Angry Old Man

You gotta admit: This ultra-conservative site has a point (Windows Media Player). There is a media double standard when it comes to comparing Paul Martin's tone with Stephen Harper's.

Comments

[Brian French]

Thanks Zerb for sharing this.
Unbelievable.
I think Tom Clark wants a job and a federal pension

[Dana]

I agree he has a point but then have you read any of the comments that follow. All the bluster about how O'Reilly should be on the air and the media buzzwords of the US right and so on. That's where the anger sits - among the O'Reilly/Fox loving crowd.

I think we have to come to terms with Conservative minority government - Prime Minister Harper. We're going to nudge ourselves toward neo-conservatism 9 months before the US flees from it.

I've been trying to think if there have ever been any large national public infrastructure projects of any kind *that we still rely on today* - social, cultural, transportation and so on - that have been initiated by a conservative government in Canada. I can't think of any.

[Scott]

There is no question about that. Though, it still doesn't take away the fact that we[tories] have an image problem to resove with Canadians.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Dana,

It becomes rather obvious that Harper, and the CPC, have NOT read John Ralston Saul's excellent book 'The Collapse of Globalism and The Reinvention of The World'. I can readily, having lived through it all, verify he is right on the money!

It is also obvious that the Bush people refuse to grasp the facts contained therein.

If Canada moves nearer the US economic theories of globalism run by technocrats attempting to micro manage civilization, then we will be in for a very hard time.

All the social and political rhetoric can really be reduced to one reality. Either we are going to be led further down the failed path of transnational corporations running our lives and country, or NOT! Dare we forget Mulrooney and Harris?

Martin should know better. Harper has a mental block that simply will not be overcome. The NDP has risen. The Green Party, at this point in time, is the only one with a definite long term plan published.

Unfortunately, too many are going to vote from fear to prevent extremists from taking the helm of State for a few years.

I, personally, believe it is time to start building a new party power base from which we can recover from the results of this fiasco in progress.

Remember that the next go around will be determined on the percentage of votes cast for parties this election.

First Past the Post is almost extinct, so there may be a short term pain for a long term gain. I certainly hope so.

Again, this is not about anything more than economic ideology, it is not about democracy or society's needs. It may be the final death throw of the globalistic theorists.

Stand Up for Canada is a great concept. Stand up for our sovereignty and democracy, and stop letting a bunch of failed economic theory be the guiding script.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Scott,

Now you would be a person I would be interested in hearing in the debates! Yes, the Tories have an image problem...its called Stephen Harper. Beyond that there would be some quite good ideas from their camp.

Preston Manning did a fair job. He even, inadvertently, added humour when he spoke. Stockwell Day sounded like a transplanted American neo-con with strings leading back to the RNC.

The Tories, are not all bad, but darn if I, or I think most Canadians, can fathom why they have Harper as their leader? There is not just an image problem, there is a supportable fear of Harper and his agenda.

Look at the man's eyes. What do you see? I see deception, inhumanity, a sense of dangerous egomania. He is sincerely disconnected from the people and our society as a person. Such people make great dictators, but not democratic leaders!

[KRB - Ottawa]

Notwithstanding Stephen Harper's recent channeling of Joe Clark, Stephen Harper is an angry neo-con.

Like all neo-cons he truly believes his way is the right way. It is a matter of faith and like all people who have strong faith in something they get angry when it is challenged.

That part of his character has surfaced on many occasions since he has hit the national scene, both when he was in and out of politics.

As a result it is completely understandable that the media would focus on that when it happens. The reason is simple. We have seen it many times before and nobody really knows how that anger will manifest itself if he gains control of the levers of power.

Considering he wants to sue the Liberal Party for the missing $40 million from the sponsorship programme, thus crippling his only real obstacle to hanging on to power if he achieves it, being wary of his anger is prudent.

[Ken]

Bill commented..

"Look at the man's eyes. What do you see? I see deception, inhumanity, a sense of dangerous egomania. He is sincerely disconnected from the people and our society as a person"

Hmmm... now let's hear Warren Kinsellas' take on Harper's character (from the National Post Monday, June 20, 2005):

"I am a Liberal, and liberal, but I like Stephen Harper.

The main reason for liking him is personal. When my Dad died, a year ago last week, Mr. Harper called me and my Mom to express condolences. He talked about meeting my Dad once, and he talked at length about his own father, who had passed away not long before.

There was no reason for the Conservative leader to call me in the middle of a hotly contested election campaign. As one of those so-called political strategists, I had in fact written and said plenty that was critical of Mr. Harper and his party over the years. But he called anyway, and that call was something my family and I will never forget.

(From my own party's putative leader, Paul Martin? Nothing. Even though my father had done volunteer and fundraising work for the Liberal Party of Canada for many years -- and even though he'd indicated his support for the Liberal party in his obituary notice. That, too, is something I will never forget.)

"So what?" you might say. How is this in any way relevant to the fitness of one man, or the other, to be prime minister of Canada?

Well, because it matters. Because it provided a revealing glimpse into Stephen Harper's character. Because it suggested to my family and me -- die-hard Alberta Liberals, which is about as die-hard as a Liberal can get -- that Stephen Harper was, at the end of the day, a nice person. "

I guess by looking in someones eyes you can't see straight through to their heart...eh Bill?

[Gabby in QC]

Bill-Muskoka wrote:

"Look at the man's eyes. What do you see? I see deception, inhumanity, a sense of dangerous egomania. He is sincerely disconnected from the people and our society as a person. Such people make great dictators, but not democratic leaders!"

To get a different picture of Stephen Harper, I urge bilingual readers of this blog to read an article in today's Le Devoir (a Montreal newspaper, hardly a Conservative rag). The full text is available at:

http://www.ledevoir.com/2006/01/07/99183.html

Perhaps what Bill sees is simply a reflection of himself. Scary!

[Chris Chapman]

Say what? I can hardly believe what I'm reading in these comments. We have had for 13 years a virtual one-party dictatorship and HARPER is the demonic one?

It's times like these I lament being Canadian. When freedoms are eschewed so readily, when the state is seen as the answer for every problem, when the individual is diminished for the collective, that's when a country has truly lost its way.

Sure, label it "neo-conservative" or "ultra-conservative" -- it's all convenient labeling that serves as a lingua franca for those who have a narrow world-view.

We should read John Ralston Saul? Gee, how about Friedman, Hayek, Locke, Smith, etc.?

[Ian]

"Look at the man's eyes. What do you see? I see deception, inhumanity, a sense of dangerous egomania" Wow, I will never understand this idiotic fixation people have with Harper's eyes, yes they are blue. Get over it and stop being so dam superficial.

[Bill-Muskoka]

'The eyes are the windows into the soul'

That has been proven over the course of a lifetime. Ignore the simple and embrace the consequences.

Perhaps, people have forgotten what a genuine smile consists of? It includes the entire face, and the eyes tell the level of sincerity.

I am glad the comment stirred so many to participate. It shows others' values, i.e., length of time governing determines the quality of results of that governance.

Canada, being the ONLY G-8 nation with a balanced budget is not a small fact. It is the result of sound fiscal management in a world of ever increasing globalistic failures.

We can return to the debt ridden fiasco of the Mulrooney years, or continue forward. Here in Ontario we are still working on overcoming the Harris 'Common Sense Revolution!' That is where the government allows the people to incur a massive public debt on the 'hope' that the government can sell off a public utility to pay the debt, and without getting caught! Its that grand principle (albeit failed over and over) called 'privitization'! That's where OUR public structure is sold off to some 'arm's length' (relatively short arms actually) 'investors'. A basic principle of the 'conservative mantra.'

Personally, I hope for a minority government simply because neither is fit to hold a majority at this time. Perhaps, someday, the system will be one in which all parties work together for the common good of ALL Canadians? Its called consensus government.

Choosing the leader of a party reflects the values of that party. The choices have been made. The election has been called. We will speak and all the rhetoric and polls will only reflect the depth to which we have endeavoured to think openly about our country.

That country, still, includes 10 provinces and 3 territories, and all the people. It is a great nation, growing and learning. Civilization is a progressive thing. We must choose carefully those given the power, or face our own choice.

I see the CPC blaming Paul Martin by association. He was not the PM that betrayed our trust. He IS the PM that cut the sorry mess from his own party, instituted a free and open investigation, and that took character. I wonder what Harper would do in a similar circumstance?

Perhaps, we need to look more closely at the person, rather than the party. Is Martin a good spokesperson? No, not really. When he has it together he speaks very well, and from the heart.

I have yet to hear that from Harper. Layton smiles too much.

I am glad Harper made a phone call. The question comes to mind as to 'How he knew, and who did he call?' Perhaps the rest of that story should be told? Was it a call made to an influenetial Alberta Liberal? The party involved will have to ask that question in the quietness of their own soul.

Now, what would everyone think of the candidates having, instead of a debate estolling their 'promises' a public confession of their failures? Imagine, such a test would reveal who has true content of character and who lives in denial. Seems that works here, why not there?

And today is another day!

[Dana]

Sure, his hair is red, his eyes are blue, and he's Irish through and through, has anybody here seen Harper, Harper of the Calgary School.

"...back in Alberta, Ted Byfield, the unabashed voice of the West since the Calgary School's professors were pups, sees it another way – in terms Leo Strauss might have approved. "All these positions which Harper cherishes are there because of a group of people in Calgary – Flanagan most prominent among them," Byfield says. "I don't think he knows how to compromise. It's not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we're moving to the left when we're not?"

To those who are unnerved by that prospect, Byfield offers no cheer. "Those people who said they're dangerous – they're right!" he says. "People with ideas are dangerous. If Harper gets elected, he'll make a helluva change in this country." (from http://www.walrusmagazine.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/09/2119243)

For a continuation of the theme also see http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/200410041306150 complete with a partial rebuttal in the lower part of the comments by one of the people mentioned in the piece.

It isn't Harper's eyes that bother me - it's how he sees with them.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Chris Chapman,

I see. Have you read Saul's work?

Let me quote from reviews of Locke:

"Locke recognized the real danger of leaving absolute power to any one individual, or group of individuals. Locke thought that government's power was best limited by dividing government up into branches, with each branch having only as much power as is needed for its proper function."

Precisely the point of a meglamaniac obtaining power. Especially one who is so disconnected from the people.

Regarding Hayek's postulates:

Economic freedom, Adam Smith's main concern and also Hayek's. Hayek wants a) freedom for enterprise, b)freedom from state control.

"According to Hayek, all other freedoms depend on economic freedom. If a society concentrates economic power in the state it will soon loose political and intellectual freedom."

The concept that regulation is a detriment to free trade or economic freedom has been well proven to be false. To hand the reins to unregulated internationalists, i.e. 'Absente Landlords', and multinational corporations, neither having accountability to the local populance, has been repeatedly shown to be the path to the destruction of democracy and freedom.

To grant our sovereignty to such ilk requires us to set aside our common good and strengths in the name of supporting a theory that only supports those having an elitist mindset.

In two words: No Thanks!

Saul points out the cycle that has led us back to nationalistic regulation of those areas needing regulation. Those areas are comprised of the issues related to the common good of all citizens.