Sure looks like it, given Harper’s complete flip-flop on debating Michael Ignatieff one on one.
On Wednesday Harper talked a big game, asking for a head to head debate. Ignatieff immediately responded by saying he’d debate Harper “anytime, any place.”
Less than a day later, Harper is backing out, and he looks incredibly lame in the process. For someone who likes to play the role of a tough guy, he comes across as a whining weakling for his instant reversal.
Filed under Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper
Rather than debating issues of substance and import, Stephen Harper insists on talking about the “coalition.”
This was bogus and hypocritical for three very important reasons:
1.) Harper kicked the tires on a coalition back in 2004, so he looks incredibly hypocritical in his current scaremongering about something he was quite happy to do when he was in opposition. (Note to his handlers: if there is video of him sitting with his coalition partners – which there is- perhaps it’s not such a great idea to bring up threats of coalitions.
2) There is nothing even remotely immoral or illegal about coalitions, no matter what Harper says. It is written very clearly in our parliamentary code; Harper knows that but is counting on the average Canadian to not know better.
3) Three western countries, including Harper’s beloved Israel, are currently run by coalitions (Britain and Australia being the other two.) If those countries can function with coalition governments, so can Canada.
Surprisingly, the National Post wrote an editorial yesterday entitled “Next issue please.” To no one’s surprise the PR arm of the Conservative party took it easy on Harper when it should have come down harder on Harper’s incessant and hypocritical invocation of the threats of a coalition. But at least it forced the issue of moving on to more important issues.
Here’s hoping Stephen Harper will listen to his close friends at the Post and get past his fixation on coalitions and move on to more important issues.
Filed under Canadian election, Stephen Harper
The Globe’s Jeffrey Simpson has a fascintating post today, where he points out that while conservatives have never been better organized nor better financed, they still only hover at about the 36% popularity level that Joe Clark enjoyed in 1979. His conclusion is that Canada is no more conservative now, despite all that Harper and the Conservatives have accomplished in the last five years, than it was 30 years ago. In some ways Simpson is right, but in some powerful ways he is very wrong.
Simpson:
Conservatives have learned – some might say they now relish – the black arts of shameless politics, what with attack ads, using government money to promote the government’s agenda, making announcements all over the place, and spin-doctoring every waking hour. Conservatives have a political machine that is better focused, more coherent and more ruthless than anything their adversaries possess, or perhaps than Canadian politics has ever seen.
The Conservatives have tried everything these past five years to influence public opinion in its favour, buoyed by the many conservative forces in civil society that have never been stronger. And yet, the country, taken as a whole, is not more politically Conservative than it was. And therein lies the conundrum and presumably the frustration for today’s conservatives.
Conservatives have learned – some might say they now relish – the black arts of shameless politics, what with attack ads, using government money to promote the government’s agenda, making announcements all over the place, and spin-doctoring every waking hour. Conservatives have a political machine that is better focused, more coherent and more ruthless than anything their adversaries possess, or perhaps than Canadian politics has ever seen.
The Conservatives have tried everything these past five years to influence public opinion in its favour, buoyed by the many conservative forces in civil society that have never been stronger. And yet, the country, taken as a whole, is not more politically Conservative than it was. And therein lies the conundrum and presumably the frustration for today’s conservatives.
Simpson may be correct that the country isn’t any more conservative; but the same cannot be said of Ottawa. The problem is that our government, policies and our global reputation are significantly more conservative than ever before, much moreso than when Brian “I don’t see anything wrong with taking envelopes of cash” Mulroney won his big majorities. Harper has undeniably managed to lurch the country further to the right, even though the poll numbers hover around that 36% mark.
The huge issue for Canadians is the prospect of how much further Harper would pull Canada to the right if he ever got his majority.
Filed under Canadian election, Uncategorized
This is really rich. At a time when Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are the first political party in Canadian history to be held in contempt of parliament for their secrecy, the National Post’s Lorne Gunter is really hoping the opposition parties will come clean about any coalition plans.
If there was even a shred of consistency in his writing, Gunter would have a point, but because he hasn’t demanded the same kind of honesty of the government that he is now demanding to see in the opposition, Gunter is displaying a rather astonishing level of hypocrisy.
Think about the idealogical blinders you need to be wearing when you demand the other team be honest while your own team is the most secretive in Canadian political history.
Filed under Conservative hypocrisy
Could it be that this is the real reason why Stephen Harper sent fighter jets to help enforce the coalition’s no-fly zone over Libya?
While reasonable people can debate the pros and cons of essentially waging war on Libya (as Harper called it), what’s particulary disturbing is Harper’s eagerness to be seen as a tough guy and his anxiousness of being seen as standing shoulder to shoulder with other much larger western military powers.
The author of the article thinks Harper’s tough image might do him good, and in terms of deflecting attention away from his party’s contempt of parliament charges he is likely correct, but as we lurch ever nearer to an election, is this the kind of Prime Minister we want?
Harper is on record that he wanted Canada to join the Iraq war, you know he isn’t happy that overwhelming public opinion in Canada is forcing him to pull troops out of Afghanistan when he’d rather keep troops there, and now he has found another war for Canada to fight. That eagerness to wage war might play well to his conservative base, but the majority of Canadians who remember Canada’s well-earned global reputation for peace-keeping will not be so keen on the militaristic direction that Harper has taken Canada.
The image of Canada that Harper wants versus the image of Canada that most Canadians want, should be a major political issue.
Filed under Libya, Stephen Harper
The editors at the Winnipeg Free Press wrote an editorial yesterday in which they make the disappointing assertion that the bloody civil war currently taking place in Libya is a justification for Harper and the Conservatives to spend billions of dollars purchasing new F-35 Joint Strike Force fighter jets.
According to Parliament’s budget officer the bill for the purchase and upkeep of those fighter jets could reach $30 billion. (And given that the Conservative’s have been found in contempt of Parliament for hiding the costs of things, it’s probably not prudent to take their estimate of $16 billion at face value.)
Whether the figure is $16,000,000 or $30,000,000 is a secondary issue. The point is that that money could be used on machinery that stops wars, not fights them. As the unfolding crisis in Japan has made abundantly clear, the world needs more humanitarian help, not more killing machines. Closer to home, how many schools, hospitals, roads, bridges and other infrastructure could be built with those billions of dollars? There are a multitude of ways that money could be better spent than on the military-industrial complex. With a fragile economy Canada does not need these jets and it certainly doesn’t need to spend gigantic sums of money on new jets when presumably our current fleet could still get the job done.
The piece was titled “The Price of Being Prepared” and it gave virtually no thought to what kinds of humanitarian goodwill that kind of money would buy. The editorial also does not explain why our current air force isn’t capable of enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, if the U.N. or NATO ever decides to enforce such a policy. It also gave zero thought to the probability that a no-fly zone, enforced by western powers, could be seen by Libya as an act of war.
The conclusion raises some serious questions:
The world is still full of nasty surprises, and Canada must be prepared to meet its obligations on the world stage, particularly if it wants to be heard and heeded in the corridors of international power.
Canada can be “heard and heeded” for doing humanitarian work, not just for its military force. Canada’s assistance in Haiti in a classic example that helping suffering people can be a way to exert influence “in the corridors of international power.” Perhaps the most disturbing element is the idea that might makes right; the notion that a country cannot attain status unless it uses military force. Canada can meet its global obligations without using military force. There are legitimate debates about the role Canada should or should not play when it comes to ending wars in other parts of the world, but the idea that we’ll stop bloodshed by causing more bloodshed is not the only way to gain global recognition.
Filed under F-35 fighter jets
Now that Harper and the Conservatives are facing two counts of contempt, cue the right-wing apologists who will twist themselves into all kinds of knots trying to justify the behaviour of Harper and his team.
It should be facsinating to read…
Filed under Conservatives, Stephen Harper
It goes without saying that hypocrisy isn’t restricted to one side of the political spectrum, but a recent editorial in the Ottawa Sun gives Canadians a classic example of conservative hypocrisy. The editors think it is completely okay that the Conservatives broke Elections Canada statutes on election spending, because, well, it’s the Conservativeswho did it and because Canadians don’t seem to care about it.
In other words, it’s the perfect example of “it’s okay if you’re a conservative” or IOKIYAC. One doesn’t even have to bother asking the question of whether those editors would be okay if it was Liberals or NDPers who broke the rules.
Here you get a rare glimpse into the conservative psyche, at least the psyche of the Sun editors. Their moral compass is such that they think breaking election laws are okay as long as Canadians seem unmoved by it. The actions aren’t morally right or wrong in and of themselves. They aren’t wrong unless polls suggest Canadians think it was wrong. They are ‘right’ because Canadians don’t seem to be too worked up about it.
That is a stunning admission.
Small ‘c’ conservatives often accuse liberals and progressives of being ethically wishy washy and of believing in situational ethics, but to admit the Conservatives broke the election statutes and that that is okay, is rather astonishing.
Filed under Conservative hypocrisy, Conservatives
The Toronto Star makes a strong case for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives 2006 election spending “issues” to get a lot more heat.
The Conservatives like to think there is nothing to see here, but overspending the election maximums by a million dollars is a big deal. We’re not talking just a few yard signs and bumper stickers.
The money line from the editorial:
The Conservatives only invite more scorn by persisting with their threadbare claim that they are the victims of an “administrative dispute” and differences over “interpretations” of the law. As Liberal Dominic LeBlanc slyly noted in Parliament, “Mr. Speaker, there will be a lot of people in federal prisons tonight who will think they had an ‘administrative disagreement’ with the federal government.”
Filed under Canada/US border, Uncategorized
The Conservative Party, for all it’s talk about the party that is all about the rule of law, sure has a strange way of showing it.
Take the election finance scandal. It’s very clear that they broke Election Canada rules in the 2006 election by spending more than a million dollars on campaign advertising than they were allowed to. But the Conservatives continually downplay the controversy, saying it’s nothing but a “difference of opinion” and “an accounting dispute.”
One of the best lines so far on this story comes from an editorial from the Ottawa Citizen:
Those who are responsible for making our laws should show some respect for them.
For a political party that promised greater accountability and transparency in Ottawa, Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party is proving those were nothing but hollow, meaningless words.
And if you want a great summary of the scandal and how the Conservatives broke electoral law, be sure to read this editorial from the Ottawa Sun.
Filed under Conservatives, election finances
