Yesterday (Saturday – March 20, 2004), the new Conservative Party elected its first leader.
Stephen Harper won handily on the first ballot with more than twice as many of the votes of his two competitors (combined) , many of the votes for Harper came from the West and Ontario.
I supported a Harper victory for several reasons:
He wasn’t part of the Ottawa insider-club. He has some sound economic ideas. He wants to reduce the size of government. And he wants government out of our lives as much as possible.
I also liked his thoughts on decentralizing the distribution of powers by giving provinces more say in a broader scope of what should be provincial jurisdictions.
In all, there is much about Harper’s views I can support.
But with all that, I might very well not vote for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
1) In speaking of the Conservative Party during his victory speech, he compared John A MacDonald, one of Canada’s founding members, and perhaps our country’s most significant leader, in the same breath with Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister who is single-handedly responsible for the death of the old Conservative Party, and the long reign of the Federal Liberals.
Brian Mulroney so disgraced politics, that the stench he left behind will be smelled for years to come. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, Stephen Harper felt the need to compare Mulroney to John A McDonald.
2) also, in thanking the people who helped get him elected, Harper thanked Canadians and Quebecers.
WHAT’S THIS? Are there two citizens in Canada?
Why didn’t Harper thank Canadians and Newfoundlanders, Prince Edward Islanders, New Brunswickers, Nova Scotians, Ontarians, Manitobans, Saskatchewans, Albertans, and British Columbians? And for good measure, throw in the three territories.
Did we miss something? Did I miss something? Is Quebec not a part of Canada? Must we thank Canada and Quebec?
How can I vote for a Canadian leader who obviously thinks Canada is indeed two nations – Canada and Quebec?
I think I’ll be voting for None Of The Above.
As far as I’m concerned, the diminishing of our personal freedom was tied in with the seat belt law that gave “authorities” the right to protect me from myself; and if i did not comply I would pay for it with fines and demerit points. Really it’s my business if I want to protect myself in such a way: no one else is being endangered by my decision. The public good is not effected at all.
Since then all I hear is people clamoring for more “laws” that will protect us from making personal decisio
Comments are closed.