From the LPC (Liberal Party of Canada) website
For a man who wants to become Prime Minister of Canada, he sure does seem to dislike the country. 
If true, this confirms my worst fear about the guy.
Doesn’t quite have the sound-bite quality of “beer and popcorn”, though, so the media might not run with this.
Is this true?
If so, do you think anything more will come of this?
I’m as staunch in my opposition to the Tories as most anyone, and I don’t think there’s anything of particular interest in that speech. It’s clearly told largely for comedic effect, and contains many exaggerations and stereotypes aimed at that end. I don’t think that it is at all relevant to the question of whether Harper would make a good PM.
Which won’t stop the Liberal party from trying to use it to demonize the guy.
Christ, it would help if the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives didn’t make it so easy.
That’s what I thought too. I am a huge liberal supporter, although I don’t agree with every one of their policies. I try to keep an open mind to what the other parties are saying.
I realized the comedic aspect of the speech (there was even a couple of clumsy jokes in it), but Harper isn’t doing himself any favours joking about these particular topics. Considering the main fear of many voters is that he’ll turn back the clock, or has some other hidden agenda.
The famous Far Side Cartoon: “Hell of a birthmark you’ve got there, Stan!” 
I have no problem with rational conservatism. I think Harper is doing his best to be the what-his-core-constituency-wants-to-hear “Conservative” demagogue that I personally despise.
Nonetheless, enough people are fed up with the Grits that the Tories will pick up some seats, and probably claim it as some sort of endorsement of their ideology.
Damn if only he knew he was going to be in politics again back in 1997. :rolleyes:
Hahaha I was waiting for someone to bring that up.
Valid point, but I think if you want to be involved in politics at all. You just have to watch what you say and do.
I imagine if I had multiple DUI’s and a history of cocaine use. I could never hope to become, say, president of the USA. 
It’s just too bad he doesn’t care about Canada and Canadians as much as Paul Martin does:
Is there a link to the whole speech somewhere? I see nothing in the quoted portion that led me to believe it is an attempt to be funny, and in fact, the circumstances of the speech lead me to think that it is honest.
“When I was a child, my parents told me that anybody could grow up to become President. Now that I’m an adult, I’m afraid that they were right!” – Some wit
The Globe and Mail had a link to the whole speech when this thing first broke a few days ago. I’m not overly inclined to look for it, though.
Harper’s comments were stupid for someone trying to be a politician. This reminds me of the craven, boot-licking article he and (IIRC) Stockwell Day wrote in the Wall Street Journal apologizing to the United States for not being its bobo.
That said, really, it doesn’t have a lot to do with how a Conservative minority government would govern. I don’t have to like Harper personally to know that it was be, potentially, a catastrophe to leave Martin in power. I’d rather have people who’re a little too free to speak their minds running the country than leave it to a pack of thieves with the note “Help yourself to our money.”
How about Paul Martin, in the leadership debate in 2003, slamming Cretien for his anti-Americanism, and promising to repair the Canadian/American relationship? He went on and on about how critical this was for Canada. Now he’s throwing red meat to his base by gratuitous U.S.-bashing, and the relationship between the two countries is worse than it ever was.
Of course that old Paul Martin, way back two years ago, actually supported a joint ground-based missile defense program and was even waffling on whether Canada should send troops to Iraq. He also was lukewarm on Kyoto, as I recall. Now he has taken the exact opposite position on all of those issues.
The man has zero principles, other than a will to power. This is reflective of the Liberal party in general. They promised to end the GST when elected. They not only didn’t do that, but now they criticise Harper for wanting to reduce it by 2 percent. When they brought in the gun registry they promised, cross their hearts, that this wouldn’t lead to a handgun ban. But hey, what’s a promise when there’s an election on the line?
Why would anyone possibly believe that they’ll keep whatever promises they make during this election season? So Martin’s going to clean up the Liberal’s act, huh? We’ll get all kinds of new accountability legislation. Right. If the Liberals get elected again, they’ll slap a shiny new coat of paint on top of business as usual, call the problem ‘solved’, and after the next scandal breaks we’ll all be back at the polls again. Probably within a couple of years.
First off, the Council for National Policy is a small, and not terribly influential group of Christians with an interest in politics, like pretty much everyone else in America. It’s not secret; it’s mostly just a club for some of the power figures with similar religious views. The real action happens in their seperate domains. Regardless, the kinds of peope who are in it are not terrible secretive.
Sorry, I was away for the weekend.
The full speech is available through website www.liberal.ca
You might have to look back a bit in the stuff they released, but I read the full speech there.
I realize it is an incredibly biased place to find information on the CPC.
Obviously, the same could be said for Harper and his Conservative Party. The Conservatives haven’t been exactly squeaky clean when they have been in power in the past. So, why should anyone trust any politician?
It’s gone beyond whether we trust our political candidates, and has lowered to perceptions as to who will do the least amount of damage.
This is precisely why (in my opinion at least) the Liberals are still doing quite well despite all the scandals. The people who support Liberals believe they know where Martin stands on social issues. There is just too much uncertainty over what changes Harper will make with regards to social issues, which, for better or worse, are the issues on which most Canadians cast their vote.
Most Canadians look southward and see the massive influence the christian right has on politics, they see the decisions the republicans make, and are making. A lot of Canadians aren’t happy with those choices, and unfortunately a lot of them see them as decisions that a Conservative government would make, or support, here at home.
The very fact that the Liberals are still doing quite well in most polls, despite how “inept, unethical, and unfit to govern” most Conservative supporters say they are is telling.
An interesting point. there’s two problems with it:
These Conservatives have never been in power before. They bear little resemblance, and virtually NO common personnel, with the PC government of 1984-1993. Blaming these guys from promises broken from the 1988 election is like saying you like the Oilers to win the Stanley Cup this year because they were so awesome in 1990.
In this case, I think it’s extremely likely the Conservatives (or, for that matter, NDP or Green) WOULD be likelier to keep their promises. Irrespective of where one stands on the issues, it’s hard to deny that the Liberals have been in power for long enough now that another victory would be perceived as carte blanche to do whatever the hell they pleased. If the reward for stealing money and breaking promises is another government, why would they do otherwise? At least with a new government they might be fearful of backlash if they don’t keep most of their promises.
It’s gone beyond whether we trust our political candidates, and has lowered to perceptions as to who will do the least amount of damage.
This is precisely why (in my opinion at least) the Liberals are still doing quite well despite all the scandals. The people who support Liberals believe they know where Martin stands on social issues. There is just too much uncertainty over what changes Harper will make with regards to social issues, which, for better or worse, are the issues on which most Canadians cast their vote.
Most Canadians look southward and see the massive influence the christian right has on politics, they see the decisions the republicans make, and are making. A lot of Canadians aren’t happy with those choices, and unfortunately a lot of them see them as decisions that a Conservative government would make, or support, here at home.
The very fact that the Liberals are still doing quite well in most polls, despite how “inept, unethical, and unfit to govern” most Conservative supporters say they are is telling.
[/QUOTE]
Harper could be honest (which I doubt of any politician), inspiring, not be such a negativity-spewing grump, and even be likely to stick to his promises and I still wouldnt vote for him.
The problem is the vision of Canada that Harper and his conservatives promote is abhorrent to me and apparently most other Canadians. I live in CALGARY for crimony sakes and almost everyone I know thinks similarily.
Its not like it would take much to out-do the incompetent, corrupt and past their due Liberals but the conservatives dont have the talent and their agenda is just plain ugly.
I would love to see some legitimate opposition to the liberals, someone who could offer some vision other than complaining about the gun registry, scandals, gay marriage or licking Bushes boots.
And by the way, the fact that the relationship between Canada and the US is “worse than it ever was” is due to a dispicable US administration that invades sovereign nations, tortures, snubs its nose at its own principles of rule of law (quantanamo bay), violates its international agreements, derails longplanned international meetings for its own short sighted agenda, and openly flaunts its ‘with us or against us’ approach to international relations.
What is the vision of Canada that Harper and the Conseratives are promoting?
What is this agenda of which you speak?