History will not be kind to G. W. Bush - Jonathan Bernstein

Must be 18 to enter! Talk about anything but Football

Moderator: Team Captains

User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle ... print.html

David Corn was sent the tape of Mitt Romney speaking about "the 47%" in the U.S. election.

He was also sent the tape of Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his colleagues speaking about Ashley Judd.

From the Washington Post ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle ... print.html
David Corn and Mother Jones find themselves with another audio scoop

By Paul Farhi, Wednesday, April 10, 4:24 PM

David Corn says one good scoop may have led to another. And might even lead to still others, too.

The Mother Jones magazine reporter and MSNBC pundit was busy Wednesday handling the fallout from, and some fawning over, his latest revelation about a prominent Republican. Corn unearthed the audiotape of a private meeting in which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and his aides mocked a would-be political rival, the actress Ashley Judd, and plotted tactics to undermine her. An unidentified source leaked the surreptitious recording of the February meeting to Corn.

And just like that, Corn and Mother Jones had their second major bombshell in seven months. The first, of course, was one of the most consequential scoops of the presidential campaign — a leaked video recording of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney saying at a small fundraiser last May that “47 percent” of voters were “dependent” on the government. (Corn will receive the prestigious Polk Award for Political Reporting for the Romney story on Thursday.)

Corn, 54, says the two career-making stories might have been linked. He guesses that his source on the McConnell recording — whom he won’t reveal — came to him because of the way he handled the Romney recording and the firestorm it ignited. But that’s just speculation: “I literally don’t know why” the source came to him, he says. “I didn’t ask.”

Corn and Mother Jones, a liberal-leaning nonprofit magazine based in San Francisco, never revealed who gave them the Romney video or how it was shot. The leaker, a bartender at the Romney fundraiser named Scott Prouty, outed himself in an MSNBC interview last month. Prouty, in turn, said he felt comfortable with Corn because of his earlier work for Mother Jones, especially his articles about outsourcing.

Indeed, in the wake of the Romney revelation, Corn has received a mini-flood of would-be audio and video leaks about Washington figures. Some of these have looked promising, but none have become public — yet. Corn said he hasn’t been able to vet them to his satisfaction or work out terms for making them public. He has “passed” on several of the offers for a variety of reasons.

Not so of the McConnell recording, which Corn said he received two weeks ago. He spent several days authenticating it, ensuring that it wasn’t faked, doctored or taken out of context. He tried to get a response from McConnell’s camp a day before publication but received nothing. Despite this, Corn said, he felt certain that he had the real deal the night before MoJo posted his story and the recording online. “There’s no such thing as being 100 percent about [digital media] these days,” he said, “but I slept very easily the night before.”

Despite ample criticism, including from McConnell, that the audio recording is an invasion of privacy, Corn argues that its newsworthiness trumps those concerns. “I think voters and citizens have a tremendous right to know almost as much as possible of the elected officials who come before them and ask for their votes,” he said. “I think people can decide for themselves how outrageous [McConnell’s] behavior is, but it gives you a glimpse inside his campaign’s thinking.”

Corn, a lifelong journalist, grew up in the age of Watergate, and he has long been attracted to both the advocacy and investigative side of the profession. As an editor of his high school’s paper, he led a rambunctious crew of wannabe Woodwards and Bernsteins who were “constantly in some kind of dispute over disclosures about the school’s hiring practices [and] personnel matters,” recalls David Sanger, a veteran New York Times reporter who was a year behind Corn at White Plains (N.Y.) High.

“I never remember David obtaining a tape of something the principal said at a faculty meeting,” Sanger says, “but other than that, the David of [then] was exactly what he’s like now: passionate, innovative and always at the edge. The only thing he was missing then was the shock of white hair.”

While attending Brown University in Providence, R.I., Corn worked for an alternative paper in the city and took on Providence’s famously corrupt mayor, Buddy Cianci, a Republican-turned-independent. Corn says he considered it a compliment when Cianci, irritated by his stories, offered him a job in an effort to shut him up.

Corn is “a born contrarian,” says Philip Shenon, a college classmate who went on to become an author and longtime New York Times journalist. “All those years ago, I had a sense you could send him to a story, and he would bring back something no one else noticed. Some instance of injustice or hypocrisy, large or small. . . . He was meant to make trouble — and it really is a pleasure to watch him do it.”

Corn spent much of his career at the Nation, another liberal magazine, working both as an investigative reporter and an essayist-commentator. He’s never hidden his political sympathies; they are perhaps best spelled out in the title of his 2003 book: “The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception.”

“What’s wonderful about this story and ‘47 percent’ story is that no one needs to listen to me or any commentator to know what it means,” he said Wednesday. “It’s all there. It’s journalism verite. You can listen to it and come to your own conclusion. I would encourage people to come forward with more tapes.”

More from The Washington Post: Obama tries to woo GOP with $1 trillion in cuts MTV cancels ‘Buckwild’ after Shain Gandee’s death Thatcher’s life and death divide Britain
No comment nor debate from me. But this was an interesting read. Beware of what you say nowadays. One never knows what the hired help might be up to. :wink:
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

David Corn, Mitch McConnell, Ashley Judd ...
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Didn't you love the way McConnell tried to deflect this by accusing the Democrats of illegally bugging Republican meetings! That's the patented method for dealing with embarrassing exposures: deflect the story away from the central issue by accusing the other guys of illegal or despicable practices in getting the information.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 67172.html
FBI investigate secret recording of US Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell planning mental health smear of opponent and actress Ashley Judd

McConnell's campaign team claim the recording is the result of bugging from the political left

Steve Anderson

Wednesday 10 April 2013

The FBI is investigating whether a secret recording of a senior US senator and his campaign discussing how to take down potential political opponent and actress Ashley Judd was obtained illegally.

The recording, which exposes the cut-throat nature of US political campaigns, hears Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell discussing ways to exploit Ms Judd's previous problems with depression at a meeting in February at his Louisville campaign headquarters. Ms Judd later decided not to run for Mr McConnell's Kentucky seat.

Mr McConnell and his team claim that the recording, released this week by Mother Jones magazine, was the result of illegal bugging by his opponents and the FBI is now looking into how it was obtained.

In the tape, one of Mr McConnell's aides can be heard saying: "She's clearly — this sounds extreme — but she is emotionally unbalanced.

"I mean it's been documented ... she's suffered some suicidal tendencies. She was hospitalized for 42 days when she had a mental breakdown in the '90s."

Mr McConnell had earlier said in the meeting that the campaign had now entered "the Whac-A-Mole period... when anybody sticks their head up, do them out," in reference to the arcade game, in which players use a mallet to strike plastic moles that pop out of holes.

The team also attacked Ms Judd's beliefs, playing a recording about her evolving faith, which apparently now includes native faith practises.

Following loud laughter from the aides an unidentified man says "the people at Southeast Christian would take to the streets with pitchforks," referring to an evangelical megachurch in Louisville.

Ms Judd has been open about her battle with depression in the past and last month spoke to the American Counseling Association's national convention in Cincinnati, telling more than 3,000 counsellors from across America about her experiences.

Ms Judd's spokeswoman, Cara Tripicchio, criticized the McConnell campaign for considering making it a campaign issue.

"This is yet another example of the politics of personal destruction that embody Mitch McConnell and are pervasive in Washington, DC," Tripicchio said in a statement. "We expected nothing less from Mitch McConnell and his camp than to take a personal struggle such as depression, which many Americans cope with on a daily basis, and turn it into a laughing matter."

Mr McConnell was asked several times at a news conference yesterday about the about the propriety of attacking Ms Judd over depression. He did not directly answer, but repeatedly brought up an incident last month, when left-wing group Progress Kentucky tweeted an insensitive remark about his wife, before directly claiming the responsibility for the alleged bugging lay with them.

"As you know, my wife's ethnicity was attacked by a left-wing group in Kentucky and apparently they also bugged my headquarters," he said. "So I think that pretty well sums up the way the political left is operating in Kentucky."

Mother Jones magazine claim the recording was supplied to them by an anonymous source and that it was their understanding that bugging was not involved.

The magazine's Washington bureau chief David Corn said in a statement: "We are still waiting for Senator Mitch McConnell to comment on the substance of the article," the statement said. "Before posting, we contacted his Senate office and his campaign office — in particular, his campaign manager, Jesse Benton — and no one responded. As the story makes clear, we were recently provided with the tape by a source who wishes to remain anonymous. We published the article on the tape due to its obvious newsworthiness.

Corn continued, "We were not involved in the making of the tape, but it is our understanding that the tape was not the product of any kind of bugging operation. We cannot comment beyond that, except to say that under the circumstances, our publication of the article is both legal and protected by the First Amendment [freedom of speech and the press]."
User avatar
cromartie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:31 pm
Location: Cleveland, usually

South Pender wrote:Didn't you love the way McConnell tried to deflect this by accusing the Democrats of illegally bugging Republican meetings! That's the patented method for dealing with embarrassing exposures: deflect the story away from the central issue by accusing the other guys of illegal or despicable practices in getting the information.
When you can't fight the substance, accuse the messenger. It probably goes back further, but this is straight out of the Nixon playbook.

What's worse is that Judd had no chance anyway, not in Kentucky, at least.
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Jeez, let's hope this FBI investigation doesn't come up positive for bugging. When I wrote my first post, I thought it was all bluff from McConnell. Now that the FBI's involved, it provides nice cover for McConnell, enabling him to avoid the negative fallout from the despicable character assassination he was planning.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... mcconnell/
Newtown families ask for meeting with Mitch McConnell

Posted by Greg Sargent on April 16, 2013 at 4:03 pm

A representative for families of the Newtown shooting victims has asked Senator Mitch McConnell to hold a meeting with them, according to sources familiar with the request. McConnell’s office initially declined the request on the basis of scheduling, a source says — and now family members are set to call McConnell and reiterate the request personally.

How will McConnell respond?

The request – if granted — would allow the families to come face to face with the primary architect of the GOP’s strategy of blocking everything Dems propose to slow the tide of gun violence. If it is denied, it would be a big story, and could lend support to the argument that Republicans are callously rebuffing the families — and prioritizing the gun lobby over them – in the wake of a massacre that claimed the lives of 20 Newtown children.

The request — which was made by a representative of Sandy Hook Promise, a group that includes around a dozen family members who are lobbying Washington lawmakers – represents something of a shift in strategy by the families, and carries interesting implications for later stages in this battle. Previously, the families, who had met with many Democratic and Republican Senators, had shied away from asking for a meeting with McConnell, on the theory that they should focus their energy on Senators they deemed persuadable. This irritated Democrats who wanted to see more public pressure put on their GOP counterparts.

But now the families are asking McConnell for a meeting. The families are not optimistic that the meeting will move McConnell, a source familiar with their thinking says, but this will placate Dems who want public pressure put on the leader of Senate Republicans. What’s more, if the legislation fails, the families don’t want to be in the position of retrospectively wondering if they had done all they could to get it passed, particularly since a round of bitter finger-pointing would be all but inevitable. And finally, the source says, the families are hoping to initiate a longer term conversation — one beyond the current battle – with even hostile lawmakers about other ways of combatting gun violence, such as school safety and addressing mental illness.

Asked for comment, McConnell spokesman John Ashbrook emailed me this:

Our office recently sat down with folks from Newtown for a lengthy discussion and we’re certainly open to doing it again. We actually offered another meeting and are waiting to hear back.

It’s unclear which Newtown residents this refers to or whether McConnell is willing to meet personally with families.

There’s another angle worth considering here, too. While McConnell obviously wants to sink the Manchin-Toomey background check proposal via procedural means — whether by filibuster or by voting it down as an amendment, which would require 60 votes to pass – Democrats and gun control advocates believe he wants a few red state Dems to oppose it in the procedural vote, too. That would mean that the proposal was blocked by a bipartisan group of Senators — insulating the GOP from some blame — as opposed to meaning it was defeated solely by Republicans who were determined to avoid allowing it come to a simple majority vote.

If the families put more pressure on McConnell, it won’t move him, but it could perhaps make it tougher politically for the GOP alone to sink the proposal. And so, if the remaining hold out red state Dems ultimately do support moving the bill forward past the next supermajority procedural vote, it would then become harder for the remaining Republican holdouts — Kelly Ayotte and Dean Heller — to vote No, because then the blame for killing the whole proposal by procedural means would fall on the GOP.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... p/?hpid=z3
How out of touch is today’s GOP?

Posted by Greg Sargent on April 16, 2013 at 2:02 pm

I already touched on today’s new Post poll this morning, but there are a bunch of numbers in here that really deserve their own post.

To wit: It finds that only 23 percent of Americans — that would be fewer than one in four — believe the Republican Party is “in touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today,” while 70 percent believe that it is “out of touch.” Among independents, those numbers are 23-70. Among moderates they’re 20-75.

By contrast, Americans say by 51-46 that Obama is in touch. Among moderates that’s 56-42 (he fares worse among independents, 44-53, though far better than Republicans).

At the same time, the poll finds the public siding with Obama and Democrats on many major issues surveyed. Americans disapprove of the sequester cuts, 57-35 — cuts that Republicans are describing as a “victory” for them. Americans support a path to legality for illegal immigrants by 64-32. In fairness, the poll doesn’t test citizenship specifically, so this finding is somewhat inconclusive, but a new CNN poll finds that 84 percent back a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have a job and pay back taxes.

Meanwhile, on guns, the new Post poll finds that Americans support a law requiring background checks on gun sales at gun shows or online by 86-13. A majority, 55 percent, believes it’s possible to make new gun control laws without interfering with gun rights.

On guns, there’s an interesting nuance here. While big majorities favor expanded background checks, it’s not a motivator of voting: Americans say by 60-29 that they could vote for a candidate who disagreed with them on gun control. That helps explain why Republicans don’t really fear any public backlash on this issue.

But my question is: At what point does failure to support proposals designed to address the problems facing the country — ones backed by majorities — create a serious enough general problem for the GOP, by contributing to an overall sense that the party has simply ceased being capable of compromising on solutions to the major challenges we face? The GOP’s awful “in touch, out of touch” numbers would seem to get at this.

This is meant as a real question. We keep hearing that issues such as guns don’t rank high in importance for voters. We keep hearing that the party’s image doesn’t matter too much, because Republicans will all but certainly be able to hold the House. We keep hearing Republicans have a strong incentive not to cooperate with Dems, since many of them are in safe districts. All of that makes some sense.

But is there any point at which the party’s overall image — and its unpopular stances on specific issues — actually do begin to matter in some concrete way? Is there any point at which it becomes clear that the current GOP strategy — make a deal with Democrats on immigration, but nothing else — is insufficient? What would that look like? Anyone?
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

I think that the obvious answer to the question posed is that GOP behaviour at the individual senator or (particularly) house member level will not change until that behaviour will get the politician defeated in the next election. With the GOP primary process driven, as it is, by the base (and in many cases by the Tea Party now), members have to stick to the positions expected of them by their base. Although Congress is held in very low esteem as a body, individual senators and house members are generally well-liked (a seeming paradox) and seldom have to fear losing re-election. Members of Congress can, unfortunately and almost universally, be counted upon to do what will get them re-elected (this is job one), not what is best for the country if there is a conflict between the two. "All politics is local," and with the gerrymandering that has taken place with the House redistricting, GOP House members can easily go against the tide of national polls and still be comfortably re-elected.
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

You are probably right but the GOP has already begun looking at some of the issues they perceive as having kept them out of the White House. Essentially being afraid that some of the more radical elements within the party as a whole are going to damage their cause in that regard. I don't know what that means, probably nothing. They will debate and discuss and finger point until such time as external events (such as a new wave of terror) will fuel another wave of patriot flag waving and rhetoric about how weak the "left" is. They will try to capitalize on that fear and revenge factor and promise to be a bulwark against the enemies of the United States. They will talk about the decay of moral values and the erosion of society and blame it on anyone that isn't on their side. Canadians, Illegal Immigrants, Liberaism, the Easter Bunny, it really doesn't matter. They will conveniently forget that the worst terror attack in their history came under a Republican administration and quickly catch the fever of a strong America, defender of the weak, protector of Democracy yada yada. They will once more be on the inside and for a time all will be right with the GOP. That is until the emotion subsides and the more moderate citizens recover a modicum of perspective on what "Being Strong with good Values" really means. It is the same cycle with us and Mr. Harper. While not quite a GW, Mr. Harper has earned his share of criticism for being autocratic. A style that has worn thin on a lot of Canadians of late. His party has elements which are not dissimilar to the GOP. Eventually he will fall under the knife of a more progressive looking group which will for a time seem like an easing of the tension. Like the Americans, Canadians look like they are becoming more aware of just how problematic it can be when the party in power seems to put personal values in such a prominent place when running a country. Those ideals often fly for a time in the right conditions but eventually people get "tired" of being told what is right and moral.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Frankly, I don''t see ordinary Canadians caring two cents about whether or not Harper is "autocratic." A few of his caucus probably resent it, and it gives the talking heads and ink-stained wretches of the press something to bloviate about, but ordinary Canadians are untouched by this phenomenon and will continue to admire Harper as long as our economy remains strong. The Conservative Party in Canada is nothing like the US Republican Party anymore, what with the influence of the far-right religious and political fundamentalists skewing the GOP towards untenable positions. Look at the huge differences in fiscal policy between the two. Harper has become a spender, something like the Liberals, won't touch abortion with a barge pole, and is fine with same-sex marriage--not even close to the current GOP. The Canadian Conservative Party has moved far more to the center than the GOP, and, frankly, there doesn't seem to be even a sliver of space anymore between their platform and that of the Liberals, and, will wonders never cease? the dippers are heading to the center too now under Mulcair.
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

Sorry, just disagree with your analysis of this. As it stands right now, he is still very popular in Western Canada and primarily in Alberta. The farther east you go, the less certain people are of him. Though the polls on him on a leader are all across the board, his popularity is definitely waning. The farther east you go, the more wary people get. People have some real trust issues with how he appears to be secretive, how his party uses the media to attack opponents rather that talk about the issues. Admiration is not what a lot of us feel for Mr. Harper.
As for the Conservative Party of Canada, what would be correct to say is that it looks nothing like the old Conservative Party of Canada. I don't accuse Mr. Harper of beating the fundamentalist drum himself but there is a small but significant group within his party that would like to do nothing more than bring up such lovely items as Abortion, Gay Marriage Right to life. And they have tried both through the front door and the back. When I say "his party has elements", that is exactly what I mean. A kind of new age group of Alliance and Reformers under a blue C banner. They aren't "Tea Party" loud but they are there and even if Mr. Harper doesn't exactly share their ideas, he is still the party leader. He walks a fine line, if he squashes them too hard, he risks alienating the voting block that has helped him to his majority victories. But the other side also sees his tolerance of them as some kind of tacit approval for some of the beliefs they represent. That costs him votes among women, gays and lesbians and those who generally take the stance that they don't want a Gov. that would even dabble in these issues. Harper needs these far righters and their votes just as much as the mainstream Republican party need the Tea Party although in someways you just know that somewhere deep down, once in awhile, he thinks just how much easier things would be if he could effectively distance himself from them farther.
Never said the Conservatives were fiscally conservative (insert fighter jet program or $16.00 OJ or diverted Border funds, or Search and Rescue joy rides or....well you know where I am going with this). I have a hard time thinking any of these parties know the value of a $1.00. We get taxed far too much and get far too little in return for our hard earned $.

I don't put a lot of stock in polls and opinion pieces but here are a few that suggest that Mr. Harper is not quite the hero in the eyes of many Canadians
http://www.news1130.com/2012/09/26/step ... ears-poll/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... y-problem/
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/27/harp ... uary-poll/
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/po ... 80502.html
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Three of the polls cited are very old, one a full year old. In my opinion, they are irrelevant. Polls reflect a time-stamped snapshot, and whatever events were going on around September 26 of last year seemed to put the Tories in a temporarily bad light. Somewhat more relevant is the poll from last month, in which the Tories are still on top. (Of course, with the coronation of Justin Trudeau last weekend, those numbers are no longer really relevant either.) And let's face it, the only poll that matters is the one on election day. Most governments see slips in their popularity in the middle of their mandates. Obama is an example, with his personal support having dipped a number of points since his election. People react to polls like these on the basis of how they feel vis-a-vis some current issue. At election time, they tend to view things much more comprehensively.

The divisive issues you cite are precisely those that Harper will not allow to be discussed. I don't see many wingnuts in the current Tory caucus, but Harper will keep any in line. (If Danielle Smith had done the same in Alberta, she might be premier today.) I don't believe that there's a "significant group" in the Tory caucus that would like nothing better than to push these right-wing issues. As far as I can tell there is one MP who wanted to debate the "beginning of life" issue, but that never happened and won't. And I think the issues of trust and a hidden agenda have been put to rest in the minds of most Canadians, despite the Grits' best efforts to keep them alive. Let's face it, none of the scare issues the Grits tried so hard to push have surfaced--now after after seven years of Harper administrations--and none will with Harper at the helm. Nothing that the Harper administration actually does should scare women, LGBT, or others, but the dippers and Grits will try to use the old scare tactics again when the time comes.

I get it: you don't like Harper. I think you're seeing things through this lens. Frankly, I'm not congenitally a conservative either, but I sure see him as the only rational choice among the three available. Although there's a surge of support now for Justin Trudeau and the Grits, this is just typical noise in the political discourse and a reflection of the celebrity culture we live in. If anyone truly thinks that JT could actually function as a competent PM given his experience (along with what he'll get before the next election), I think s/he is sadly mistaken. Still, you never know; we may be in for a second round of sustained Trudeaumania. For the sake of the country, I hope not.
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

Polls are polls, take em for what they are worth. What they do suggest is that Mr. Harper has a bit of an image problem and that it isn't just a recent phenomenon.

I get it too, you do. I guess we'll agree to disagree about somethings. We do that well I have noticed. I don't have an unabashed love for any political party but I am wary when you have elements of support that are what I would call regressive in their thinking, that at some point, you might make that "deal" to keep that support. Just look at the deal making that has been done to try and keep Quebec happy over the years. It has been my observation that people will find ways to justify a lot of things if it means that they will stay in a position of power. You may have noticed the Cons already spending time and energy trying to discredit JT and he isn't even the official opposition right now. I don't know if he will be a good leader or not but if Mr. Harper is as admired as you suggest, then he should have nothing to fear from the third party in Parliament. Time should tell us just how happy Canadians are with Mr. Harper. It took him a long time to get majority status, it took opposition to be in complete inept mode for it to finally happen. That is how much Canadians trusted Harper or I think to be more accurate his party. As for the discrediting assertions of the Grits, they don't have anything on the Cons who have made aggressive character assassination an art form.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

You can't have it both ways. You say Harper is too autocratic, and you seem to feel that there are regressive (by your lights) elements in the Conservative Party. So was Harper being autocratic to shut down what could have been the thin edge of the wedge of an abortion debate (from backbencher Mark Warawa)? Would you have preferred less "autocracy" and a "regressive" motion in parliament? It seems to me that Harper did exactly what you'd want by stifling what you would have considered "regressive" politics.

Of course, politicians find ways to justify a lot of things; as I pointed out earlier getting re-elected is Job One for 99% of politicians. And, of course, the Conservatives are attacking JT--exactly what the Grits did with their scare tactics about Harper. The Grits have shown their own penchant for character assassination, and I'd say the score is even. Saying that Harper needed an inept opposition to get elected is a distortion of the truth. Jack Layton gave the dippers the best shot they've ever had. The Grits lost out by having no ideas worthy of the name. You can say that Canadians don't trust Harper, but many do. It's important to try to take off our favored-party glasses when analyzing politics. Even the Grits and dippers have to admit that Canada has remained in an enviable position economically (and for most voters, "it's the economy, stupid") during Harper's tenure. He's an economist, and it's made a difference (although he's not responsible for all of our good fortune). Focusing on little things like Bev Oda's orange juice or Peter MacKay's helicopter ride is missing the larger picture. Little scandals like these are truly trivial when placed next to the Grits' Sponsorship Scandal. (So, I guess I could say that when it comes to scandals the Conservatives have nothing on the Liberals, but I won't. :wink: )

Let's call it a day Sir P. I'm out of this discussion about Canadian politics for now. Now US politics, that's another story.
Post Reply