Stephen Harper is NOT a Prime Minister, or rather he SHOULD NOT be. A minimum requisite for any Prime Minister is that they should be proud of the country they're governing. That shouldn't be too much to ask. Yet Stephen Harper has referred to Canada as a "second-tier socialistic country" and called for a "firewall" to be built around Alberta. He wants to destroy everything Canada stands for, from hollowing out medicare, to circumventing the Charter of Rights, to establishing a militaristic and Bushian foreign policy. Stephen Harper hates Canada and everything this country stands for. Is this the kind of person we want governing Canada? Should he be our Prime Minister? The answer is No.
This alone would be enough reason to vote against Harper, but there is more. Alot more. It is hard to name everything, but I will try to provide a few examples.
To begin with, Stephen Harper is an ideologue. He subscribes to the small government, free market ideology that was responsible for the Wall Street collapse south of the border. A collapse that arose through excessive deregulation at the behest of the Republican neo-CONS. Stephen Harper is not someone we want managing our economy nor someone we can trust to safeguard our social programs. Furthermore, an extreme ideologue like Harper will not want to accept reality when it contradicts his theories, no matter the consequences for Canadians.
This is dangerous.
Then there is the corruption. Cadmangate, Schreibergate, Couillardgate, the list of Conservative corruption scandals is endless (and they have only been in power for two and a half years). This is especially ironic as the Conservatives campaigned in 2006 to "clean up government." I guess Stephen Harper is a "Maverick Reformer" like Sarah Palin who was recently reprimanded in her own state for corrupt exercise of power in firing the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner.
There is also the mean-spirited nature of the Harper government, from his control freakery, to his aloofness from the Canadian people (for instance his refusal to take questions from the public on Peter Mansbridge's Your Turn segment) to his "pooping puffin" ads at the beginning of the campaign. Harper and his cronies are hardly any better than a gang of schoolyard bullies. Furthermore, this bullying attitude extends to the Conservatives' attitude towards those in poverty, and those at risk. This includes refusing to honour the Kelowna Accord which would have helped impoverished Aboriginal communities, to axing daycare, to an overall hostile attitude towards social programs and social justice in general.
Around the World, neo-CONS are on their way out. John Howard of Australia was resoundingly defeated in his bid for re-election. Bush himself is on his way out and the Democrats look poised to take control of the Whitehouse and gain increased majorities in both the House and the Senate. As well, in Britain the Conservative Party has rejected the neo-CON legacy of Margaret Thatcher.
So why do we still have that anachronism of a Prime Minister that is Stephen Harper? Today, we have a chance to put this right and defeat Harper. Please, I urge you all to get out and vote, and take our country back.
5 STARS for you on this one LeDaro! Excellent*****
ReplyDeleteThank you, Penlan, for the vote of excellence.
ReplyDeleteOh LeDaro, don't ever change.
ReplyDeleteIn order:
1) Afghanistan:
Yes, Harper supports the mission in Afghanistan. As do John McCain, Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jean Cretien, Paul Martin and Stephane Dion. Whoop-de-flippin-do.
2)Kelowna Accord:
No great loss, honestly. There is more than one way to honour Canada's commitment to our Native peoples. Harper has chosen to do so by way of drastically increasing money for Native issues which seems like a good place to start.
3) Fiscal Irresponsibility:
Right. Because putting money back in the pockets of Canadians via tax cuts is sooooo terrible.
4) Power Hungery [sic]:
It's actually spelled h-u-n-g-r-y. Dictionaries are your friend, LeDaro.
It's also a mute point. All politicians want power, otherwise they wouldn't be in politics.
5) Control Freak:
Given that every negative thing a Conservative MP says reflects on Harper as a leader and a human being in the eyes of the media, a little control freakery is understandable.
6) Rovian Tactics:
You have heard of Warren Kinsella, right?
7)George Bush poodle:
I honestly see no difference in the polciies of previous Liberal governments and Harper as far as American relations are concerned. History didn't begin in February of 2006, LeDaro.
8) Firewall Alberta
Yeah, that's right. The best judge of a PM is what he said in speeches years before taking office, not what he's actually done. By that standard, since Dion was a separtist in his early youth he can never, ever be PM.
9)Cadmangate:
Unsubstantiated rumors, says Cadman's widow. Who is running as a Tory candidate this election, by the way.
10) Income Trust gate:
Your right. Even when circumstances change, its better to let the economy go down the toilet than chance your economic policy. Brilliant.
11) Schribergate:
My gosh, I had no idea Harper was in the Malroney government.
12) Bermiergate:
Seriously?
13) Couliardgate:
SERIOUSLY?!
14) Abuse of parliamentary blah blah blah...
Gee, I wonder why the Harper government wasn't defeated for such a crime, being a minority and all. *cough*liberalabstentions*cough*
15) Axed his own election law:
You win this one.
16) Daycare:
Blame the majority of parents, who voted to have a child allowance instead.
Ben you made a few good points, but you seem to be pretty lost here.
ReplyDelete1) We more or less agree.
2) Are you crazy? Kelowna was an agreement that would see $5billion spent on native issues (how is that not a drastic increase?) anything less comes up short. Moreover, it would have given native commuities greater controle over their own destiny. INstead of just throwing money at the problem, Martin and the provincial leaders of the day actually worked with the natives on the issues that mattered.
3) Did you guys learn nothing from Mike Harris? It's important to put money aside in case of over-spending, the Tories eliminated the $3billion cushion that the Liberals put in place to protect our budget surpluses. Will we wind up with another hidden deficit whenever the Liberals eventually take over from the Conservatives federally?
4) Kind of hard to argue with.
5) That argument would make sense if Harper didn't back up his MPs every time one of them does shoot his or her mouth off.
6) The name Warren Kinsella has been wiped from my mind! lol
7) The Liberals worked with the Americans not for them. Chrétien did not send troops to Iraq, while Harper was aching for some WMD action.
8)Like it or not Harper was a retired MP when he made those remarks and it was not that long afterwards that he came home to run the "welfare state".
9)Nice try again, the rumours are substantiated by Harper's own voice caught on tape. To be fair, he doesn't mention anything about a life insurance policy, but he does talk about concerns of a financial nature.
10) To be fair, only a fool neverchanges his mind. But Harper changed his mind in the first budget since getting elected. It was pretty slimy.
11) No he was not in the Mulroney cabinet, but his office does stand accused of trying to cover up for Harper's former mentor. Harper is also the one who would have you believe that Martin was to blame for the sponsorship scandal.
12) No, I'm sure Ledaro is not serious. After all, who would care about NATO documents being left at the home of a woman with ties to the most powerful organized crime group in Canada?
13) Dude, she was dating one of Fortier's aides. Remember? Public Works? Sponsorship Scandal? Accountability? Ring any bells?
14) Rules are rules, and Harper has ignored mjore than just rules but also the law. He has refused to implement Kelowna and the Kyoto, despite having been directed to do so by Parliament.
15) Glad you think so too. See 14 above.
16)Uh, did you just say majority? Maybe when Ledaro picks up his dictionary he might let you look up the definition of the word.
Ben, you are a good editor, I will spare you a debate by saying that we agree to disagree and that I stand by my post.
ReplyDeleteThank you Fish, I was too busy to respond in detail. Your replies are well said. I hope your practice is going well too. You gave an excellent rebuttal, well said and well argued.
ReplyDelete