[kEiThZ]

When they dropped her?

None of the parties did a perfect job vetting candidates in this election. Some candidates that have said objectionable things are still candidates, however (I'm thinking Warawa, for one. Ritz to some extent, but there's no way Harper would ask him to abandon his seat).

My point is...that pulling up some right wing nut job as proof of a hidden agenda is just as bad as saying that a former Liberal candidate holding truther views may actually be in step with most of her party....I certainly hope the Liberal party does not hold those views. Am I to believe that since they took her on as a candidate that they secretly concur with 9/11 truth movement?

Thankfully, I highly doubt either party has such extreme political views.

 

[Brian69]

Look Harper even in a majority has to stay a moderate.

His main goal he said is to make Canada a conservative country and if he goes crazy he will just set the foundations of another liberal Dynasty and if your a conservative, that would make you angry.


He knows conservatism in Canada is like Centrists/Moderate political thinking, not real conservatism.

Plus, a lot of these points are debatable and if you the Liberals a chance to run on social justice issues, oh man....

Exactly. All these fears of a Reform, er, Conservative Canada fail to point out the fundamental differences between Canada and the United States. Americans can and have gone far to the right when conditions are right (anti-communist hysteria of the McCarthy era, the boom 80's and Reaganomics, 9/11 etc.) but in Canada the natural suspicion of these viewpoints seems to prevent conservatives from going overboard with any conservative policy. The Conservatives quickly learned how little stomach Canadians had for certain elements of Reform and have acted accordingly as they desire to remain in office.

As far as the article goes, this is one person's views and, as been pointed out already, no more represent conservative policy than certain extreme elements of other parties represent the mainstream. Far worse ideas get written in the blogosphere on all sides. Now, if it starts coming from Harper's campaign office then I'll start getting worried.

 

[afransen]

My issue, Brian, is that we just don't know. The CPC is muzzling their candidates, and that alone should throw up red flags.

 

[urbanfan89]

So is this Steve's final solution to all the country's problems?

 

[Observer Walt]

I wouldn't take this guy too seriously. He speaks for very few, out on the far edge. It's like finding some Marxist-Leninist, ranting away, and holding it against Jack Layton. This person and his ilk are best ignored.

He's not even smart, strategically speaking. His diatribe will be used by someone as evidence of the "hidden agenda" that Harper supposedly has. I'll grant that Yoshida writes fairly well, but if he had brains, he would stifle this kind of commentary until after the election.

 

[Brian69]

My issue, Brian, is that we just don't know. The CPC is muzzling their candidates, and that alone should throw up red flags.

Fair point, but I don't think the Conservatives want the nutcases to come out after the election any more than they want the nutcases to come out before the election. Either way it hurts them.

In Canada we aren't able to keep a stable of conservative wingnuts at arms length without fear of repercussions as they do in America (see Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan). People in America can vote Republican even though they disagree with certain extreme elements of the party. Here in Canada these elements get reigned in very quickly because the last thing the Conservatives want is for people to think they are a party of extremists. If that happens then its Liberal all the way.

The PCs have already turfed a few (and I agree they should have been more careful in vetting them) and every indication is that they'll continue to clean house whenever one says or does something to embarrass the party's chance of gaining or keeping power.

 

[Hydrogen]

No doubt any leader wants to keep things muzzled. There are always those wonderful electoral surprises when a candidate or over-zealous campaign worker decides to speak/post/publish some offensive or moronic remark thinking that they are being witty or smart.

Fairly or unfairly, the Conservatives are too easily associated with intolerance. I'm sure the last thing Steve wants to hear is someone mouthing off on a sensitive issue and alienating a significant portion of the voting public. During an election, the message is tough enough to control as it is.

 

[JasonParis]

He's not even smart, strategically speaking.

He's not smart period. Gutting the CRTC would mean all we'd hear on our radios and see on our TVs would be a mish mash of signals competing for the same frequencies.

 

[urbanfan89]

His plan is also quite economically illiterate.

If Harper does even half of this then we will be having straight NDP majorities and Green Official Opposition for the next 10-15 years.

There's no way we can have 200K active duty men without conscription, and that's a non-starter.

There's no way we can have TWO Aircraft Carriers when not even China has one and even Russia only has ONE. They're only for the big guys.

Besides, that's a surefire way to provoke inflation AND rack up public debt. Very fiscal conservative there...

But hey, the Reform Party isn't known for its rational policies...

 

[Hipster Duck]

There's no way we can have 200K active duty men without conscription, and that's a non-starter.

Ha ha. Maybe, miraculously, 20% of Canadian males aged 20-24 will instantly give up jobs, university or the trade school education they're currently doing to voluntarily join the armed forces. Oh, wait, those are only the ones fighting at that moment in Afghanistan - a far larger number would be in training or off-duty.

 

[afransen]

No doubt any leader wants to keep things muzzled. There are always those wonderful electoral surprises when a candidate or over-zealous campaign worker decides to speak/post/publish some offensive or moronic remark thinking that they are being witty or smart.

Fairly or unfairly, the Conservatives are too easily associated with intolerance. I'm sure the last thing Steve wants to hear is someone mouthing off on a sensitive issue and alienating a significant portion of the voting public. During an election, the message is tough enough to control as it is.

But if these people are supposed to be representing us, don't we have a right to know their views on issues they may be asked to vote on? If not, the whole idea of representative democracy doesn't really work.

 

[Hydrogen]

But if these people are supposed to be representing us, don't we have a right to know their views on issues they may be asked to vote on? If not, the whole idea of representative democracy doesn't really work.

As it stands, we have a right to know what their views are - as candidates for a party representing that party. One can assume that so long as these individuals accept the general ideas of the party and its broad platform, they can run for the party in question. But going beyond party representation, some people have views on things that might seem out of date, odd, inappropriate, or worse. In general, if the individuals in question keep these opinions under their hat there will be little controversy (unless they've left a public record of the more questionable views). Everybody has a least one private opinion that could be viewed as going way beyond the mainstream.

The problem arises when these points-of-view are put front and forward by a candidate - when the person in question deviates from the general political philosophy or the messaging established by the party during an election. For example, many members of parliament are religious, and the views of their religion may differ with the ideals set out by the political party that they belong to. If these members can balance their own personal beliefs with the party and its appeal to a much larger and diverse public, then they have no public issue necessarily. However, if they start to include the promotion of their religious beliefs in parliament, or as a candidate for a party, they will probably cross the line for many prospective voters. But they have made their views known, nevertheless.

There is a grey zone about how much we have a right to know about the personal views of a prospective candidate beyond the politics. But if they offer up their view publicly, then it's fair game for examination. All too often, voters will focus on the party or the leader, and focus a little less on the local representative. Maybe if we all looked more closely at the people we are directly electing, we would find out a little more, and sooner.

 

[Tewder]

He's done the party a disservice. All the Liberals need to do is is use this as "proof" of the hidden agenda in the ridings where the Conservative incumbant is weak or is a strong challenger.

Canadians are a little more intelligent than that, no? If not, god help us!

That article is fairly extreme, and not representative of Harper or Conservatives, and most reasonable and centrist Canadians understand that. My hope is that we can get beyond this sort of partisan propaganda and hyperbolic mud slinging. Nobody wins.

 

[afransen]

The problem with that, Hydrogen, is when we have a party which runs on a rather thin platform, without giving much in the way of assurances as to its general stance on controversial issues. If such a party wants Canadians to trust its management to handle issues as they arise, and not merely seek a mandate for specific policies to the exclusion of other, it ought to be much more forthright about the positions in has on issues that concern Canadians.

I think it is entirely fair to ask candidates and the party for specific assurances on topics such as abortion, gay marriage and other hotbuttons for which the party is known to have factions which disagree with the status quo. If they want carte blanche to govern for 4 - 5 years as they see fit, while offering an insubstantive platform, they better be willing to declare some guiding principles that they can later be held to.

 

[Hydrogen]

I'm not opposed to asking questions that are appropriate. I'm sure you are making reference to the Conservatives who can be kindly described as being thin on platform.

As I have said, I don't really care if my MP is very religious privately, or secretly holds beliefs in the existence of UFO's (Jimmy Carter did, and he was a reasonably good president imo), just so long as those things don't become part of their reason for wanting to be elected.

As much as I would like to know if my MP or the candidates running in my riding harbour something like racist or hateful views, if they shut up about those views, then how am I to actually know? If asked, they could lie; but I wouldn't know that either. It's certainly not something that I would like of my MP, but it might possibly exist out there. I'm assured that if these individuals do ever open their mouths on such a topic, and end up making what are clearly idiotic statements, they ought to become a target for immediate and pointed questions for clarification.

If an MP I really liked said that he/she was personally opposed to abortion, but recognized that it already existed in society, I would have a tough time voting against that person if I found their other political views in agreement with my own. Of course, I would be taking a risk if the issue of abortion ever did come up. The same is so with same-sex marriage. I'd imagine many Canadians were and still are opposed to the idea. It would seem that a significant portion of them, even though opposing such marriage, had a live-and-let-live attitude regardless.

But as for platform or policy statements of a party, they are open territory. Ask away.