Pierre Trudeau was the first, and only, Canadian politician I've ever seen who wasn't scared shitless of - of himself.
PET knew who he was. He knew what advocated and what he defended and he knew what he stood for. It was why he never feared public scrutiny, why he invited public questioning and debate.
Chretien came close - in fearlessness at least - but he was a distant second on reason and debate. I've often wondered whether David Frum's bolt to the extreme right wasn't driven by the horrible drubbing his mother would get when she interviewed Trudeau and constantly failed in her bid to get one up on him. Sorry, David, Pierre just kept making your mom accept she lost. She did, after all, constantly set out to skewer him. He was always fair, even gentle, with her.
Now we have Stephen Harper - Steve - Our Furious Leader - who, for all his righteous indignation can only govern by muzzling the environmental scientists our taxdollars pay, by gagging our very armed forces while they're in the midst of a hopeless war he's chosen to extend for his personal, political advantage. Yes, Steve, I'm tying those wreaths tightly around your neck!
It's not like this miserable, pathetic little bully invites or even accepts public discourse. He disgracefully abuses the power we've entrusted in his office to distract, confound and even deceive us. The man is exactly like the very worst of George w. Bush. He's Bush and Cheney in one.
Canadians have always loved their country, not just an ideology transplanted from elsewhere. We love Canada which is why we can support a variety of political views - but always within pretty clear limits. Most of us know we can't keep our Canada if we go far to the Left or Right.
Steve is to progressive as Dracula is to sunlight. He can't stand the idea of a "progressive " conservative movement. He wants, he needs to be well beyond the limit or range of our traditional, collective belief. That's why he has to gag people, to be unaccountable and to avoid even basic discourse with his supposed constituents on the extremely urgent and pressing problems of the day.
He came in riding the calm waters the Liberals of Martin/Chretien had created out of the Maelstron Mulroney. He (Harper, Kindrid Spirit of Bush and Cheney) did nothing - nada - zip - to adjust our affairs to meet the looming American political and economic crisis. Now this man - who we haven't yet begun to comprehend for the ways and degrees he's already grievously failed us - wants us to vote for him, no questions asked.
I'm sorry if I'm wrong. I want one Conservative, one Harper supporter, to explain why Harper didn't see a year ago what Angela Markel so publicly foresaw and stated and then tell me why he's sat mute and immobile on this since then. You can't answer that, you deserve not to be elected but run out on a rail.
5 comments:
Her name is spelled "Angela Merkel". I'm not sure what speech you are referring to. The thing is Harper has set up in a good position to weather the storm. I'm not sure why Liberals (which you will recognize I don't support) feel the need to bash Harper as following US ideologies. The mistake that plagues the US right now was due to bad investments made by US banks encouraged by Bush. One of Bush's early mandates was to boost the economy by encouraging the housing sector. The policy allowed for people to put 0% down on homes and also allowed them to not have to provide significant credit information. 40% of recent US loans were made this manner. Basically Bush bad policy and bad decision making by large banks lead to an inevitable collapse. In contrast the policies of the Conservative did everything to protect Canadian banks from the same fate. The Conservative policy forced homebuyers to put minimum 5% down their homes.
Another stark difference was as the US under Bush created huge deficits; in Canada, Conservatives put money toward decreasing our national debt. This is a wise thing, the cost of servicing the debt is staggering and it eclipses that of money used to pay for health care. It should be noted that the Liberal leader Pierre Trudeau was the greatest builder of the national debt. His fiscal mismanagement lead to this huge debt that we are still trying to sort out to this day. Trudeau was possibly Canada's worst Prime Minister.
If you need further history and economic lessons, I would be glad to educate you.
I hope this one Harper supporter has met your challenge.
"...why Harper didn't see a year ago what Angela Merkel so publicly foresaw and stated and then tell me why he's sat mute and immobile on this since then."
Actually Harper did see it coming. In last night's debate he said, to paraphrase, "he knew in Aug. 2007 that there were strong economic downfalls coming."
So, you're right, why did he just sit on it & do nothing about it other than spend, spend, & spend some more. Not a word out of his mouth until this past week has he acknowledged, only partially mind you, that things could become somewhat difficult. Although he still sticks to the old Bush/McCain talking point that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong". Even those 2 U.S. blow-hards aren't even saying that anymore - but Steve still does.
Harper is a disgusting,control freak liar & is most definitely NOT a leader.
allan said:
"...One of Bush's early mandates was to boost the economy by encouraging the housing sector. The policy allowed for people to put 0% down on homes..."
Flaherty did EXACTLY the same thing & added 40 yr. mortgages to that. That is about to change soon, can't remember when exactly, as he realized his ERROR but a long time after the fact. He, & Harper, have now seen the effect of that in the U.S. & are now sh**ting bricks over their HUGE mistake. The housing sector is becoming a mess here too & it will get worse.
Actually, you should read the full thing I wrote. Which was they forced people to put minimum 5% down. Having equity in home makes a huge difference in terms of the validity of the loan. You are right that the raised the allowable amortization to 40 years. This does make it easier for people to get into the housing game which on first glance a scary potential error. However, it means that people can reduce their monthly payments on their mortgages which means that they would be less likely to default on their loans. The big problem that happened in the US which didn't happen in Canada was people got loans on over priced homes that they could mot afford and there was system of checks and balances that stopped them. When these same people defaulted on the loans the banks suddenly were burdened with a ton of bad loans and over priced assets.
Be thankful that we had a responbile government for the past 2 years who maintained a surplus and paid down on our debt.
Thanks for correcting my typo Allan. If you'll read further you'll find that Merkel's name is regularly spelled correctly.
5% equity? Do you know how long it takes for that much equity to evaporate in a Canadian downturn? You're stretching a damned thin thread there Allan.
Your explanation of the US housing collapse is pretty simplistic. Perhaps seriously incomplete is a better description.
And Allan, when four out of five dollars of your exports go to one customer and that one customer goes broke, no, the fundamentals of your economy are anything but strong.
As for a discussion of how the national debt accrued during Trudeau's versus Mulroney's time, that will have to wait for another day. Once again your take is simplistic.
If I need history and economics lessons, Allan, I'll find someone with a more balanced, nuanced knowledge than yours.
Post a Comment