to roaring ahead like a lion. For his efforts, Canadian rewarded him with three back to back majorities.”

Also try “he gave equal rights to gays, welcome then to Canadian society as full citizens, with equal rights.” Gays will forever be grateful to Chrétien and Martin.

And maybe he didn't know anything, he did kinda have an aura of........I don't know....unawareness. And he did call the Inquiry.

Exactly and that is what makes him a decent man but lousy politician. Launching the inquiry was the right, decent thing to do, but politically it was stupid. There was no upside for liberals from inquiry. Even if they had been vindicated, they would not have benefited politically. On the other hand, if they were implicated, they would pay a huge political price.

Chrétien or Harper would never have set up the inquiry. They would have simply referred it to RCMP and left it at that. Lot less political risk that way.

So yes, I think Martin was a decent, honest man, but a lousy politician.

So, it looks like I vote Conservative still.

Big surprise there.

I would amend that to say an honest, decent man but only an average politician. I'd vote for him (the Liberals) if he again became the party leader.