MP Rathgeber

133 Replies to “MP Rathgeber”

1. David – your points are excellent. There’s not one I disagree with.
   Why didn’t Harper and the PMO articulate this? Or if they did, somewhere, why didn’t they do it more successfully?
   Don’t get me wrong, I WANT Harper to stay in power. He’s the best PM of my political lifetime (which began with Trudeau).

2. Excellen points, David. The power of the public service unions at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal is obscene. I’m against unions and particularly against those in the public sector.
   And you are right; Rathgeber’s response was ‘over the top’.
   Lori, I agree that Harper and the CPC could communicate better. Given that the media will not inform the public about the factual accomplishments of the Harper government and instead choose to campaign endlessly for the Liberals by focusing only on gossip criticism, how will the Harper govt accomplish this?
   Most people don’t go to the govt web sites to read about the latest trade agreement or work proposals on various Canadian infrastructures. People simply don’t know about these things. I’ve recommended some kind of regular newsletter but the govt might face legal issues if they sent it to everyone! And CPC MPs could do it, but only to their constituents.
   So, communication of govt accomplishments is very difficult if you have a press corps and national media that are firmly in the control of the Liberals.

3. A lot of the complaints about this government coming from self-identified conservatives or former Conservatives are driven not by facts and calm analysis of the larger picture, or by a realistic comparison of the scale, scope, and frequency of scandals that occurred under Liberal governments to the “scandals” that the media constantly ascribe to the Harper government, but rather by personal cynicism.
   The “all politicians are scumbags” commenters who say in an “everybody knows” tone that there’s no difference between Harper and the Liberals should read — and re-read — ET’s 8:08 PM comment which details just a few of the numerous, notable, and positive changes to this country made by the Harper government. It’s almost as if some people don’t want to acknowledge these accomplishments because it would interfere with their cynicism.
   Personally, I’ve become sadly convinced that the years-long, non-stop, drip-drip-drip barrage of anti-Conservative propaganda from the sore losers at the media party who are still outraged that the Liberals aren’t in charge federally, and for whom every little thing is a “scandal” (there’ a new one every week, it seems), does have an effect on a sizable subset of Conservative voters who are a) excessively cynical, and b) have lost the ability or willingness to note obvious dissimilarity.
   ET, Gord Tulk, David Southam, Ward, cgh: Thanks for providing a bit of much-needed perspective and a realistic, non-cynical sense of proportion to this latest “outrage.”

4. The party establishment will no doubt attempt to ride this out and heap scorn on all critics, but I am sensing that the tide has now turned and a leadership change is inevitable, followed by a mass extinction of the current party establishment. This party basically lost the confidence of its base over the term of the majority government, after losing a critical percentage of its support earlier when its performance was at least not so demonstrably corrupt and authoritarian.
   The party might as well face the facts sooner rather than later and it’s time for Harper to decide, either resign and open the way to a leadership convention, or take a new course and clean the stables, climb down from the puppetmaster approach to caucus over-management, and allow the party to become once again effectively representative of its own support base. Right now we have government by an unelected clique using Stephen Harper as their front man, for purposes that seem mainly globalist and frankly not in keeping with any Canadian traditions except the very worst of the distant past perhaps.
   There is no way back now, the party faces two stark choices — fundamental change or oblivion. If the members don’t choose, the voters will in 2015.
   Meanwhile, a plan B could be the formation of a dissent caucus if more would follow Rathgeber’s laudable example. I don’t care what the name of the party is, but I do care what the principles are, and ths current party has few recognizable conservative credentials. Instead of trying to make do with this obviously flawed structure and its increasingly bizarre management philosophy, would it not be better to start again from a new and uncompromised foundation? We know the Ontario-dominated Red Tories will not let go of their current power willingly, nor will they stop accommodating “Canadian values” thinking of the left-lib cultural nationalist establishment, so just let them go extinct in their own little thought prison while we renew the real conservative party without them.

5. I had a comment get trapped in moderation, likely because I used a word to describe exactly what I think of politicians who start to display a Dingwall-esque attitude toward their entitlements.
   Short version is, I could probably be considered a Conservative base voter, and this sort of behaviour from the Conservatives really turns me off. Does it rise to the level of Liberal lawbreaking? No, of course not. But it’s stupid for the leadership of this party to keep shooting itself in the foot over CRAP. Wright should not have written that check. There should not be any kind of “secret PMO slush fund”. That private members’ bill should not have been gutted. That entitled buffoon Duffy should never have been appointed as a Senator from PEI in the first place; the man hasn’t actually resided there in probably decades.
   Justin Trudeau is, plain and simple, an existential threat to the Conservatives’ chances in the next election. He’s young, he’s pretty, he’s sort-of well-spoken (even though the actual content of his speeches is nearly null or incoherent); he will draw the low-information idiots in this country to the ballot box, just as Barack Obama did in the United States. This is not the time for the Conservatives to keep pointing the gun at their own feet and seeing how many toes they can blow off. This is the time to STOP THAT CRAP, RIGHT FRIGGING NOW.
   If the base gets disgruntled, unenthusiastic, it won’t turn out in the kind of numbers needed to defeat the LIVs that Trudeau will bring. We’ll all be stuck watching the Shiny Pony run this country into the ground, and it will largely be the Conservatives’ own damn fault.

6. Peter O’Donnell – wow, that’s quite the list of claims.
   Who, for example, makes up that ‘unelected clique using Stephen Harper as their front man’?
   What’s their agenda?
   What’s your evidence that the CPC is ‘corrupt and authoritarian’?
   And what’s your evidence that Harper is merely their puppet?
   What are ‘globalist purposes’? Surely you can’t mean expanding the ability of Canadian businesses to trade with other countries than the USA?!
   What do you mean by ‘not in keeping with Canadian traditions’? What are these traditions to which you refer?
   What’s your evidence that the CPC is not ‘representative of its support base’? I’m a Conservative. I’m a strong supporter of Harper and his approach.
   Importantly, I’m not interested in rhetorical ideology; I’m interested in pragmatic realistic solutions – and these solutions often have absolutely nothing to do with ideology.
   I’m a strong supporter of Harper’s focus on strengthening small businesses with his tax cuts and reduced regulations; his focus on Resource Development; his focus on immigration reform; his international trade and investment agreements; his decentralization.
   I applaud the results: Forbes magazine ranked Canada as number one in its annual 2012 review of the best countries for business; for the fifth year in a row, the World Economic Forum rated Canada’s banking system as the world’s soundest; and both the IMF and OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the 2013.
   Those are real results. They matter to Canadians. I’m not interested in ideology.
   So, what are you talking about?

7. This thread has become part circle-jerk of Harper fanboys, part ‘expired meds’ ward. Thanks for proving my moniker 100% right. I am much smarter and further far less deluded than you people. Have fun losing 2015.
   The “all politicians are scumbags” commenters who say in an “everybody knows” tone that there’s no difference between Harper and the Liberals should read — and re-read — ET’s 8:08 PM comment which details just a few of the numerous, notable, and positive changes to this country made by the Harper government.
   ET’s pathetic list is pap. Pure pap.
   I’m interested in pragmatic realistic solutions
   No you’re not.
   “what are you going to do next election? Trudeau? Mulcair?”
   Understand that this is exactly the outcome that LAS wants. He’s said so repeatedly many times in the past.
   That’s lie and a red herring. Antoher two-for-one for master hack cgh.

8. What a laundry list of nonsense.
   “…not so demonstrably corrupt and authoritarian.”
   As to the first, I trust you understand what corruption means. So just what did you have in mind with this?
   As to the second, what, you would prefer a polite little garden party with no one in charge? The leftist parties and their henchmen in the media would happily stomp all over you with hob-nailed boots.
   “…allow the party to become once again effectively representative of its own support base.”
   It does represent its support base. But many more people than you voted for it, and not everyone shares your “I want it my way and I want it now” perspective. In fact most don’t.
   “…government by an unelected clique…”
   Best be specific, Peter. Just what unelected clique is this? The PMO? The only authority the PMO has is that of the Prime Minister. And if one of them went rogue, well, he’s gone, isn’t he? And what makes you think that elected MPs would not make a dog’s breakfast out of running the executive functions of government?
   “the formation of a dissent caucus”
   Sounds to me like you’re asking for a second party on the right. So what you want is to split the right just like in the 1990s, no? And you think this will be good for conservatism, do you? How many decadess do you want Mulcair/Shiny Pony as PM?
   “Rathgeber’s laudable example”
   As others have stated, there’s nothing laudable about stabbing the party in the back when it’s under attack. Justifiably, armies used to shoot traitors and deserters.
   “…would it not be better to start again from a new and uncompromised foundation?”
   There’s nothing better about burning your own house down just because you can’t get your way amid a group of fellow party members. See traitors and deserters above. Six-year old children do this “I’m taking my toys and going home” stuff, not adults. In case you hadn’t noticed, real life means having to deal with a lot of people and make compromises on lots of things that you don’t like. Deal with it. Knocking your pablum off the high chair is not a rational response.

9. The second last paragraph of your comment about the continuous drip of media hate slagging PM Harper and the Conservatives is a major problem, and I think PM Harper should initiate a bypass the media communication with the people.
   I will vote for the Conservatives even if I am somewhat disappointed in the pace of certain reforms and even the appearance of backtracking as in the RCMP arbitrarily initiating a program of prohibiting certain firearms.
   Some days, as I said earlier, it does appear that any vestiges of Reform have died and the progressive side has gained total control.

10. LAS, you still haven’t explained to me how you can categorically assert that Harper’s economic reforms ‘don’t exist or are trivial’. But at the same time, you admit that you’ve never even looked at these reforms! You don’t even know anything about them!
    This habit of yours, of asserting an opinion without any evidence, is repeated in your conclusion that the list I gave of Harper’s accomplishments are ‘pure pap’. Why are cutting taxes, setting up trade agreements etc ‘pure pap’ in your opinion?
    And could you provide evidence for your conclusion that my stated interest in pragmatic solutions is a lie?
    Or do you just preach and pontificate in words but ignore the requirement for evidence (shades of Obama!)?

11. I think some of the hardcore ideologists on this thread, those who want to ditch Harper and find a ‘real, really real, Conservative committed to a ‘Conservative ideology’, are akin to the NDP.
    The NDP are heavily ideological, wedded to a particular view of the world. They are isolationist, rejecting anyone who doesn’t share this ideology – and so too are some on this thread who’d like to throw out any and all who don’t subscribe to what they see as The Correct Ideology.
    The Liberals are, in my view, not ideological. Their ‘ideology’ so to speak, is simply to Be In Power. They focus on Divide and Conquer, embracing multiculturalism in order to bribe identity groups into the dependent Liberal fold. And, the LIV or Low Information Voter, who is made dependent on federal funding (Obama and his food stamps)AND kept ignorant and emotionally susceptible by the Liberal media.
    Note – the Liberals are not focused on enabling the people to prosper; they are focused on enabling themselves, an elite set of Rulers, to prosper. To achieve this, they require power.
    The Conservatives also, in a very real sense, have no ideology. But unlike the Liberals, they are not focused on power but on the nation and the people.
    The Conservative view of a ‘good government’ is one which is embedded in democracy, a constitution and the rule of law. Its basic ‘ideology’ is merely ‘enough govt’ to enable the people to prosper (which is small govt) and decentralization. That’s it.
    There’s no utopian future as in the NDP ideology; there’s no ‘final success’. It’s pragmatic realism. How do the people prosper and live a reasonably secure and free life?
    So, I’m going to challenge the ideologists on this thread that they really don’t subscribe to genuine conservativism because they reject realism, they reject the actuality of different opinions in a nation; they reject any who don’t subscribe to their perspective. That’s ideologism. An ISM. It’s not genuine conservativism.

12. Don’t let anybody get you down. You, of all people, would well know Harold Macmillan’s two most famous contributions to political discourse — both of which apply in the current circumstances.

13. Thanks, ET, for your comments about how PM Harper and the CPC are restricted in bringing about all the changes a lot of commenters here would like to see.
    They need to give their heads a shake and imagine Canada with Justin Trudeau as our PM. Our consensus media will be working their tails off to have him and the Librano$ form our next government. The only person and party standing between Canadians and a Liberal government with PM Shiny-Pony-in-Ermine is Stephen Harper and the CPC.
    Politics is the art of the possible, not the impossible.
    Any way you look at it, PM Harper’s in a thankless position. I’m grateful for his leadership and I’m grateful that he’s not a gratitude-monger, needing to be patted on the back all the time. He just gets on with the job of governing and has put Canada in an enviable position compared to most other countries in the world.
    Get with the program, C/conservatives. It’s PM Harper and the CPC or PM Toddler Trudeau backed up by Maniac Mulcair. ‘Your choice.

14. Platonism has been one of the most tragic delusions to afflict human intellectual thought in the past couple of thousand years. And the Neo-Platonists only made it oh so much worse. This is why you see the similarity between the extreme right and the extreme left. It’s why both will and always have failed. The opponents of such utopias always vastly outnumber the small minority who support it. And each describes its ideological opposite as a dystopia.
    What you describe as liberals and conservatives share one very large common ground. Neither one believes in the attainability of perfection. Both are based on incrementalism or improvements to what they understand the situation to be. Both believe in the Classical Liberal doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number, and that greatest good is measured by a large portion of personal liberty.
    However, I disagree with you about the difference between the two. It is not merely a matter of personal power vs. disinterested power. Those are attributes that either can succumb to and have in the past. Such is largely a function of how long one side or the other has been allowed to remain in power without significant check. The corruption of the federal Liberals is in no way signficantly different than, for example, that of the British Tories before WW1.
    No, the difference between the two is individualism vs. collecitivism. Liberals tend to see the most important features of an individual based on collective descriptors like race, religion, gender, etc. Hence multiculturalism for them is natural, as they believe that by protecting those things the individual is protected. Conservatism believes just the reverse. That individuals are more important than any cultural or ethnic descriptors, and that individuals have merit, or lack thereof, regardless of the groups to which they may belong.
    For example, to a liberal it matters deeply that Obama is the first black President. To conservatives, most of whom would have been reasonably content with, say Colin Powell, this is irrelevant. What matters for them is that Obama is an incompetent, lying narcissist.

15. “…Politics is the art of the possible, not the impossible.”
    Nope. Politics is nothing but the acquisition and retention of power.
    And that, left to its own devices by a stupid/lazy/cowardly population, gives us what we deserve.

16. cgh – yes, you are right. Your outline is better than mine.
    I was describing the corrupted Liberals in Canada (and comparable to the corrupted Democrats in the US). BUT, genuine liberalism is not focused on power.
    Your differentiation about their focus, on collectivism vs individualism is exactly correct.
    And, as you say, the fundamentalists in all political ‘isms’ focus on utopianism and control over their members, rejecting as ‘infidels’ any who don’t subscribe to their ideology.
    Nice outline. Thanks.

17. Jamie: “Politics is nothing but the acquisition and retention of power.”
    Wrong. Politics is the system by which societies make decisions. To ask for an end to politics is to ask for an end to society. What you are spouting is nothing less than 19th C utopian socialism.
    ET, the fact is that collectivism occurs at both extreme ends of the left-right political spectrum. At the one end, we call it communism. At the other end, religion can and has been used to enforce social conformity.

18. As others have stated, there’s nothing laudable about stabbing the party in the back when it’s under attack. Justifiably, armies used to shoot traitors and deserters.
    Wow. Just wow. Please leave the rest of us out of your tribalist delusions.
    Politics is the system by which societies make decisions.
    Wrong again. Societies do not make decisions only individuals do.
    LAS, you still haven’t explained to me how you can categorically assert that Harper’s economic reforms ‘don’t exist or are trivial’.
    Not my job to prove a negative. You keep fellating Harper’s ‘achievements’, you should make the case (which you never do).
    Get with the program, C/conservatives. It’s PM Harper and the CPC or PM Toddler Trudeau backed up by Maniac Mulcair. ‘Your choice.
    Well, Harper’s going to blow it so it doesn’t matter and Trudeau’s policy set is almost the exact same as Harper’s except that Trudeau might implement sane drug policy. PM Trudeau would be the least harmful outcome really. The CPC can get a real leader in the meantime. Best case scenario.
    PS could everyone here take a brevity pill? Each contard post is dumber than the last and the excessive length does not compensate for that.

19. I agree with ET that your outline of the difference being individualism vs collectivism.
    My concerns with the CPC government today may not be expressed very well compared to most of the later commenters on this thread, but lately I sometimes think they are loosing sight of the core concept of individualism.

20. I repeat: LAS, you still haven’t explained to me how you can categorically assert that Harper’s economic reforms ‘don’t exist or are trivial’.
    LAS wrote: “Not my job to prove a negative. You keep fellating Harper’s ‘achievements’, you should make the case (which you never do).”
    Don’t move into insults LAS. That’s childish. It is your job to prove your points. And your point is NOT a negative.
    If you make an assertion that ‘there is no milk in the house’ that is NOT a negative; it’s a statement of a particular fact. And it most certainly is empirically valid. Unprovable negatives refer only to universal claims not particulars. Logic 101.
    You made an assertion that Harper’s economic reforms ‘don’t exist or are trivial’. Prove both claims.
    And prove that my list of his accomplishments is ‘pure pap’. Prove it.
    It’s simplistic Obama-style to make your grumpy old man comments, LAS. How about moving from the world-of-virtual words into the realm of facts? Provide some FACTS to support your empty words.
    And grow up. Stop with the insults.

21. cgh, I consider that collectivism is always an ideology of the left, while individualism is an ideology of the right.
    So, I consider that a collectivist sociopolitical ideology such as communism is similar to a collectivist religious ideology such as Islam. Both deny the freedom, reasoning capacity and will of the individual. In my view, fascism and communism and religious fundamentalism are all similarly collectivist and ‘part of the leftist set of ideologies’.
    Oh, and now I remember, LAS, who is a leftist, wants to legalize marijuana; that’s on reason why he favours the NDP and Liberals.

22. AHAHAHAHA
    f you make an assertion that ‘there is no milk in the house’ that is NOT a negative; it’s a statement of a particular fact.
    It’s a negative statement and it’s nothing like my point that Harper’s accomplishments are pap. PROVE THAT HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE MEANINGFUL. This is like when religious folks say to atheists ‘you can’t disprove God’. That’s not my job. You are a sophist and you deserve nothing more than insults.
    Oh, and now I remember, LAS, who is a leftist, wants to legalize marijuana; that’s on reason why he favours the NDP and Liberals.
    HILARIOUS. Clearly nothing says ‘individualist’ more than drug prohibition. And no, I’m not a leftist. You might be. You’re too confused and impossibly tedious to decide. You are profoundly dull and, in place of being or doing something interesting, you have substituted a mancrush on Father Steve. You are the Obama worshipper.

23. No LAS, you are the one who is obliged to prove your own assertions. I’m not involved in your making them.
    Again, stop with the insults. Grow up. People who resort to insults have no arguments. Just insults.
    No, you are quite wrong. Unprovable negatives refer only to universals where the existence or non-existence cannot be empirically proven. But one can most certainly prove a particular negative, ie, that ‘there is no milk in the house’. Or there is no gas in the car. Both are empirically provable. Again, this is basic logic 101.
    I’ve listed some of Harper’s accomplishments. You consider them ‘pap’. Prove it.
    You also consider that his economic reforms don’t exist or are trivial. Prove it. I listed some (eg, tax cuts). Are you trying to tell us that his tax cuts don’t exist???
    These are your assertions. Not mine. Your responsibility.

24. “Seriously, ET, you Harper and a shrink-get a room. No need for wall-of-text loveletters based on your delusions.”

    Actually, LAS, by the dictionary definition of delusion — “an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument” — you are delusional.
    ET, like others in this thread, has offered up some of her personal opinions here (and she identifies them as such) but she has also made reference to a number of facts — that the Harper government rejected Kyoto, reduced corporate taxes, tossed the Iranian embassy staff out on their cans, has shown unwavering support for Israel, refused to attend the Jew-bashing session in Durban — that are not contentious to any rational person, inasmuch as they are factually indisputable. By refusing to address on their own terms any of the facts she presents, and by responding instead with gratuitous insults and impossible-to-fathom assertions of your own superiority, you certainly appear to be rejecting not just the possibility, but the existence, of rational argument and good-faith debate.
    You’re a troll, LAS. You come here to provoke and insult. You have no sense of humility or balance, you completely lack a sense of humour – one of the absolutely essential things that make us human and civilized — and you have no negative capability whatsoever — as in zero, none. These things alone, combined with your constant gratuitous insults in the face of superior arguments, make any reasonable discussion debate with you functionally impossible.
    The fact that you typically end your insulting comments with an assertion/announcement that such tiresome, rote ignominy as you repeatedly demonstrate constitutes a self-evident total victory for yourself (think Charlie Sheen’s “winning!”) just makes it worse, if that’s possible.
    Trying to discuss/debate any issue with you is like trying to reason with a belligerent, falling-down drunk — the difference in this case being that you’re sober.
    I’m guessing that when you grow up a bit (I’m hoping for your sake that you’re in your twenties) you’ll revisit your “arguments” here, and your tone, and be thoroughly embarrassed.
    You should try to be a lot more polite.

25. “…What you are spouting is nothing less than 19th C utopian socialism…”
    Holy Geez. Who’d a thunk it?
    And here I was thinking all along that it was my own 21st C version of soured observational libertarianism.
    Thanks for the diagnosis.

26. Something that the Harper cheerleaders here don’t get. Harper and the PMO it seems, also.
    Stick the snide innuendos and slags where the sun don’t shine, first. You do yourselves a disservice. Ignore LAS, he’s just pushing your buttons and distracting you from the real issue here.
    The CPC seems to have a problem and it comes right from the Ivory Tower. They can’t communicate, articulate or express themselves adequately as conservatives to their Base, or it seems even to their backbench. I’m not going to list the stuff that really bugs me about this government, despite what they have accomplished. Mostly because you cheerleaders will just brush it off as unimportant. Well, perception is very important, despite what you think.
    One thing that they seem to have done fabulously, to the joy of the LPOC is piss off their Base. Good job boys. That will win you elections. Crapping all over your critics won’t induce us to vote for you either, because even I sense that things have hardened on this subject judging by the posts here and elsewhere, to the detriment of the CPC brand. Don’t want to recognize that or address it, then lose the next election. Your choice.
    The Base, conservative bloggers, the oppos and the MSM can plainly see the problem, yet the PMO can’t, or won’t. Keep up the mantra “who ya gonna vote for?” and I’ll tell you this: Not you. The bogeyman argument won’t work, because we don’t care any more. We already see that the LPOC, the civil service and the NDP are already running the place through their proxy, the CPC as it is, or we wouldn’t be branding you “liberal-lite”. Conservatives voters are being treated to “Thanks for your vote, now shut up”.
    Fine, let the house burn then. We survived the LPOC before and we will survive it again. Some of you on the political side, won’t. We can smell a rat where you can’t. The CINOs are running things, just like they are here in Alberta.

27. Thanks ET, good post.
    “I consider Harper the best PM Canada has ever had…..”
    The “impatients” here are disappointing. It takes decades to right the ship called Canada. There are so many vested interests, that if Harper moved quickly he would just get voted out. How can you move Canada forward when you let the people destroying the country back in.
    Unfortunately, it’s baby steps, that’s who we are dealing with in the bureaucracy and a lot of those who vote. They need to be convinced they are going to be better off and it will be in their interests, not an easy task.
    It’s not happening fast enough for me either, but the alternative is … we all know. It’s not pretty but I plan on watching his six.

28. The CINOs as you call them are supported by public sector unions. They would support the devil if it helped them – they have no shame and are vicious like most on the left. They like to think and they may very well “run” the country. Do you really think that Harper can just sweep these groups aside without recriminations? These groups and a lot of pressure groups are all linked to protect themselves from conservatives who want to cut the umbilical cord to public money. This is a war between taxpayers and the entitled political/public class. One guy, no matter what his position or desires is going to change anything. The voter and supporters of Harper need to let PM Harper know we have his back and will support him. Leaving him to the wolves, partisan scammers, huge vested interests, and MSM will get us what we are getting – disappointed supporters saying he isn’t doing enough and polls that show it. Let him know you are disappointed and want him to push for more change. Give him fuel. Let him know we want him to push harder. Silence is defeat.

29. Great comments, bobd06, particularly 2:37.
    Yes, the “impatients” and the perpetually “PO’ed” are disappointing, because they are, in effect if not in intention, willing and eager to shoot the country in the foot. They’re certainly well aware of their own demands and what they want to be accomplished immediately on their behalf, but they tend not to understand electoral politics, nor how relatively impossible it would be to implement those impatient demands.
    Stephen Harper, as you noted, is up against a huge, powerful, embedded, and often unionized bureaucracy that’s been built up over many decades and backed by a media — particularly televised media — who constantly propagandize on behalf of both these special interests and the resentful would-be-ruling elite who consider themselves to have been unjustly displaced from their rightful position.
    On that latter point – the propaganda – even in Alberta, on the radio station that hosts Charles Adler and Rutherford and Breakenridge, the selection of federal news items that are tossed in in between the watch-the-hand pap that keeps people listening tends to be be curiously politically correct and retro-liberal in its tone; it certainly doesn’t ever “communicate, articulate, or express” the solid, steady, stable nature of the Harper government. The local television newscasts on Global, CTV, and CBC (which are typically bookended by popular entertainment shows) do the same, so it’s not as if the Conservatives have the same platform that the Liberals have always had to “communicate, articulate, or express themselves adequately to their base.”
    Sun News excepted, we still have a Liberal media; it’s a kind of a cultural hangover as much as a scheme or a conspiracy.
    This is just my opinion — I’ll state that upfront — but I’m convinced that the constant ‘scandal of the week’ drumbeat pumped out by the resentful propagandists who consider their ilk to be temporarily and unjustly displaced does eventually affect the perceptions of some of the more cynical conservative-minded people who are vulnerable – pret-a-porter – for this criticism, because their cynicism, impatience and willingness to posit false equivalences (e.g. “all politicians/parties are the same”) is greater than their sense of historical perspective.
    There are always going to be people who are PO’d that Stephen Harper hasn’t instituted the Christian equivalent of a caliphate, and on the other end of the spectrum there are libertarian conservatives who are perpetually outraged about the lack of action to address their essentially opposite concerns; I’m just grateful that Stephen Harper, and not an angry member of either ideological camp, is steering the ship.
    It shouldn’t always be about “I want”, it should also be about perspective. Not too long ago, a guy named Dion was trying to form a government whose main priority was curbing C02 emissions for the good of the Canadian economy. It was, he posited, for our long-term economic good.
    How would that have worked out for us?
    Certain subsets of the self-described “base” (“We survived the LPOC before and we will survive it again“) might think it wouldn’t have made a real difference – apparently their anger at the Conservatives for not being conservative enough trumps all such considerations – but they’re *wrong*.
    There’s a very real difference between the Liberals/NDP and the Conservatives. Those who can’t see it should do their own research instead of relying on either the MSM or their own anger for enlightenment.

30. Quite sensible your comment, Ken. None of us, ET, EBD, myself, or any of the others, deny that there may well be some “drift” on the part of the CPC. All governments without exception start to look a bit tired around the edges after half a decade in power. And unless they renew themselves, they usually pay consequences for that.
    David Southam:
    Me? Down?
    Not at all. Artifacts like LAS are important. They illustrate that sheer willful stupidity is not something confined to the denizens of the left. EBD hopes that LAS is drunk. For my part, I’ve heard more sense from drunks than LAS over the years.

31. It is all so disappointing because it was all so avoidable.
    Duffy’s predilection for backroom self-promotion was well known long before he got his Senate appointment. And I suspect that a more thorough scrutiny of Brazeau’s past might have been warranted. But these are small things compared to the retreat from their commitments back in 2006 to change the culture of government.
    So openness, transparency and accountability now lie in the ditch along with property rights.
    And the arguments that Harper has done some great stuff (he has), and that he’s a far better choice than Turdo la Doo (he is), won’t erase the stink or compensate for the disappointment.
    Just as Dildo McDinky was beholding to the various stupidities of Hudak & Co. for his third victory, so will Turdo la Doo, in no small way, owe his coronation to Harper’s crew.
    They said they were going to do things differently, and they had ample opportunity to do so. But, as Rathgeber put it, the CPC certainly appears to have “morphed into what we once mocked”. And this behaviour has exposed us, our families, and our country to the prospect(perhaps probability)of living in a Canada with a silly tit in control of things.
    That’s what I’m angry about.

32. ET;
    Perhaps my previous comment came off as anti Harper. When I suggested his economic policy of reaching out to overseas markets was risky I did not mean that it was not necessary. It is long overdue and very necessary. It is risky in the sense that politically he is putting a lot of capital into this process. When a economic collapse does occur he will not have the residual goodwill built up and knowledge of the true situation that could exist if Canadians were better informed.
    Harper can be a very engaging conversationalist. A series of speeches followed by Q&A with ordinary Canadians would go a long way to educating Canadians. I do believe this is the Canadian media’s biggest nightmare. It eliminates the corrupted middle man out of the public conversation. Heaven forbid that Sun TV be chosen as the host.

33. CT- yes, that’s an excellent idea. I agree that communication is not this current CPC’s strong point.
    Canadians simply don’t know all the things that Harper has done. I think he’s an extremely shy person and unlike the Great One, Obama, he doesn’t ‘blow his own horn’.
    But yes, as you say, he is an engaging conversationalist. He’s clear, articulate, knows his stuff; doesn’t need notes or a teleprompter and very, very pleasant. And he talks about the issue, actually deals with it – unlike Obama – who only talks about Himself.
    So, your idea of Talks with the PM would be excellent. And very, very, much needed.