![[small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGczmWu7Wwc/SdCJyy2LN1I/AAAAAAAABWE/ABYCkbJaKaQ/s1600/small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg)
I have been saying that Canada has been going backwards for a long time. There is really nothing to add to Travers’ column this morning. He has pointed out exactly what has been happening in Canada. We know this is fun for the blogging supposiTories and other Harpercon cheerleaders. It also appears that I’m not the only one to believe that the Canadian centrists are not being shifted to the right:
Conservatives came to power knowing reluctant Canadians could only be shifted to the political right incrementally. That movement is now advancing according to the plan Conservative thinker, strategist and Stephen Harper mentor Tom Flanagan infuriated the Prime Minister by making public.
Slow frog cooking politics. For those who actually believe Steve has centered himself and would remain there are sadly mistaken. Those very same reluctant Canadians are just waiting for that last hard shove to the right.
Along with the growth in publicity for Fox News North, which has yet to even receive its’ license, check out a tea-bagger faction growing here in Canada, as brainwashed as those in the U.S.
Yes and Harper gets a huge helping hand from Ignatieff and the IgLibs who’ll drag the LPC to the right instead of pushing back.
ck Reply:
June 19th, 2010 at 6:15 PM
As I’ve already mentioned, and now, so has Travers in that article, damage is semi-done. Canadian center is already been pushed to the right. Like in the U.S., everything a little left of center is evul soshalism. Those are our 2 choices: center right or far right. To me, the choice is a no brainer. It should be a no brainer for everyone (well, unless you’re a Harpercon cheerleader or BloggingSuppository, a member of the Christian Evangelical far right sub-culture.
We bitched, and violently when Iggy threw the gauntlet last fall. Steve’s numbers shot right up to majority territory in spite of a leaked video showing his true totalitarian colours.
I don’t think they’re over that. And the numbers reflect that Canadians aren’t over it neither.
What I don’t get is why many of you bitch when the Liberals vote along with a Harpercon motion, no matter how bad it may seem to them, for the sake of maintaining Steve in a minority position, yet you would entertain a Harpercon majority. If the Liberals did vote against C9, then we would be going to the polls and Steve would get his majority; with or without G8/G20 boondoggle. Again, the polling numbers reflect this. So does the Harpercon media. And if they did get their majority; C9 would have been scrapped in favor of something far more insidious.
As for the detainee documents, we have to face the fact that the Timmy Horton’s crowd doesn’t care about Afghans hurting each other; to them, they are thugs who throw acid on girls’ faces. International law? Doesn’t exist in their minds. If they do know about a Geneva convention, the torture of the Taliban doesn’t apply in their minds.
OH Yes! A Harpercon majority? We ain’t seen nothin’ yet! We will be referring to today as the good ol’ days.
Forget mergers and coalitions, the math just ain’t there.
Iggy was never my first choice for leader, but we’re stuck with him.
So to me the choice is crystal clear: make the best of the situation we have the liberals and support them (here’s a thought, maybe if they knew Canadians would be behind them, they just might vote down a Harpercon bill or motion) or we get a Harpercon majority. It’s as simple as that.
Oh, for those willing to entertain a Harpercon majority; think of the damage he can do in 4 months; let alone 4 years. And anyway, due to “de l’action: pas d’election”, and the cut to the 1.95$ /vote subsidy being scrapped in favour of ulimited corporate donations, we’re not going to be rid of Steve so easily in 4 years.
Scrapping a ballot or staying home is also favourable to a Harpercon majority.
hi C.K…that’s quite a column isn’t it? I blogged about it myself. Now I’ve got to print it out and stick it on the fridge, so I don’t forget ANYTHING those horrible Cons have done. They are guilty of so many foul acts that it’s almost discombobulating. You go after one tree and miss the forest. But when you write it all down like Travers does, it’s devastating. And one more reason progressives must get their act together and stop the Cons before they do anymore damage. Of course, you know me, I’m STILL optimistic…
On this score, I’m not sure that capitulation without battle, that is ceding ground incrementally out of fear of engaging battle and losing the encounter is the wisest strategy. There is no dishonour to waging an honest battle against superior odds and suffering a defeat, preferable to being swept aside and suffering defeat without ever waging battle.
There appears to be too much tactical maneuvering and retreat from opposition parties. The western borg are not invincible, but if you retreat and avoid engagement out of fear of their ruthless reputation, out of fear of losing the battle, you will never put it to test or will do so after losing moral ground after a series of capitulations.
Falstaff may have been an entertaining rogue, thief, scoundrel, fat drunkard, backstabber and coward, more endearing in any event than the western borg because he admitted to his shortcomings, lack of moral fiber and had a sense of humour, as opposed to loud and constant anger and bullying, but he was hardly a military strategist. His major contribution in Henry IV was a soliloquy on the virtues of cowardice, of running from battle.
Now for those blogging tory readers who peruse your site, of donut shop wisdom, as unfamiliar with cultural references to Shakespeare as they may be to Greek or Roman mythology, suspect knowledge as it points to a broader cultural formation in the Humanities, we can submit references and cultural equivalents closer to the fictitious western mythology so dear to their hearts, that of fat, greedy, cowardly, larcenous Bud Searcy in the Old Yeller, Savage Sam western films or that or that of fat, greedy, cowardly, larcenous Lafayette Crick in the Beverly Hillbillies series.
ck Reply:
June 20th, 2010 at 9:39 PM
What I’m trying to say is if the Liberals got oppositional and then we go to election; Steve gets his majority; that’s it! No turning back. We will never ever be rid of him until he dies or retires. Remember that slogan in November 2009: ‘dde l’action; pas d’election”. It would be a mistake to simply attribute the slogan to dumb copywriting error. Something tells me, steve never unleashes anything with copywriting errors. Then there’s the per vote subsidy. I know some like Jeff Jedras disagrees with me, but this would render all the parties to be nothing more than window dressing in the house of commons, taking space. Not to mention, we’d have the same disaster that U.s. Congress does; corporations would actually be running the show; and corporations only subsidize ‘winners’.
Travers’ column should serve as a warning rather than some pity party to justify liberal or other opposition party bashing. Yes, he puts it all together; that’s what makes his column so compelling. Travers is one of the best columnists there is these days (my opinion). And that is just with a minority. Just imagine how much worse things can get with a majority. Then you have Blogging SupposiTory cheerleaders like Mary T who seem to want no opposition at all; (search Mary T on my site; titles like Mary Mary Quite Contrary; you’ll find links to her comments). Steve comes in with a majority, it won’t matter if the Liberals did a heroic thing by finding their hill to die on. Nope. More suffering ahead. Ice water runs thru Steve’s veins.
Ever notice reading many of the Blogging SupposiTories that one can get a chilling feeling reading some of their posts? They’re not for true gov’t transparency; in fact, I remember Wilson advocating for Steve to be more secretive. They (again, many of them) don’t really care for true fiscal conservatism: they embrace Steve’s idea of fiscal conservatism: the new fiscal conservatism is pork barrelling. Cutting services to society’s most vulnerable and making them suffer while spending money, stuffing the pockets of their corporate fat cats.
Liberals have to shift right because the Timmy’s crowd has. But, we need to somehow prevent that last hard shove to the right.
So this business of giving liberals time to rebuild and stuff; not an option, as I’ve stated above. No point after a Harpercon majority.
To underestimate the electorate and presume Steve would never get a majority is foolish; a fatal error.