As I read it, I heard the first gun in the "Firing Squad" I alluded to earlier cock its firing pin.
According to Mr. Chandler:
We social conservatives have been Mr. Harper's loyal soldiers in the former Canadian Alliance party and in the new Conservative Party and we are the reason why Mr. Harper is leader.Ah? Calling in the debts, are we? Dolt! You call in the debts when the debtor is in a position to do something about it, not before. Welcome to the recycling history of the Conservative Party of Canada, no matter which incarnation it might be.
This is followed by the following gem of rational thought:
In my conversations with Mr. Harper, we would always agree that doing what is right is more important then doing what is popular. We agreed that the objective is getting our conservative principles into power. We agreed that the majority of Canadians are both fiscally and socially conservative and would vote for a leader who would stick to these principles.I hate to point out the obvious, but if it weren't for the timing of the Sponsorship Scandal, this country would be sitting under another Liberal majority government today. The Conservatives made modest gains in Ontario, but those are very tenuous gains indeed - especially in the urban areas.
Canadians didn't vote for a fiscal and social conservative leader. QED.
Chandler then goes on to argue:
Social conservatives are becoming increasingly disillusioned to the point of staying home at election time, as evidenced by the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history last July. The re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush is a testament to the political activity and clout of evangelical Christians. Conservative leaders such as Mr. Harper should be paying close attention.Duh. Lessee - that was in the United States, not Canada for a start. I would point out that George Bush enjoys the lowest approval rating of _any_ president in history as far as Canadians are concerned. Strangely enough, I think Mr. Harper has been paying attention to Mr. Bush's popularity - in Canada, where Harper's home turf is.
With guys like Chandler attempting to become the "power behind the scenes" in the Conservative party, we can be assured that the social conservatives will continue to hold sway, just as they did in the Reform/Alliance days. Promulgating policy and direction which is typically narrow-minded, mean-spirited and all around nasty.
If you're not sure about that, go take a long, critical look at the Concerned Christians website - or other websites of a similar ilk - and ask yourself if you really want that kind of philosophy running the country. Ask yourself "who's next?" after they push their "traditional values" agenda through - is it women's rights? is it ethnic equality? what about religious freedom?
Oh yes, and let us not forget that so much of what they would legislate can only be supported by invoking the "Notwithstanding clause".
But getting back to the original point - Chandler's pointing his gun straight at Harper. To hazard a guess, Harper's experiencing exactly what Manning did - he's realized that he needs to play to a much greater audience, and that's getting the social conservatives all bent out of shape, as some of their "pet hobby horse issues" have to be put aside in the interests of making gains outside of Alberta.
3 comments:
JN has been telling me for years that the conservatives are locked in a cycle where half the party periodically takes it's football and goes home because they can't have their way. This of course dooms them to the sidelines. Thank ghod, says I.
This time around, I feared they may have finally learned their lesson. But your post fills me with hope and I'm happy to see that they are once again about to have a melt down.
JN: You were right all along.
Schaedenfreude, it isn't just for breakfast anymore.
Quixote
http://www.livejournal.com/users/quixote317/
Chandler seems to have the power of guilt down pat.
First, he states that in conversations with Mr. Harper they AGREED. Therefore, since Mr. Harper agrees with him, he speaks for Mr. Harper in matters of policy - and any disagreement would simply show "Bad Faith" (TM) on Mr. Harper's part, and show him to be a two-faced weasel when it comes to policy.
From a linguistic point of view I just LOVE the usage of the word "agreement" in this context. It is diametrically opposed to "disagreement" which is something that all politicians want to avoid (therefore they must seek continued agreement). Consider too the term "disagreeable"; Chandler seems to imply that if Harper does NOT toe the Chandler CCC line, then Harper is disagreeable to the VAST poulation of Canada which is so obviously of the evangelical Christian bent as shown by the overwhelming popularity of Bush in the States. (Logic bashing 101)
Chandler, in my humble view, is highly manipulative and uses guilt tactics to "get his way". When will he learn that these tactics that may have worked well on his parents when he was a five year old child, will not work nearly as effectively now that he is a grown adult attempting to manipulate Canadians as a whole.
I actually find it rather insulting that he is stepping forward to represent MY views - last I checked I didn't even have the opportunity to vote AGAINST the man - for that matter, I don't think that any Canadian had a say in choosing (or denying) him to act as their representative.
Mr. Chandler - we already HAVE representatives who have been selected in a legal electoral process. You are not one of them. Kindly cease and desist assuming that you are acting on MY interests - because I have ZERO interested in the narrowminded bigotry that fuels your beloved CCC... I have no interest in jumping to salute a crisp "Heil Chandler".
I have a suggestion for C5 (Craig Chandler & the CCC)... why don't they just take their football and go home... better yet - move to the Excited States of America where they will fit right in...
Post a Comment