The Galloping Beaver
The question is what to do with all of this information. I can't even convince my own parents that dumping Rob Anders is a laudable goal, in and of itself. As far as they're concerned, Martin is a crook, and a vote for liberals is a vote for the crimes to continue.
Hey Beav...
Depends on your age I suppose.
Nice to see someone else getting after the Calgary School.
Great unexplained media mystery.
My own hunch is that Canadian journalists are products of such long peer-approved experience that they're trapped in conceptual boxes they don't know they're in - a circle jerk, crudely put: or, failing that, they're graduates of technical institutions that required very few academic credits, so they're not trained in thinking beyond the topical confines or temporal borders of today's news - stupid, crudely put: or maybe they're just Conservative supporters and aren't saying so - duplicitous, crudely put.
Wouldn't the latter mean that journalists have some Straussian tendencies of their own?
Must be one of the former.
I just don't know.
You pick.
Fantastic analysis Dave and lots of extremely useful facts and links for us to look at critically and then disseminate to win friends and influence our uncles (and aunties) to answer ghostcatbce's question at the beginning of the thread.
Sadly, most voters are either too stupid or lazy to research this information. I've known about these guys for years - unfortunately I'll be saddled with Myron Thompson yet again just like ghostcatbce will be stuck with Rob (pinoccio nose) anders again.
Also, if anyone wants another zinger for conservative windbags, don't forget to point out that Stephen Harper's former boss, the National Citizen's Coalition was founded to get rid of medicare in the 60's. Rob Anders and Jason Kenney are alumni of this group also.
Now Harper is saying he's changed his mind, yet won't elaborate on what exactly has changed - even though on a vancouver talk show he said he had no appetite to change his views, or his appearance to the public. So, its there for people to decide - is this party lying to get elected or have they really, truly changed their ways. If you believe them, i have some fabulous bridges for sale.
Yes, and the Reform/CA snake oil is definitely being sold cheap. Bravo, Dave, for cutting through the crap - and for being brave enough to wade through it in the process. Hope this post is read far and wide. You know I'll be linking to it.
Thank you so much for posting this, it's needed! =)
Great post -- I said a month ago that what horrified me wasn't so much Harper himself, as all the neocons and wingnuts who would flood into Ottawa with him. I didn't know who they were, however -- now I do, and its even worse than I thought. Please, please, Paul, save us all.
My guess is that if Harper and his Neo-Consevatives form the next Canadian Government it won't be many months before Canada joins Bush led US 'Coalition of the willing' and will join in the the terrible fiasco that is Iraq.
Just thought I'd let you know that a piece of mine was posted to the front page of the CTV Election blog and it includes a link to this excellent piece of yours.
Thanks Dana! That's an excellent post you have on the CTV site. I couldn't agree more. Well done!
For all others, take this link to read Dana's post about both Harper's so-called change of armour and the behaviour of various groups of Canadians throughout this campaign.
I limped into this link and failed to notice if it was headed up "Liberal Fanaticism". Really sounds like desperate losers (Liberals - NDP)again seeking to defame any attempt for Canadians to "DUMP" the infamous Liberals. I like Paul Martin and sympathize with his position but
cannot vote for him. I like the NDP leader but not his policies. Wish he was leading the Conservatives. This leaves only one vote for me!
Chuck from Calgary.
But I don't think the Rhinos are running a candidate in Calgary, Chuck.
Dave, as mentioned on Cathie's site, well done.
I think it's about time to change your tin foil hat. The alians are coming to get you.
Wayne, if you MUST make inane comments at least learn to spell.
Any proof of this? Particularly the claim about Strassian influence? You can't just make up scary stuff and because it's written, it somehow "becomes true".
Read the publications produced by the people identified. They said it themselves. If they wrote it, we have every reason to believe it's true.
Using your argument, the CPC platform isn't true either.
Validating your arguments is not my role in a debate. I have only to substantiate my position and question yours.
"All of the neo-cons mentioned, but particularly the members of The Calgary School, are adherents of the teachings of Leo Strauss."
That's a pretty baseless claim to make, but it sure sounds scary, doesn't it?
Not scary at all. In fact, all of those mentioned admit it. Flanagan in particular is a direct student of Strauss. The rest all come from the classrooms of Allan Bloom and Walter Berns who were teaching Strauss' philosophy at University of Toronto.
As you can see, it's not baseless. In any case, all of these men admit their attraction to such a doctrine.
Oh... by the way, where is Harper going to cut services to find 30 billion dollars? Which services get cut?
Nice parry, Dave.
Dave I am new at this.After reading your calgary school article I felt I had to respond.
A leporad cannot change it's spots.
God and all his followers help us if ever Harper gets a majority government
Dave
Voices in Harper's Head
What drival? Sad is a situation where one refuses to look at what already has been, and been done in politics, before one criticizes another person. Paul Martin can't get two ideas in a row straight and he and his government have proven they're corrupt; that's a fact. Why try to pull him up by putting down someone who actually makes sense? Stephen Harper is clearly the best for the job!
Other people (who are they - disgruntled former colleagues with an axe to grind, perhaps?) simply saying "Oh, Tom Flanagan... he's just a follower of Strauss." is not evidence. If he did study the man's writings, that merely proves that his theories - right wing - are well rounded. Just as a left wing politician who reads the words of Marx, Lenin and others would only be considered well-read. I don't place one bit of faith in "hearsay evidence".
One thing you seem to forget... you can always vote them out in four years if they screw up. I suspect that won't happen - the Conservative have sooo much riding on this election that I predict their first holding the reins in a decade is going to be managed very carefully. Most governments tend to drift to the center once in power anyway, and I've seen nothing in the Conservative policy platform that suggests a "right wing" or "hidden" agenda. In fact, I've seen more evidence of a hidden, American-influenced agenda from the Liberal platform (ceding power to the courts being the most obvious example).
The Conference Board of Canada has reviewed the Conservative policy plan and concluded that the plan is sound, well-thought out, includes measures to account for unforeseen circumstances and will still produce a small surplus. Goodale (a man who cannot forecast the economic climate) saying "it won't fly" is simple election propaganda; I trust the independent review before Goodale's critique.
S. Klassen - You mean this guy? You can have him.
babzog - Maybe it's just me, but the only thing I can find is the covering letter from the Conference Board of Canada dated 22 Dec 2005. The actual report seems to be buried. The conservatives have changed the numbers in their fiscal plan since its release, which would make the CBoC report very stale.
...because it's written, it somehow "becomes true".
Your words.
The CBoC approval was in the paper this past week. I do forget if it was in the G&M or the Ottawa Citizen (we get both at our office and I read the A section of either one at lunch depending on availability).
Further, I do stand behind the quote you quoted. How can anyone place any trust in hearsay evidence of a conspiracy from a (possibly) disgruntled, former co-worker? There is too much to be read into the testimony for it to be considered credible. Evidence based on fact is credible (as in the case of the CBoC review of the Conservative platform); evidence based on hearsay testimony is nonsense - there's no proof other than one person's word against another.
I can say that Martin is a separatist based on how much money he and his cronies shovel into Quebec (jncluding publicly traded companies [Bombardier?], how past prominiment lawyer Liberal Prime Ministers from Quebec have stacked the Constitution and the Supreme Court against the better interests of Canada in order to implement a secret, hidden agenda to build up Quebec's war chest in order to allow it to afford to separate from Canada. Does the fact that I've now written this down make it true? Apparently so.
Let's keep things in perspective: The Conservative Party of Canada paid to have the Conference Board of Canada produce that document. The CPC was the CBoC's client. Independence goes straight out the window in that event. When I am under contract to a client, I give the client as close to the product as they ask for.
I will repeat this one more time. The CPC has CHANGED their finance plan since the CBoC report -- twice.
The evidence I produced in the asscoiated post is not heresay and you know it. In fact, all of it is public knowledge. Deny it if that makes you feel better, but all of it has withstood one considerable test -- the people to whom it refers have never, ever challenged it.
Your last paragraph is a rather desperate strawman.
Of course the CPC would have a client relationship with the CBoC, but to suggest that the report was therefore rigged, not only smacks of desperation, it sullies the name and reputation of the CBoC. Even that is a bit much for a lefty.
As far as your post is concerned... you may consider it to be "fact"... fact is, the only proof you have is that you wrote the article. I challenge you sir, to produce one shred of proof that does not require you or the reader to be a telepath of any sort. Transcripts? Tapes? Stolen .. er, "leaked" documents? Testimony of hundreds of witnesses to the evil speeches that would have been made? Signed letters? Emails? Scribbles on cocktail napkins? There is nothing... not one single thing to back up any of it. And you know that.
Fact is, if there was any actual, credible proof, the media and the Liberals would already have it and would have been plastering it all over the place; books, magazines, newspapers, TV, radio, Internet, junkmail... That *they* don't know what you claim to know, is sufficient proof that there's *nothing* to your claims.
Call the last a "straw man" if you will... it's no different than you calling Harper and his past and present associates silly names. Look at the evidence before you and ask yourself: can you deny the probability that separatists might actually work within the rules of Confederation to bring about its demise? What does Duceppe say? "If it's good for Quebec, I'll vote for it. If not, then I won't." He has no interest in working for Canada; his only goal is to separate and the sooner the better. The Liberals have done nothing at all in 30 years since signing the Constitution to bring Quebec into the federation and in fact, have done just the opposite. Mulroney's Tories were the only government in the last 30 years to even *attempt* to bring Quebec into the federation and it was unfortunately shot down twice.
Actually, the CBoC pointed out that they had reviewed a document other than the one Harper sent to them. Bait and switch.
As for the post, the links are there. The authors are reputable and they have not been challenged. The information has all come from open sources and I have been identified internet links to spare you a trip to the library. Further, all that information is quite public. You may deny it all you wish, it's all there. The truth is, none of it's a secret and I claim no special knowledge.
You may fail to grasp that a Conservative government is a wet dream for the Quebec separatists. Figure it out for yourself.
Yeah, I heard about the CBoC report... all I can figure is that the agreements for the provinces were not included because noone knows how much it'll cost to fix it... but you're right on this point.
I've looked at the links... and they just do what you've done: "say stuff". Two people parroting the same lines does not constitute proof. If there's some hard evidence that my chosen candidate is planning something other than what he's publicly planning, then present it 'cause *I* wanna know.
I think the Conservative plan for Quenec (and all other provinces is a great idea... more later, but you can surely figure that out on your own.
Typical inane fearmongering by the left.
That's all they have...
Dave:
CTV began by using the word gain,
good for two weeks, then they used momentum for the longest time , then
it changed to surge , then minority, then to majority and only today have they been told not to use landslide.
The Conversion of Stephen Harper:
To change from voting Liberal to voting Conservative on Monday would mean accepting that Stephen Harper had undergone a conversion from the rightwing Saul of Canadian politics, to the middle-of-the-road Paul. Voters asked to believe this conversion need to satisfy themselves that the Harper who stood in front of a gathering of neocons in the USA in 1997 and lauded them as examples to be followed, praised their philosophy, denigrated Maritimers, decried Canada as a welfare state not to be emulated, has, in the course of the past 18 months, suddenly seen the light, and changed.
How credible is this Harper conversion? Well, let the man speak for himself: he said he has become more realistic, but his fundamental beliefs have not changed. Oh, and his comments were really in jest.
If so, how much stock can a voter place today on his program, on his statements that there will not be serious cuts, that he will not introduce legislation to take away rights entrenched by the Supreme Court? What assurance does a voter have that Harper will not turn around in six months time and tell the country: Sorry, folks – I was only joking when I said those things ....
Sorry, Mr Harper, I for one do not believe a leopard can change its spots. Not even a very smart leopard. But I do believe a leopard just might dress up in sheep’s clothing ...
Do you think you could get elected if you told the populace that they were all a collection of greedy, money-grubbing louts who should have their riches taken away and given to the poor? Might be what you believe, but it won't get you to 24 Sussex. You toe a moderate line that will get you into office because maybe you have some other (good) ideas that the populace will buy into.
Anyway...
The Tory platform does not include anything relating to abortion (Martin's lies aside). I was listening to a candidate from Edmonton today outline how the party does not support introducing abortion legislation and will not a) introduce it or b) support it if introduced. This goes beyond what the Liberals have done (which is nothing).
Great Calgary School bit, the (new) Alberta Report has linked to your blog, just so's you know!
On a personal note, there is more than one Harper from the Calgary School... PM Steve's bro Grant Harper also resides in Calgary, went to the U of C, and is a big-time oil exec with right-wing political views galore...
Be afraid, be very afraid...
Cody M.
Commenting by HaloScan
