Stevie slips up…

Stephen Harper has tried to portray an image of being a middle-of-the-road Conservative who does not pay fealty to the far right wing elements of his party. Knowing that a majority government hinges on his not being seen as a PM who would lead Canada too far to the right, his policies, speeches, ads, etc. have all been pushing the Mr. Nice Guy image.

He has also carefully steered away from talking about a majority. The last time he did that, potential voters were spooked and flocked to the Grits.

And man, is he careful about centralized messaging. NOTHING gets out to the media without his approval – until now.

In a speech to the party lapdogs in Sault Ste. Marie last week that was closed to the public and the media, Stevo’s blah-blah speech was taped by an audience attendee.

Whoa! But this is not at all surprising. Those of us who have followed Harper’s moves through the years have known that his mask of moderatism was just that; a façade.

And this proves it… bad move Stevie… very bad…

(3264)

Be Sociable, Share!

12 Comments to “Stevie slips up…”

  1. @trashee

    I disagree. What they tried was NOT democratic. Democracy would have been to ask the people. Getting the GG to appoint an unelected government is not democratic.

    What they tried was legal, but it was ethically and morally wrong. They know that too. If they thought it was such an awesome idea they’d have just gone for it. They realized that doing so would have precipitated a monstrous backlash resulting in years of Conservative majority rule starting a the next election… an election that would have resulted the day after the Bloc figured out it would really be in charge of such a coalition and started making demands.

    However, if they lefty threesome want to stand an election on a platform that clearly indicates to Canadians that they will form a coalition government if no majority is elected, and they win such an election, well, I don’t have to like it but at least it’s democratic.

    trashee :

    Harper does this and that is why the majority of Canucks don’t trust him and they never will.
    Read between the lines carefully boyz and see what the real issue is – we have a leader who is a liar about his true identity.

    I’m just not seeing these lies. I think a better explanation is that people are looking for any excuse they can to latch on and scream “RIGHT WING NUTTER RUN RUN RUN !!!” and he’s simply not giving it to them. There’s no lines to read between.

    Do I think that Mr. Stephen Harper, life unit, husband, and father has personal views to the right of what he espouses as the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada? Of course I do. But I’m confident that he knows damn well that some of his views simply won’t fly and that he has to do what he can to work with the other 175-odd parliamentarians who aren’t Conservative. I don’t see how he even tries to hide this. It seems blatantly obvious.

    I guess that’s why I don’t see the big deal about this clip. All I see is relatively uninteresting political yammering from yet-another-politician.

  2. Ken says:

    And, with all due respect, you’re missing the point.

    Harper has not pretended to be anything else. He is very clear in what he says. Iggy isn’t. The Conservatives have been ahead in the polls consistently for months now. How can you say that people don’t trust him? People have made it clear in many ways that they are NOT interested in an election.

    For the Liberals it has always been about them being in power and having their hands on the purse strings of the country. They’ve called themselves the “natural governing party”. How arrogant is that?

    If we go into an election, guaranteed we will not have a Liberal majority.

    Guaranteed.

    Also, has Iggy ever WON an election? Or has he just been handed whatever he’s “running” for?

    Well, he’s going to have to work for this one and EARN the right to govern.

  3. trashee says:

    Ken and Squid-dude – with all due respect, you both are TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT.

    Regardless of whether the two of you agree with Harpy or not – as one of those “lefties”, I think that you’re all a bit, uh, out of touch with the modern reality thing – the point being made here is that Harpo has consistently portrayed himself to be way more left of what he truly is… in order to dredge votes from marginal fence-sitters. Iggy does NOT pretend to be a neocon to get votes from the right nor does Jack do a starboard direction shift. They are who they are and they don’t hide it.

    Harper does this and that is why the majority of Canucks don’t trust him and they never will.

    Read between the lines carefully boyz and see what the real issue is – we have a leader who is a liar about his true identity.

  4. trashee says:

    @Evolving Squid
    Dude – you know as well as I that the “litle trick” you refer to is a “little thing” called “democracy”… which is kinda OK according to the ol’ Constitution thing..

  5. I think the majority comment needs a bit of amplification

    “We need to win a majority in the next election campaign” (7:27)

    From 7:45-8:23 he’s talkign about Lib-Dip-Bloc coalitions and their little trick they tried to pull to abscond with government. And he’s right – a Conservative majority WILL teach them a lesson about trying to circumvent the results of an election with a constitutional trick.

    Again, he’s spot on here. I’d love to see the Liberals, NDP and Bloc run an election on a combined platform of “if there’s no majority government, we’ll form a coalition” and then see how the election turns out. If they’re not willing to do that then perhaps they do need to be taught a lesson.

  6. The lowest cephalopods are nautilus, by the way… just as an FYI there Mound.

  7. Except that Canada’s judges are, in fact, noted for being generally left-wing ideologues. Even before the Conservatives formed the gov they were throwing lefty wrenches into things for the Liberals. That is slowly changing as more moderate judges are taking over as the lefties retire. Judicial activism in Canada has caused many debates in the past about where the powers of the court end and the powers of parliament begin. He’s spot on here, and he’s not the first person to say, allude to, or think that. Frankly, it’s an issue that I would like to see parliament deal with in a stronger way. We need a clear line between judges interpreting law, and parliament making law. For the last 10-20 years, that line has been very, very blurry.

    As for our international allies, we shouldn’t kowtow to the UN General Assembly. We should listen to what they have to say, and take it under advisement, but they should only be a single input to our foreign policy. It would have been a much better statement if he’d said “[We don’t poll] the US nor the UN General Assembly…”, but I’ll still support the statement as he said it.

    No gun registry anywhere has ever solved any crime as far as I am aware. Even lefties know this, although many seem to deny it. All that money spent on gun registry would be better spent on measures that prevent illegal guns from being smuggled into Canada (where they aren’t registered anyway).

    Women, gays, minorities: politicking. If it was Layton, he’d be droning on about evil rich people. If it was Duceppe, he’d be bitching about English Canada putting upon the righteous and downtrodden people of Quebec. If it was Ignatieff… ok Ignatieff wouldn’t say anything because he never says anything. Every party has its bogeymen.

    The majority thing is also just political rambling. The Libs will have their version soon enough, maybe, if the Igster decides to get off the waffle iron and do or say something.

    I stand by the statement that there’s no big deal here.

    >>That’s why Harper would never, repeat never, say these things in public, to the Canadian people.

    Except he DID say them in public. Please, give the man credit enough to know that anything he said would be splashed around the media at internet speed. Was his little speech appropriate as a campaign speech to the general public? Of course not… but it wasn’t intended to be either. He was winding up conservatives with a bit of a “rah rah” deal. You’re not going to sit there and say you take everything out of Jack Layton’s mouth at face value are you? If you do, I feel very sorry for you because you’re in for a world of disappointment. If you don’t, then why wouldn’t you afford the same courtesy to Harper?

  8. Ken says:

    I’m with Squid, here. I don’t see what the issue is. The video, as far as I’m concerned, is a non-event. He’s expressing his opinions, he’s getting the party ready for an election.

    At least Harper is saying SOMETHING. Ignatieff’s recent messages say nothing – that’s why no one can take issue with what he’s saying.

  9. XUP says:

    Well, that fuzzy blue sweater vest never really went with anything else he had anyway

  10. Mound of Sound says:

    As the lowest form of cephalopod, Squid, you don’t get it. Why do you think SHarper has worked so very hard these past four years to convince Canadians he no longer believes the very ideology he’s promoting in this video? He’s done that because he knows that voters are highly suspicious that he has a hidden “social conservative” agenda. That’s why Harper would never, repeat never, say these things in public, to the Canadian people. He holds the Canadian people in utter contempt. Read his speech to that neo-con, Uber-Republican convention in Montreal in 1998.

  11. trashee says:

    Listen carefully:

    · On his claim to be satisfied with a Parliamentary majority: “Let me be clear about this, we need to win a majority in the next election campaign…we need to win a majority…to teach them a lesson.”
    · On women, gays and minorities which are helped by a government program: “[They’re] left-wing fringe groups.”
    · On gun control: “We are still trying to get rid of that registry…we need a mandate to get that thing passed.”
    · On our international allies: “[We don’t poll] the U.N. General Assembly to determine Canada’s foreign policy.”
    · On judges: “[They’re] left-wing ideologues.”

  12. What is the big deal here? He seems to be essentially correct for the full 9:36. And once you filter out the general political bollocks that would be there no matter which senior politico was speaking, it’s just a feel-good “look how awesome we are” speech.

    Even the attack bits are passable given that he’s talking to die-hard conservatives already, and stuck to specific political points as opposed to ad hominem attacks on the people themselves.

Leave a Reply

*