Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


What we were up against (everyone who was anti-Conservative)

I had a rather interesting chat yesterday with a Conservative supporter – my landlord – who didn’t know I wasn’t a Conservative supporter. This is a long held Conservative riding I’m in – the incumbent won with 58% of votes cast – so Conservative supporters naturally tend to think everyone votes for their guy (not far from the truth in this riding 😉 ). I played along, and the conversation was revealing as to the mindset of some Conservative supporters.

He acknowledged times were still tough around here for the jobless picture, but he was certain that now Harper had his majority, Harper would improve the economy. Apparently, the fact that Harper had been in power for 5 years didn’t matter – 5 yrs of Harper having to deal with a minority Parliament was holding him back from fixing the economy appeared to be the reasoning. The other thing that struck me was he thought Harper was an honest man – this said without any irony, since the reason the last Parliament fell was because the Speaker and the House of Commons found the Conservatives in contempt of Parliament for withholding key Budget figures.

Now, I had a glimmer of slight hope for him when he said that Harper wasn’t like Mulroney, who he thought should be in the slammer for being sleazy, but then he equated Chretien with Mulroney and thought he should be in the slammer as well. He threw Dalton Mcguinty in that category for good measure. He DID concede Harper was “a bit dictatorial”, but he was honest and would get the job done and would get results for the economy.

That folks, comes from an obvious Conservative supporter from a very Conservative county, but that’s the mindet of some of Harper’s supporters. It also shows the droning and droning of the economy obviously resonated with some of these folks – they didn’t care if Harper was in contempt of Parliament – they blamed the minority Parliaments for Harper’s failings. I can see similarities to the Harper voters and the George W Bush voters from 2004 – they voted for stability – and indiscretions were ignored.

(If you’re wondering about my reaction to all of his declarations was, I just smiled and said nothing. I was bringing my rent cheque to him, was a tad late for work and thought discretion was best).

My gut feeling is though, I think he and other Conservative leaning voters are going to be deeply disappointed after 4 years.


45 comments to What we were up against (everyone who was anti-Conservative)

  • Beerbob

    I stand corrected. When I said corporations, what I meant was wealthy people. It was late. I’m not a Liberal, by the way. I don’t have a “gang”, that I support blindly.

    Here’s your source of information, I think – as far as you go, it agrees with what you said – kind of:

    But there is this:

    That second one is obviously a partisan blog, but he did make a good point. If you crunch the numbers, since most people who contribute to the cons pay taxes (yes, the wealthier folks), the conservative party, based on the 75% tax rebate, receives more taxpayer money than any of the others. And surprise, surprise – they want to get rid of the $2/vote subsidy, because they don’t need it. And the way the party financing laws work now, wealthy people can contribute the maximum (what is it, $1,275), and they get back $650. If you contribute $400, you get back $300.

    Bear in mind, these party subsidies are specifically targeted to people who pay taxes – and low income folks don’t earn enough money to donate. They’re worried about their kids’ teeth.

    It is true that the left of center folks don’t pony up as much money to their political parties as the conservatives do. This speaks to motivation. Most of them, like me, just want them to run the damn country, help the desperate and the doomed, and keep it so that your cancer treatment doesn’t drop you into a homeless shelter. There’s no particular axe to grind. Aside from the wealthy, the other part of the base of the cons are the people who contribute money because they want our country’s laws to reflect their religion, pertaining to a woman’s right to control her body, LGBT legal marriage, and a few other items. These things really get the chequebooks out, and they’re encouraged to put their money where their beliefs are every Sunday, in a good many churches across the country. I don’t think the cons will do it without some idea that it wouldn’t cost them the next election, but of all the parties there’s only one that has quietly (and in some cases not so quietly) made it known that they’re on that side of things.

    Why do you attribute an apparent characteristic revealed by an honest mistake by an individual to an entire diverse group of people (“Liberals”)? Keep it real. I made the mistake. Nobody else. And I reiterate, I’m not any party member.

    I do not have “anti-American bigotry”. If you actually read what I wrote, what’s going on in the U.S. is caused by wealthy people getting everything they want, and writing the laws in their favour, with think tanks putting out agitprop that’s turned a good segment of their population into a bunch of selfish bastards. There are such here too. I’ve seen the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada change into… well, it’s not finished changing. And like a lot of people, I’m worried about where it’s going. The Liberals did plenty of corporate handouts too. That stuff can be changed, and has been. In fact it should be, depending on the economy. It’s why we have governments, but this right wing social stuff… Once it gains traction, even if it’s rescinded a few years later, it leaves a stain on the country in disenfranchised, brutalized, and hopeless people. Maybe you see this as hyperbole, but it’s moving in that direction.

    As far as Brooks’ book is concerned, it was interesting. It was specifically about the U.S. I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but looking south of the border, I don’t think the tendency of religious folks to contribute money to charities is helping much. They do seem to be having some trouble there. The unfortunate problem when relying on charity for social programs is that bad times result in lower contributions.

  • Stan

    Beerbob, care to explain to us all what the limits are to corporate donations to political parties in Canada?

    Fact is Harper eliminated corporate donations in 2007…

    It really is pathetic how ill informed liberals are.
    I guess that’s why they are liberals.
    They are misinformed.

  • Stan

    Nice work with the anti-American bigotry there, though you are likely too dense and not self aware enough to understand that.

    The AVERAGE donation to the Conservative party is about $100.00.
    Many people donate far less than that.
    The concept of supporting a cause, and not just looking for handouts, just does not occur to liberals.
    Their greed and selfishness will be their downfall.

    Kinda ironic, huh?

    Liberals talk about compassion, but they don’t act.
    The book Who Really Cares proves how conservatives give more to charities, they volunteer more, and they give blood more.
    Liberals talk a good game, but their selfishness and greed overrules any compassion they might have.

    If the liberal party truly cares about what is best for Canada, why would they be even considering a mediocre MP like Justin Trudeau for leader?
    Is a mediocre leader what would be best for Canada?
    Or is lil’ Justin just what they think will be the fastest ticket to getting their noses back in the trough?
    Check out his CV and get back to me on why he should be leader of the liberal party.


  • Stan

    Enjoy the fund raising after the conservatives pry your sucker like mouths from the taxpayer’s backside by getting rid of the per vote subsidy.

    Your whole philosophy of being leeches on the taxpayer’s ass will mean you will be flat busted broke.
    No government per vote subsidy, and no Adscam money to steal, whatcha gonna do?
    The Liberal party will declare bankruptcy within a year.

    Or you will have to learn to help out and actually support the causes you say you beleive in instead of just bragging about your compassion…
    But a sea change like that would make you conservatives.
    So you would end up donating to the re-elect Harper campaign.

    It’s all good!

    • Beerbob

      Spoken like a wealthy man. When political parties that represent people who work for a living have to rely on donations go up against a party that represents corporations, who wins?

      I just don’t understand why anyone would want to turn Canada into a cheap copy of the U.S. It’s a great place to be if you’re wealthy, but as an example, Wal-Mart in the States had a 28% year-over-year increase in sales of tents in 2009. That’s a LOT of tents. And folks weren’t doing more camping. They were the ones that didn’t have a car to live in.

      Does a party have to appeal to the selfish, low-grade sociopathic bent of the typical subordinate authoritarian type? I’ve been down to the States, and people did seem different there. Few come out and say it, but there’s a real social Darwinism ethic going. Maybe we’re just the same. Maybe there’s a certain percentage of the population who think “Fuck the Doomed!” is a suitable rallying cry.

      I still think Canada is one of the best places on Earth to live, and it was made that way by politicians, both from both the left and the right, who ran the country and built the social infrastructure that made it work. They made mistakes, sometimes dumb ones, but I always had a feeling that PC, Lib, whatever party, there was a desire to keep thing fair, help the desperate folks, and just plain run the place.

      These guys – they’re not interested in building anything (well, prisons). They are a different kind of party. They don’t feel Canadian to me.

  • Stan

    Did you guys really buy that contempt nonsense?
    It was a scam, a political game, a ruse.
    Don’t you understand the opposition dominated committees and house could vote any motion they wanted?
    They could have decided that Harper was a green skinned space babe, it wouldn’t mean it was true.
    Only a fool believes his own bullshit.

    Go look at the Monday night results, obviously the voters didn’t believe it.

    But the longer the liberal thieves stay in denial the better.

  • Mark W

    At the risk of yet another fascist comparison, the landlord’s comments resonate and echo those of ordinary Germans’ attitudes toward Hitler: “He got people back to work”, and for Italians: Mussolini “He got the trains to run on time…”

    It is difficult to get people to look to the future with hope, when your opponent is beating fear into their heads incessantly.

  • @rww: just like you say. conservative supporters may enjoy wearing pink glasses, but you cannot ignore the facts, which show a different picture…

  • Paul

    Purgatory beckons…enjoy your longggggggggg visit.

  • ridenrain

    For all the talk about cleaning up the ADSCAM mess, the net results were a total failure. People from Quebec chose to vote for people who didn’t speak the language or couldn’t be bothered to show up, rather than Liberals. It’s clear that average Canadians simply did not believe the Liberals rooted out the corruption, and how could they when many of the main players or the banned members rejoined the party.
    The first step to resolving a problem is admitting mistakes and it’s clear that the Liberal party will be away a very long time.

    • If not bothering to show up bothers you, where’s your negative comments about the CPC candidates all over the country who refused to debate their peers in public places?

      • ridenrain

        This “refusal to debate” clearly didn’t prevent the Conservatives from getting their message to their supporters.
        It’s one thing not to show up for a biased media circus, it’s quite another for not even being in the country or riding during the election. How does it feel that Quebec voters would rather vote for anyone, sight unseen, than for Liberals?
        The media and the Canadian press gallery did all they could to support the Libs and when that tanked, the Orange Crush took over. Despite the best/worst of CBC talking heads, the Conservatives stayed on topic and got their people to the polls. All the flashmobs and facebook groups did nothing more than give slackers something to feel good about instead of getting them out to vote. The whole point of the election hype is wasted if it doesn’t result in votes.

        Never mind…You guys just need a really, really, REALLY charismatic leader. Forget policy, platforms, vision, red books, red doors or even cherished “Canadian values” That’s all for policy wonks. How about drafting Rick Mercer or George Stroumboulopoulos?

  • Let me guess, your landlord also “wants his country back” and thinks Harper will make the trains run on time? and that vote suppression through robot calls lying to people about polling stations being moved is just good clean fun because “both sides do it”?

    • What’s the point of having election laws if a party can break them with impunity and not even be fined during the parliamentary sitting they illegally won?

  • G.J.W.

    There is info coming out, Harper cheated to win this election. The Hill Times, had an excellent article written about this.

    It makes a person wonder. It matters not where you are, shopping, the doctors office, the inter-net, everyone hates Harper. BC people hated Campbell. Campbell blatantly lied twice, to be re-elected in two different elections. Harper and Campbell have a very close relationship. Their personalities, are identical, and they do work hand in hand, (such as the BC HST.)

    Harper and Campbell both work for the, wealthy giant corporations. I doubt Canadians will survive Harper. The way BC people didn’t survive Campbell. I firmly believe, Harper will do to Canada, as Campbell did to BC.

  • The real difference here is pretty simple. When the Liberals were found to have a scandal the Liberal Prime Minister created a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the matter. When the Conservatives have a scandal they blame others, call their critics pro-Taliban, fire aides, and take elections Canada to court. I am not a Liberal supporter but the difference here is clear. The present Conservative Party would NEVER NEVER NEVER, admit wrong-doing or even have a public inquiry into their scandals. An honest party is not one that has no problems or scandals. An honest party is one that is willing to root out is problems in order to keep itself honest and maintain some faith in the political system. Harper’s Conservative Party is PROFOUNDLY dishonest and the only thing that saved them from having this image in much of the public was the fact that they were in a Minority position and it is much easier to deflect in this situation because there is no perception of absolute power. Four years from now that will be very different.

    But the worst part is that future governments will pattern themselves on this government. I hope all those who voted conservative don’t mind that.

  • rww

    If we’re going to assail the Liberals for doing a bad job attacking the Conservatives on the economy, what about the party I support, the NDP. Why aren’t those Finance Department fiscal responsibility charts foremost in their campaigning – are they afraid being seen as fiscally responsible will damage their core support.

    • wondering

      Hmm. Variations of those charts have been around since 2006. They were on the NDP website and they sent out press releases that were largely ignored. But you make a good point – they should have made more noise about them in ads. Perhaps they thought it was a mountain too high; most people look at those charts, scoff, and immediately start questioning the numbers – not a meme you want scampering about during an election campaign.

  • JamesF

    To be fair the Liberals didn’t have a very good campaign message as far as the economy goes. I mean, was there really much of a message beyond “Conservatives aren’t good at running the economy”? Chretien had a real simple message in 1993… “Jobs!Jobs!Jobs!”… we didn’t really present that this time. It was more like we ran the 93 campaign trying to win the economic question on the Sea King purchase alone (except with Jets and Prisons) without the “Jobs!Jobs!Jobs!” argument.

    I think we need to have a more indepth conversation with the population about what their economic concerns are (some deep micro-issue internal polls would help here). And craft policy that addresses those concerns for 2015.

  • I see this a lot myself in SK. It’s like people don’t pay attention to what the parties are actually doing. Instead, there’s this cultural meme that floats around in the back of people’s minds that a vote for the Conservatives means a vote for fiscal responsibility and small government. Never mind that the reality of the Conservative government is the exact opposite of this. They’re voting for a stereotype that currently doesn’t even have a grain of truth left in it.

    • wondering

      That’s exactly what I see in northern BC. They’re voting for the Conservative myth and not the reality.

    • The answer then is to rewrite the myth somehow. But how?
      One idea is for progressive partisans to get more involved in their communities where the Conservatives are currently involved. Take back the hockey rink, the coffee shop, the church basement, and the social clubs, and be open about progressiveness and work hard to be a good example.

  • Bill M.

    I voted Mulroney twice. I stopped voting PC after the meltdown and the LPC ended up being responsible on the fiscal front and maintained centrist, progressive values at the same time.

    I won’t be on urging a merger with the NDP because I find them too left for my liking. If the parties merge, I doubt I’ll vote CPC because their social policies advocated by the far right base are not where I am at. And frnakly, even their “fiscal” prowess has been nowhere as they’ve sought to buy votes.

    They have two years to do some hard lifting and convince me that they are serious on finances as well as governing to the center.

    That said, I am not holding my breath.

  • rww

    Especially when they also portray the myth of the NDP as having the worse fiscal record when the truth is they have the best fiscal record according to federal Finance Department analysis.

  • It also shows the droning and droning of the economy obviously resonated

    Which is why I kept harping on media figures promoting the myth that the Conservatives have some special competence where the economy is concerned. That’s an area where the media overwhelmingly reinforces the Conservative narrative.

    • Observer

      pogge, it’s not the media. It’s Liberals in general. No not just the federal “braintrust”, I mean actual liberal party members and operatives as well.

      First, outside of an election and a couple of budget related press releases, it’s hard to find a single MP, MPP or party leader who has been hammering the Cons on economics. For example, when Toronto’s unemployment rate hit 9% did you ever hear anyone Liberal make an issue of that? When PetroCan was merged with Suncor, illegally, did you hear *anyone* make an issue of that? When Harper first brought back Michael Wilson did you hear much from real MPs on TV about how the Mulroney years added $287B to the deficit?

      Second, in casual conversation with rank and file Libs it’s abundantly clear that people have no clear understanding or strategy for talking economics and how the Con econ policy is fradulent. There’s a thousand things that come first. The passion and desire is just not there. A simple thing: do you know *any* Liberal who can answer the “tax cuts help the economy” line in a way that makes sense to your average neighbour? I don’t. I do know that practically every Con voter who I talked to believes that and thinks Liberals don’t know anything about the economy.

      This goes way deeper than media. I doubt a single individual in the last 5 years joined the Liberal party because of economic reasons in general. The Libs have lost their way and economic arguments is the primary reason. it’s not just the media and it’s not just the elected representatives. The party as a whole doesn’t know what it exists for.

      • For irrational reasons, the Conservatives are nevertheless considered competent on the economy. I thin the Liberal braintrust see that huge, hard to surmount object, and move on. It’s easier to outflank, if you can, rather than to assail your opponent’s main strength.

        The problem is, they need to. Harper spent years working over the so-called ‘ethnic’ vote, despite it being a Liberal strength, and look where it’s got him. It’s true the Conservatives can’t be beaten quickly on economic issues, but there’s no time like the present to start.

        Part of the problem is that people still equate the provincial Liberals with the Federal Liberals. So because McGuinty raised some taxes, and is running a deficit, people see the Federal Liberals in the same light.

        • Observer

          For irrational reasons, the Conservatives are nevertheless considered competent on the economy.
          No, no, no. This is the heart of the matter in politics as it’s done today. Conservatives say join us and we’ll help make you rich by cutting taxes; if the others people don’t want that it’s not our fault and you know the Liberals just want to tax you to death…and if there’s a deficit it’s because of all those cushy union jobs and wasteful gov’t employees. It’s an appeal to one’s personal interest. In life, most people gradually get richer over time so this message resonates.

          Joining up or voting for this is entirely rational.

          You are 100% right that Libs need to take the fight to the Cons on this and there’s lots of reasons why they haven’t.

          • Most people’s wages *rise* over time, but many aren’t keeping pace with cost of living, and it’s not due to taxes. I was making $7-8 and hour in the mid-80s for labour jobs that currently pay $10.50. A good half of the working population is financially stagnant or worse.

            Now people welcome tax cuts because it places more money in their hands, though often not much — Rob Ford saved car drivers $60 a year! Wow! Yes, people vote for that stuff, but that has little nothing to do with *economics*

            Such policies do not make jobs, keep jobs, etc…

            When we’re talking economics, we’re talking job creation, keeping jobs, public financing (deficit, debt), and even the management of economic externalities, though I grant that the public doesn’t follow the latter very well. On that economic record Stephen “Canada will not have a recession” Harper has a crap record.

            Harper has leaned heavily on Liberal economic policy successes from the 1990s. The Conservatives in Opposition also fought against the banking regs which came to save our ass.

            Liberals cut corporate and income taxes federally. Harper raised taxes on income trusts and income tax (he cancelled a reduction when he got in power in 2006). The federal budget ballooned tremendously under Harper.

            But, okay. Stupid people see tax cuts and think “good economics.” But they can also be made to see mounting debt and increased tax load placed on personal income as bad economics. They can see Harper/Flaherty failures to project economic performance properly as bad economics.

            I remember years into Harris’ income tax cuts, my working buddies looking at their pay stubs and shrugging at the minuscule reductions. Now their children are wondering why Daddy could afford a car in his 20s working such a job, but can’t anymore. They can’t either, unless it’s some puny thing on a lease.

          • The Liberals are more than welcome to the Green’s tax cut plan, which could be demonstrated to people on a website with a phony paystub, where they could enter their gross salary and see the result with the CPC budget and a Green or Liberal budget. It would be as popular as Vote Compass was, and show people that they’ll save money on every paycheque while big banks make only a million dollars profit (after they pay all expenses and employees) in a quarter instead of $4 Billion.

      • We have to be able to simply show voters that instead of tax cuts, business is enticed to Canada by our social programs and infrastructure, and not lower taxes (and quote the numerous studies which show medicare is one of the biggest reasons businesses come to Canada – along with a highly educated, skilled workforce – which also comes from government expenditure).

        Also, simple statements that hit home like, “I sure love encouraging business, but no business will come here if your taxes don’t fix the roads, ports, and bridges first”.

        We stopped doing that. We also need REAL LIFE examples of taxes at work – like how your extra $1 this year helped pay for THAT bridge. And seriously, that is what the taxes amount to (for those types of infrastructure things). Really only the medicare is more expensive – and even that has only risen (cost per capita wise) 5% since the 90s… In other words, STILL very affordable.

        We need to educate while we speak. But KISS…!

  • Paul Raposo

    Good post, Scott.

    I don’t know what’s worse; the ignorance, bordering on foolishness coming out of your landlord’s mouth, or the conbots postings here trying desperately to defend a corrupt Conservative government.

    What we have learned with this election is that Conservative supporters are hypocrites when it comes to government corruption.

  • proud_canadian1

    correction Scott,the speaker of the house didn’t find the Conservatives in “contempt!” He refereed the issue to committee than voted by the house! It’s as if you’re accuser sitting in the jury box and than find you guilty of whatever! Think that would be considered a fair trial? So please with this “contempt” charge! Canadians didn’t buy it! It was all politics,period! Let the opposition try to find the Conservatives in “contempt” in this parliament and see how far they will get!

    • Wrong. The Speaker did make that ruling, but it’s for Parliament to decide for itself to agree.

      If Harper had a majority, no doubt he would not have been found in contempt, but that wouldn’t change the Speaker’s ruling. Nor would it change what is right and legal

      The facts show that this was not partisan.

      We have a right to know how our tax money is being spent. Harper refused to release that information (for prison spending, among other things), citing cabinet secrecy, and demanded Parliament pass the budget anyway. Our law is very clear: the Government reports to Parliament and is subservient to it, not the other way around, as Harper was instead arguing.

      That is, prima facie, contemptible. Heck, it’s contemptible on a second look too.

      Conservatives have come a long way, from arguing for transparency while in opposition, to calling demands for it ‘partisan.’

      I, for one, strongly believe we have a right to know how our tax money is being spent.

      Conservatives, we now know, don’t.

      • A government that hates “government” and ignorant MPs with very little political education (Cons) seem to continue to say the “contempt” rulings were nothing. How very ignorant of them (loving that word today).

        Answer me this, Conservative Parliamentary “experts”. You claim that you were only found in contempt because the big bad committees “ganged up” on you? Then, how, pray-tell, do you explain that the Commonwealth has had dozens of minority governments in it’s history, and NOT ONE, EVER has been found in contempt? They ALL had committees where Opposition MPs outnumbered government ones (the VERY definition of minority). Not a single minority government in Commonwealth history was ever found in contempt.

        Even here in Canada, the Opposition parties to Trudeau and Clark’s minorities (and Pearson’s) COULD have done so – if there was ever any reason to vote “contempt”. They never did, because those PMs and parties actually had a healthy respect for our democratic system. Harper and his gang don’t. Period. Contempt means they clearly lied to the Canadian people. Get THAT into your thick skulls.

        MPs who actually value our Parliament and democracy also treat the issue of contempt VERY seriously. It is obvious that Harper and his gang don’t take Parliament seriously. It was highlighted with things like the book they wrote on how to block and disrupt committee work.

      • “I, for one, strongly believe we have a right to know how our tax money is being spent.

        Conservatives, we now know, don’t.”

        I agree completely. I wish more Canadians thought this way too.

  • Mike

    The difference is that Martin owned up to Adscam, called for the investigation, and offered an apology. That sort of accountability has vilified him and the brand, which is why no-one in politics will ever do something that honest again. There is no upside – except for when you have to look yourself in a mirror.

    • Paul Raposo

      That sort of accountability has vilified him and the brand, which is why no-one in politics will ever do something that honest again.


      Rather than being praised for his honesty, and integrity, the Liberal party in general, and Paul Martin in particular were punished for their honesty.

    • Observer


      Creating a public circus/kangaroo court in order to embarass your predecessor/rival in order to tarnish his legacy as part of a years long internal party take-no-prisoners war is hardly “honest”.

      And it was the public aspect of this that was the arrow aimed at Chretien but all it really did hurt the Liberal party at the ballot box.

      A “honest” politician would have handled the whole issue differently.

  • ridenrain

    So much better to be a party adrift on the political spectrum, holding no policy dear lest it become unpopular at a later date. A maple leaf wafted by the winds of popular opinion.

    So, How’s that working for you these days?

    • I’m so sick of hearing about that IGNORANT view of politics. Liberals/moderates hold some very strong/firm views. They value a perfect balance of sound fiscal policy/management and progressive social policy. No other party offers that in it’s entirety. Left and right go too far onto the extremes in certain matters. They can “pretend” to be centrist for a few populist moments, but always invariably end up getting ideologically “winged” at some point.

      Riden… You can gloat all you want. We will be around for many, many years. We aren’t going anywhere. If anything, Harper managed to galvanize the Liberal base in this election. I’ve spoken from coast to coast with Liberals in the days since the election. Unlike the old PCs, this organization is not going to leave. Sure there is the odd talking head that speaks of merger, but both the Liberals and NDP will never choose that path. We will rebuild, and be back.

      I do, however, look eagerly to the months and years ahead, to see just how well Harper can keep everyone’s mouth shut in his very right wing caucus. It will be a true test. “We have our majority now sir… Can we please ban abortion, multiculturalism, women’s rights, and gay marriage?” That will be the cry from the Con “base”. Can’t wait for that to start. Also look forward to hearing the Cons answer questions from some of the more radically left wing young NDPers who were elected. Some stuff is going to be put on the table that will REALLY make people talk issues. Can’t wait!

  • the rat

    Stealing public money and funneling it into ridings in Quebec to buy elections is less bad than being found in contempt in a minority parliament by three parties with political reasons to vote contempt? Enjoy the wilderness, Liberal friends, you are truly lost.

    • Very little money actually ever got “funneled” to those ridings. The “scam” was not at a national level (like “in and out”). The perps who benefited the most were almost to a man all former Mulroney Conservatives (Guite, etc.). The 3 or 4 “beneficiaries” were tried in REAL court and found guilty of padding their OWN pockets. This was simply a matter of a small handful of “Con-men” infiltrating a part of one region of a party’s fundraising process. Why didn’t it occur anywhere else? There are a lot more facts out there – and I’m probably the most capable representative of this cause… however, we know the results.

      I’m honestly sick of hearing about Adscam from ignorant conservative apologists who don’t learn the facts first. Also… a PM or his PMO were never involved, and a Liberal PM actually spearheaded the investigation, then put it in public and police hands. Let’s see if Harper’s PMO is “clean” first of all, then, if he’ll call a public inquiry. Somehow I think not.

  • JMR

    How many promises will Harper keep?

  • rww

    The thing that really astounds me is that after “Adscam”, a lot of Liberal voters thought their party had to be punished for their wrongdoing but none of the Conservative supporters seem to think that about Harper even though what he has done is at least an order of magnitude worse,

    I think they believe the Conservatives serve their interests and that is all they care about and everyone else and the country can go to hell. It’s all about them.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.