Thursday #2
You want to know what the leader of the Con party really thinks - get him to talk behind closed doors and no media are present. This tape surfaced, of such an event in the Soo, and was sent to the Libs and the CBC. Interesting but predictable. Take a look.
10 comments:
Harper is quite relaxed speaking to the extreme right-wing fraternity. You can cut the hubris with a knife. If Harper makes legislation proposals so unpalatable that other parties simply cannot support them , it is he that precipitates the unwanted election. So, it's a united Opposition that eventually brings down Harper's default government. A slippery road indeed, for one very slippery character.
It's heavily edited, I wonder what was omitted that might give more context? Other than that, no surprises - I suggest Harper adds it to the Conservative site.
The entire video can be viewed at Macleans blog central.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/09/stephen-harper-talking-like-stephen-harper/
I agree with John Draper that Harper should post his comments on his website but of course if he wanted the public to know his real plans he would not have barred the press from hearing the speech.
These are state secrets, don't you know?
As someone who has never worn the mantle of any political party, I feel that I am extremely unlikely to attach party biases to my comments, but simply call it as I see it from a strictly personal perspective.
If I've got it right, anonymous thinks that one party (Cons) should water down its positions so that it can stay in (semi)power and continue to water down its positions as much as it takes to perpetuate the situation until the law requires an election. Essentially the assembled opposition wants to call the shots de facto for just as long as possible.
That makes me wonder if any of the opposition would treat the situation in a likewise manner when it's their turn to water down their positions to maintain (semi)power. Extremely unlikely, I think. Anonymous's partisan view seems to indicate otherwise and suggests either an extraordinary gullibility or adherence to an intangible 'reality', both of which politics depends on for its foot-soldiers and mono-minded adherents.
The conning and deceit of it all still makes me hold my nose, and as I've said before, it stinks!
Manfred, the opposition parties represent the majority of Canadians. When they bring down this government are you prepared to call that the will of the people , or are you just going to hold your nose some more ?
As Ananymous says, The majority of Canadians are in the opposition. That is true of every political party regardless of which one gets in power. The majority of Canadians did not vote for NDP. The majority of Canadians did not vote for the Liberals. The majority of Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives, nor the Green Party, etc. Canadians certainly did not vote for a party coalition in any regard.
Is "bring down this government" equal to "elect a worthwhile government? When do we come to understand that un-electing is not the same as choosing something better, instead of just different? It turns out simply to be a crapshoot, with no idea of what's to follow.
According to published reports, at least the ones I've encountered, the "will of the people" does not include having an election this fall. If you think that politicians are committed to carrying out the "will of the people" you're as deluded as the party faithful, of all the parties, who think that they have 'the answer' somewhere in their party policy or platform, both of which change as easily as the winds do. Trouble is, "the will of the people" changes regularly as well so it is a moving target and difficult to pin down if you want to pander to it as a basis for a platform.
It is my belief that a firm grasp of core policy and a firm resolve to apply it over the long haul, with adjustments for current conditions only as a tempering, is the only way to run something as enormous and complex as a country. The "will of the people" ranges from one extreme to the other - all the time - making it impossible to satisfy anytime.
If that is the "representation" you mention, and some sort of portion of "the will of the people", I accept it, as we should, but it does not make it any more palatable or useful, in the overall.
If it were not for the exorbitant cost to the taxpayers, including beyond the financial one, I would be most anxious to see what any other party would "do" to determine the course of this country's future, given the current and unknown future problems. Unfortunately we get only the rhetoric that is meant to seduce the masses, such as the really exciting "we can do better!" While the gullible and mono-minded lap it up as served, some firm grasp of policy that demonstrates, eh?
Manfred, are you trying to be the local Rex Murphy ?
Rex Murphy, I'm guessing, gets paid to say and write provocative things. I do not.
I will always try to be exactly who I am and say exactly what I think when I feel it can contribute to a discussion. There is no wish on my part nor need for me to be like anyone other than myself.
When I did make a run for Town Council I tried to be very clear about who I am and what I think and how I would apply it to that assignment.
While I've never read anything by Mr. Murphy and only heard him perhaps 4 or 5 times, Rex will be what he gets paid to be and I will be what I am very happy to be, myself.
Nevertheless, it does appear that the two of us share an inclination towards, as Ben calls it, "verbosity". To that I say "So what"! It's not like I'm going to run out of paper or ink.
Checked out Murphy's commentary and yes - there it is - we both used the word "foot-soldiers". No wonder one might think I want to be another "Rex".
Post a Comment