The patronage issue is not my main issue with the Liberals, it is rather hypocrisy and dishonesty – one need go no further than to point out Kyoto as a classic example . . . but there are many others. The Liberals were NOT going to set up a National Day Care – since, among other things, education and social services are Provincial responsibilities (something many Harper critics frequently fail to take into account) – but also because the money they were putting on the table was about 1/10th what would be needed, and indeed less than the amount being put on the table for child care by Conservatives. The Liberals were going to address the homelessness issue a couple of years ago. I live in Ottawa and I can tell you that one year after allocating funds, not a dime had gone to any municipality for this initiative. Instead, Ottawa was busy setting up their offices, trying to figure out how they could set up a database to track homeless people going from one hostel to the next. I think that social issues are best managed and addressed at a local level and that I feel is the direction in which the Conservatives are headed. By contrast, the Liberals characteristically come up with “motherhood”- type issues, make a lot of noise but have no intention of actually doing anything on these issues. I consider this approach to be manipulative and hypocritical. I like the clarity of recognizing the distinction between Federal responsibilities and Provincial responsibilities.

“Why don’t we support the party that believes in individual rights and humanitarianism.” Which party would this be then? I know which party you probably think it is, but I would say that that very much depends on which “individual rights” you are thinking of: sexual rights? religious rights? freedom of speech? freedom from government harassment? property rights? rights of am 8-month old fetus? Right to obtain heath care in a timely fashion? Tricky issue for sure. And “humanitarianism” as an issue is similarly complex. Is it a humanitarian gesture to donate to corrupt African regmines – or not? Is it in the interests of humanitarianism to speak out about human rights abuses in China . . . or is it better to soft peddle criticism on this issue? In general I think that the only safe thing to do is to judge governments on the basis of trustworthyness and on their actions.

Lately you may have noticed that the Conservatives are catching up to the Liberals in the patronage costs so if we call them even why don’t we support the party that believes in individual rights and humanitarianism. Its not just silopsism; Harper scares those of us who care about the less fortunate.

“And if I only implied it so far, he’s the most boring and pastiest fucker ever to gain the highest seat in the land.”
This comment is just silly.
I like Harper because he is honest (a rare breed in politics for sure) intelligent (relatively rare), decisive and clear. Harper has moved on a whole range of things that the Liberals neglected for years — small things, like the Sidney Tar pits, compensation for Chinese, etc.
I think you need to pay more attention to what Harper is attempting to do, rather than rejecting him on the basis of superficial things like “personal style” — boring, pasty, etc.
Well, really, I don’t expect you to change your mind, or even consider the way in which your view is dogmatic and ill-informed. I just wanted to let you know that some people do not agree with your perspective — and not because they are ignorant or do not follow the issues . . . just because it is possible to have similar values and goals and have diametrically opposed views on how to reach those goals.

This reminds me of OAS meetings attended by both Cuban and USA diplomats. Apparently, in the past the Cubans have had fun trying to sidle up to the Yanks for photo ops.

The American diplomats begin moving around the room to keep away.

It’s such an exasperating yet bemusing world. And we haven’t even gotten to the photo of Dick Nixon with Elivs, yet …