mousme | Why Mr. Harper, is that a giant skeleton that just fell out of your closet?

:::crash, clatter, rattle:::

I do believe it was. :D

Or, as

forthright would put it: "Oh, Stephen Harper, you clod!"

Okay, it's probably not a secret that I'm not a fan of the not-so-charismatic leader of the Conservative Party. However, I leave it up to you to read this text of a speech he gave to a right-wing US think tank back in 1997 and make up your own minds.

If you think he's full of shit, by all means propagate the link in your blogs. After all, the more people see this, the better.

Heck, if you agree with the sentiment, pass it along. After all, the more people see this, the better.

It's not as dire as the Liberal Party is making it out to be, but it's still pretty appalling, IMNSHO. And, as

fearsclave said, it does open him up to accusations of having a concealed extreme right-wing agenda, regardless of whether it's true.

The lesson is this, boys and girls: it's not a good idea to make unguarded extremist statements at any time if you're in politics. They will come back to bite you on the ass. I'm looking forward to seeing the Conservatives skate around on this one.

Ganked from

fearsclave.

:::ETA::::

"The NDP is proof that the Devil exists and interferes in the lives of men."

Best. Quote. Evar.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

How about we cut to the chase, instead of having to read through all that. What did he say that was illegal, immoral, or untrue?

Illegal: fortunately, virtually any speech short of direct incitement to violence cannot be prosecuted criminally in Canada.

Immoral: depends on your moral compass, I suppose. It's an attempt to present Canadian politics to Americans from a rather right-wing Christian perspective, so I would imagine you would agree with much of what he says economically but disagree with most of the religious and socially conservative stuff.

Untrue: Much of what he said is pretty slanted to his own perspective, but I don't doubt that he believed it. The fact that he believed it raises some alarms, but really not that much.

The thing that's most interesting about it is that because it was given when he was not an elected official, and presented to a friendly audience of deeply conservative Americans, it is strikingly candid about his party's true opinions and motivations. Now, as a leader of a major political party, he is attempting to present himself as being much more in the Canadian mainstream, which means that either a) his opinions have changed drastically from 1997 to 2005 or b) he (along with many members of his party) have an agenda very different from the one they are presenting publicly. (Good heavens, a politician lying? Heaven forfend!)

Seems to me that for a politician, there's nothing mutually exclusive between options a and b. The safest assumption would be that the case is some of each. That's politics. It's shocks me that people keep playing that game as if they expect to get different results.

Of course, you are correct that it is likely to be a bit of both. I disagree with you on the value of the 'game', as you call it, but I'm disinclined to discuss it over here in

mousme's space.

Now, wait a minute.

He's entitled to have his own opinions. Really.

And he can hold those opinions while still respecting the policies currently adopted by his party, even if (if!) he wishes those policies (and the attitudes of the general Canadian public) were different. That does not in any way mean that he's damned liar who will toss his promises aside and apply a 'secret agenda' the moment he's elected.

You can't seriously believe that somehow anyone (much less a politician) can completely ignore their own opinions. And note how many times he's not simply talking about his own opinions, but his party's policies (policies which he helped write). In any event, it's not about whether he's going to toss promises aside, but the issues he hasn't raised, or hasn't made promises about. It's that sort of agenda that we, the voters, have every right to question.

Now, if this were just an isolated talk from '97, sure, I might buy that somehow this was just an off-the-cuff set of remarks that don't reflect his party's policies. But there are too many clues and hints from '93 right up to the present that suggest that behind his purported populism there is in fact a very strong desire to align Canadian politics with the radical evangelical right-wing Republicans in America.

Bottom line: do *YOU* believe that this is just a personal statement of opinion? Because I don't see any reason to believe that.

I didn't say he would completely ignore his own opinions. I said that he would be bound by his party's stated positions *in spite of* his personal opinion should the two conflict.

And I think this is very much about whether he's going to toss promises aside. The standard Liberal tactic is to imply that the Conservatives (or Reform, or the Alliance) has a 'secret agenda' that they will impose on the country the moment they're elected, so better not take that chance -- it's just too dangerous, no matter what the Liberals have done.

But what, exactly, are you afraid he's going to do? Will the Conservatives repeal Medicare? Strip away senior citizens' pensions? Of course not. And if you really are worried that they might, ask Harper for a formal statement and judge him on his reply. This idea that he's unfit to be Prime Minister (as opposed to the criminals we have now) simply because he openly expressed certain views as a private citizen eight years ago is preposterous.

The implication seems to be that it's dangerous for Harper even to hold opinions, because... what? He might try to convince Canadians that there are problems with our system after all? That real conservative solutions might be worth looking at? That if he serves a single term as Prime Minister people might find he actually does a decent job? And then it might be politically viable for the Conservatives to run on a more conservative platform in the next election? We can't give the people real choice because, you know, they might make the wrong choice. Spend child care money on popcorn and beer, that sort of thing. [Never mind that it's actually their money to begin with.]

There are too many clues and hints from '93 right up to the present that suggest that behind his purported populism there is in fact a very strong desire to align Canadian politics with the radical evangelical right-wing Republicans in America.

Actually, in that speech he states explicitly that his organization is libertarian, not religious. The suggestion that Harper is a fundamentalist lunatic are completely unfounded, as far as I can tell. They're explicity constructed by his opponents to fit the image they want to project of him and his party, rather than on facts. Is there actual evidence for this?

Be that as it may, it doesn't matter. What matter is what he actually does.

And you know what? If he does do things that the majority of Canadians don't like, we'll be able to throw him out in the next election.

Let's take this over to my journal, if you care to, since I'm not at all comfortable with having a flame war over here in Phnee's journal. I have just made a post where I say all sorts of incendiary things.

Heh. In everyone's defense, I sort of started it. ;)

I look forward to reading your inflammatory post. :)

Heh. I quite enjoyed reading his (not really, imho) inflammatory post.

Why Mr. Harper, is that a giant skeleton that just fell out of your closet?

That's a bit to wade through this morning...

Re: That's a bit to wade through this morning...

Why do you use the word "or"?

Re: Why do you use the word "or"?

Re: That's a bit to wade through this morning...

Re: That's a bit to wade through this morning...

Re: That's a bit to wade through this morning...

Re: That's a bit to wade through this morning...

Re: That's a bit to wade through this morning...

Re: That's a bit to wade through this morning...