Gen X at 40

Canada's Favorite Blog

Comments

Comments are locked. No additional comments may be posted.

Cycles2k -

I think Belinda Stronach speaks for a number of us across the nation who express alarm at the direction that Harper has been taking. The “New Right” social conservative agenda does not resonate well with those of us with a more liberal social attitude.

Harper's lack of political savvy is not surprising. His lackluster performance as leader of the CPC has been remarkable and speaks to his inability to be an effective national leader. This will be particularly important if Quebec separation raises its ugly head.

Losing a key party member at this time is a blow to the CPC in the short term. In the long run it may cause the CPC to re-examine itself and its leadership. To that extent that it evolves into a more centrist party, it will be a good thing for them, and for Canada.

In the long term, if it causes the CPC to re-examine itself and evolve into a more centrist party, it will be a good thing for them, and for Canada.

Alan -

Exactly. For me the Tories are like the Habs. I will never root [Ed.: <i>pttouie</i>] for them but they have to be viable and what we are witnessing in the Quebec Liberal wing has an aspect relating to the ineptness of the opposition since 1993.

Ben -

The reason why I back Harper and will continue to do so is that I believe he actually has integrity.

Alan -

It is true that an inept person in one field may have skills in another and generally have integrity. My nation is too important to be left to run by an inept person. Further, Harper has never been tested on his integrity. Your use of belief is quite accurate as it is faith in an unknown. On top of that, his failure in the area of comprehending issues of governance, as he has displayed in this time, try my patience when it comes to a belief in his ability to translate what integrity he may have into acts which are of any value to the community.

David Janes -

>> I think Belinda Stronach speaks for a number of us across the nation who express alarm at the direction that Harper has been taking

I know. He was going to set the country back to 2001. The monster.

I won't be backing Harper or the CPC though; I've pretty well made up my mind about that over the last 24 hours. All kidding aside, all I want from the government is to leave me alone as much as possible. He's voting for the budget, so he's in no serious way a fiscal conservative. And every time I hear someone from the CPC, they're going on and on about morals and family and teenager's sex lives and bla bla bla. I got morals and a family and I don't need and I don't want the government's help in running my life, and I doubt there's too many other people interested in the government's advise on how they should live their lives either.

So feck 'em.

Alan -

I think Monte needs to hear from you. Shall I place the call?

David Janes -

I'm for sale; all the cool kids are, why shouldn't I be?

Alan -

It would only be of any use if we can force another Tory schism.

SayNay? -

Yikes! David has given up? Are we all turning into self-destructive Russian males? Maybe David is just confused. I know its a tough fight, but does he really want the Liberals to continue THEIR march towards total control, and micro-managing his life and his children's lives?

To quote Steyn: "Canada, unfortunately, has embarked on a much suppler, more slippery form of radical secularism: you don't ban religion, you just subject it to the ever-sterner strictures of "tolerance"; you don't forbid private enterprise, you just create a business climate where almost all successful ventures wind up dependent on state patronage and run by good friends of the ruling party; you don't turn the people into wards of the state overnight, you just use an incremental accumulation of ostensibly benign measures, from government health care to government day care, to redefine the relationship between the "citizen" and his rulers. The soft totalitarianism of the Trudeaupian state is a much harder target to take aim at than the obvious wasteland of Andropov-era Soviet Communism."

David Janes -

I have given up. In fact, I gave up several weeks ago after polling every single person I know, and strangers too. The CPC is "scary", any political party would use the RCMP to arrest their foes, the CPC will set back rights to 2001, Harper is angry.

The progressive view, which increasingly is the defacto viewpoint of Canadians, is that the purpose of government is to implement progressive policies. Corruption, democracy, judicial independence, tradition, respect are all irrelevancies. If it accomplishes the goal, it is OK.

It's easy (and somewhat foolish) to forecast diasters, but here goes: Quebec will be gone by the end of the decade. But it actually won't be that bad. Ontario will be the biggest winner from this, and most of the rest of Canada (except perhaps MB and SK) will benefit also. Quebec will be the bigger loser, but at least they'll have a masters from their own house.

Alan -

<center><font color=red>Warning Warning Warning</font><p><b>FROM THE EDITOR</b></center><blockquote>Quoting Mark Styne on Trudeau is irrelevant to question of Harper's hopelessness. Continued reference to irrelevancies will result in super small strike treatment.</blockquote>

SayNay? -

Danger, Will Robinson - yeah, I know - it's happened before to me, and it will happen again. I like the red type, Mr. Ed., though - thoughtful and attention getting. No, I just included the quote to address David's CPC "running my life" issues (v. the soft totalitarianism of the Libranos - that seems to go unnoticed). That's it - the end of the line on that one - at least from me.

Alan -

You have come such a long way. If I knew who you were you might earn a "reader of note" post like Gary had.

Alan -

Friday's <i>Globe and Mail</i>, its either lies, lies, lies or truth, truth, truth - but its certainly at Harper's expense. Leadership.