"martin Says Harper Has 'no Business' Becoming Pm"

[Matt]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/na...rtin051217.html

 

Martin says Harper has 'no business' becoming PM

Last Updated Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:13:43 EST

CBC News

 

Liberal Leader Paul Martin returned to the campaign trail on Saturday claiming victory in Friday night's debate over Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

 

At a rally with Liberal candidates from the Lower Mainland, Martin portrayed Harper as lacking what it takes to be prime minister. "Stephen Harper last night said this was a phoney war of words, well let me tell you something, I don't think there's anything phoney about defending jobs in Canada."

 

Martin made no mention of NDP Leader Jack Layton. He devoted his entire speech to contrasting the Liberals with the Conservatives - on national unity, child care, handguns and the importance of protecting minority rights.

 

"In my view if you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no business trying to become the prime minister of Canada," said Martin.

 

Liberal strategists insist that highlighting these distinctions will win over undecided voters. They also believe Martin's performance in the debates, along with the passion he shows for the country and being prime minister, matter to voters.

 

At a news conference Martin said his Conservative rival is simply not up to the job. "Mr. Harper's problem is that on the one hand he does not appear to be prepared to defend Canada's interests, and on the other he's playing catch up on how one does support communities and Canadians."

 

I was at the rally this morning and this is pretty accurate, he did mention Gilles Duceppe as well, which the article does not mention.

[Monochrome Rainbow]

What'd he have to say about Duceppe?

[RicardoObviouso]

did he say anything about me fucking belinda?

[Matt]

Mainly he re-itterated the differences between him and Duceppe on Quebec separating.

[Monochrome Rainbow]

Yeah, basically what I figured. Whatever. Quebec won't leave.

[ecnarf]

The federal Bloc Quebecois isn't as seperatist as the provincial one. IMO, the Parti Quebecois is considerably more dangerous than the Bloc. The Bloc is actually quite socially liberal, and seeing as they aren't the liberals, tend to represent Quebec's interests better. Either way.

 

I think I agree with Martin on this one, though. Extremely harsh words, but he did back them up. This really does border on mudslinging, though, and I'll bet I'll read Lorrie Goldstein complaining about this in the Sun tomorrow.

[Moonlight_Graham]

"Moonlight says Liberals have 'no business' running this country any longer"

 

Seriously, i can understand why some people vote Liberal since all these parties are shitty in some way, but i don't understand why anyone would actually "rally" for the Liberals.

[Matt]

For the most part, a lot of the audience at the rally was volunteers on various campaigns for the various Liberal candidates at the rally. Also, the Liberals are still the best option for many Canadians.

[garsk]

Harper has no business becoming PM, but Martin doesnt either, he spent most of his final years of Finance Minster back stabbing Jean Chretien, so when he had the chance to become PM, he would already have half the liberal party on his side.

[ecnarf]

You're absolutely right, though.

 

Harper, unlike Martin, has had over a decade's experience in the top cabinet position and delivered solid, consistent performance for the entirety of his tenure.

[Matt]

What's the top cabinet position Harper has had? Or did you make a mistake and wrote the names in the wrong place?

[Monochrome Rainbow]

I think he was just being sarcastic, Matt.

 

Edit: And I too believe Martin is more qualiied than Harper to be Prime Minister, and whatever relationship he had with Chretien really doesn't reflect his qualifications for becoming Prime Minister.

 

He very well could be a backstabber, but I beleive that there are multiple sides to the story (as with everything) and the only people that are actually 100%-completely-and-utterly-certain of how things have gone down in terms of the relationship between Martin and Chretien are Martin and Chretien.

 

You can argue that it is an indication of Martin's character or whatever but to me, the bottom line is that I'm not basing my vote on word of mouth from some outside source (in any case, unless it is extremely credible; ie Justice Gomery) on an issue that to me is irrelevant to his ability to represent the needs of Canadians.

 

I treat the Conservative party and Stephen Harper the same way, I just happen to dislike 90% of what comes out if his mouth, so he's guaranteed the loss of my vote.

 

Either way I'm probably voting NDP anyway (local MP is a mighty fine candidate, plus I am not opposed to more NDP representation in the House of Commons), I just don't understand the majority of the Liberal hate.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Monochrome Rainbow

[Moonlight_Graham]

Also, the Liberals are still the best option for many Canadians.

Which is a really, really sad truth.

 

Wake me up when the nightmare is over.

[Matt]

Yes, a scandal was done under a different Liberal administration, but even with that, the Liberals have still done a lot of good for Canada.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Liberals have done more bad than good for this country the last 12 years they've been in power.

 

Our immigration policies are a joke, our justice system has been torn down and weakened, we've seen our military decay into a dis-functioning embarrassment in favor of handouts & more social, our healthcare system is a piece of shit compared to what it was even 10 years ago. Oh yeah and its been full of a bunch of wasteful morons & crooks who steal from us, and is still full with people who have become complacent & arrogant from 12 years in power with no accountability.

 

The Liberals have turned this fine country into a place which rewards laziness & discourages self-reliency, ambition, & personal responsibility. Try starting/running a small-business or raising a child at home while your spouse works and you'll see whom the gov't caters towards.

 

This gov't caters to whomever is most likely to vote for them, and thats basically all they stand for. If 65% of Ontarians wanted to clip the left ear off of newborn babies then that would become part of its election platform.

 

Congratulations, i hope you enjoy being fucked up the ass by the party you support for another 4 or 40 years. Because thats what the Liberals do.

 

Actually, they either do 2 things: either give you a great big blow job to get them to vote for them, or they fuck you up the ass and then shit all over you if you can't help them win elections. But that not really accurate because even when you vote for them they still turn around and shit all over you (see: Dalton McGuinty, Jean Chretien).

Edited December 30, 2005 by Moonlight_Graham

[LexyGirl]

Canadians vote in the lesser of two evils. We always have. Lame, but truth. And In my opinion, Although the government has robbed us blind.... I don't see a choice, because I'm afraid of Harper's platform. And above all, I refuse to vote for someone who is going to impose morals that I don't uphold. But the fear lies in voting anyone else but liberal, because I don't want to take the chance of Harper getting in, even if my conscience is clean about it. It's not a risk I want to take.

No options. Same as everty other election.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Well for a lot of people the Liberals are the least crappy option, because a lot of people feel like you do.

 

I don't like Harper's stance on gay marriage. I also don't like the idea of supporting U.S. missle defense. But maybe 90% of everything else the Conservatives stand for i believe in and agree with. I like the Conservative platform for the most part compared to the other parties, i just don't like Harper's view. I don't want to say i don't like Harper himself because he seems like a very intelligent, reasonable man who hold up well in the House of Commons but whom i just disagree with on some key issues. And as politicians go, i don't feel he's lying to my face all the time unlike others.

 

Harper also wanted to join the coalition and go into Iraq back in 2003. I agreed with that as well, assuming Iraq actually had WMD's and a strong will to acquire/build nuclear weapons which is what we were all told by the U.S. gov't. But its now clear that was all false, and Harper has since reversed his stance because of it and disagrees with the Iraq war. I'm hoping if Harper was Prime Minister at the time and committed our troops to Iraq that he would have quickly pulled them out once it was clear there were no WMD's etc. At the very least he would have had so much pressure put on him to do so that it would have been inevitable.

 

I guess i differ in that i'd rather have gay marriage banned (as it doesn't affect me personally in any way) and risk supporting U.S. missle defense, yet have Canada completely cleaned up because its a total mess right now. Its mostly a lot of smaller things things, like legal age of sexual consent being raised from 14 to 16, immigration policies, tax credits for stay at home parents, fixed-date elections & i could name another 100.

[Ravenous Yam]

A friend of my father's has met with and spoken to Harper many times, and this was his conclusion:

 

Stephen Harper is a very intelligent man, but he is a terrible politician because he says what he means - he doesn't say what's popular or what will make people like him the most, he says what he actually believes in.

 

Of course, that by default means that some people are not going to agree with him.

 

And i think that if Harper were to be elected, gay marraige would definitely not be banned. For starters, all he ever said was that he was going to have a free vote (he felt the Liberals forced their members to vote with the party in the first vote). He said that if the vote resulted in gay marraige remaining legal, he would drop the issue forever.

Secondly, i honestly don't think Canada would allow him to ban gay marraige even if he really tried.

 

Just because he has some ideologies you disagree with doesnt mean hes a bad man or a bad leader, it just means he isnt you. Of course, that goes for anyone.

 

 

Also, a few of my eastern friends have told me that the Conservatives are just slandered all over the east for no real reason. Apparently some people think that the Conservatives are essentially Neo-Nazis, or bad for Canada, or whatever. Honestly, i think the whole Canadian political system is more of an East/West/Quebec thing than any sort of left/right liberal/conservative division.

 

Except more the outspoken views of Harper (who is probably the worst person to lead the Cons right now - this election shouldnt even be possible to lose due to the Liberals consistent fucking over of Canada), the Canadian Conservative party is still very leftist on the world spectrum, especially compared to the USA.

 

I heard a neat little thing the other day that sums up the entire Canadian politics in 4 neat little lines. Perspective may cause some people to disagree anyway.

 

The Maritimes want more

Quebec wants out

The West wants in

And Ontario wants it all

[Matt]

Actually, the Liberals are up in the polls in B.C. compared to the previous election and the Conservatives are in third, so it's not all the West that has it "so bad". Beyond that the Liberals have developed our economy a lot better which helps people be more self-reliant. However, the NDP forced the Liberals to cut out tax credits to small businesses when the NDP forced the Liberals to cut out all the tax cuts for business, most of which were not going to big business but actually small businesses. The Conservatives will do what they want not what Canadians want, that's why their views are not very popular.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Yam, i agree with everything in you said. excellent post.

 

Its true, Harper & the Cons say what they believe. They stand for something, even though its not what most people want to hear. And yes, thats why the may lose the election and why the Cons/Alliance have lost the election the past few times.

 

The Liberals on the other hand will tell you exactly what you want to hear. If you ask them, they will agree with everything you say even though it condridicts itself. They will promise lots of great things, but they have an awful record of turning on those promises. Yet people never learn.

 

But for everything bad i can say about the Liberals, they are very smart. They know how to win elections. It may be dirty, ruthless, and immoral, but the Liberals are an election-winning machine. They know people have short memories, and they know exactly what people want to hear. Maybe Bush should borrow a few of the Liberal spin-doctors.

[Monochrome Rainbow]

Actually, the Liberals are up in the polls in B.C. compared to the previous election and the Conservatives are in third, so it's not all the West that has it "so bad".

Where are you getting your information from here? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything because we all know the validity of any poll, but everything I read or watch is saying that the Conservatives are dominating BC like crazy.

[Matt]

The Vancouver Sun is where I've been getting my information from. The Liberals have been up in B.C. in the polls shown in the paper. Also the Liberals get around to fulfilling their promises when they have the money too. Also the Conservatives have Germant Grewal who secretly taped some conversations, he then sent in an obviously edited form, plus he had people carry them through the airport for him too which is also not a good idea. The Conservatives also supported the war in Iraq and had they been in power they could not have just withdrawn the troops just like that because of how foreign relations work, it would seriously damage them if we did do that.

[Moonlight_Graham]

The Conservatives also supported the war in Iraq and had they been in power they could not have just withdrawn the troops just like that because of how foreign relations work, it would seriously damage them if we did do that.

Uhm, didn't Spain withdraw their troops once they realized there were no WMD's? I very much doubt Canadian troops would still be in Iraq if we sent them there from day 1. Canadians and the oppositions wouldn't have put up with it, IMO.

 

Doesn't really matter, we don't even have ships to bring our own troops to Iraq anyways.

[rebellious_L]

I must agree, the liberals have done nothing for Canada. Everything they do is half-ass and thats actually the reason people vote for them.

 

Not really a contribution to this thread, i just wanted to reach fanatic status

Edited January 5, 2006 by rebellious_L

[Matt]

Progress takes time if it's rushed it would be done even worse. And we couldn't just pull our troops out, because we want and need to maintain our foreign relations around the world. Beyond that Harper should not have even supported the war in the first place without and real proof, and he even went on American TV saying we should have. He made an unpopular move, and that's why he changed his position on the matter.