I don't doubt that Bernier is sincere about the issue.

adscam

I just meant that I don't think he's taking a position contrary to his own beliefs. I'm just trying to suggest – somewhat awkwardly – that Bernier's beliefs and Harper's calculations may be only temporarily aligned. If Harper does make one of his rare tactical retreats he might be looking to leave Bernier holding the bag, rather than Clement.

This is groundless speculation, of course.

Well, we know Harper doesn't take responsibility. It's always someone else's fault.

You'd think Clement and Bernier would know what he's like.

He wasn't when he was Minister of Industry

You mean the cabinet is Harper?

I trust that you are. Ok, since you're feeling lazy, I'll give you an easy one (and reveal for posterity my lack of music-cred in the process), which I'm sure someone else will answer if you need a nap: of whom is your picture?

Yea, totally new that. The band that guy is in is/his solo career has been awesome. So good, too bad he doesn't get the recognition he deserves in his time/isn't appreciated by later generations. Just making sure everyone else knew. Hey, how 'bout those recent poll numbers? Crazy, right? Who'd a thunk it?

C'mon Mr. Wells, you are on a mission to drive Canadians nuts. People can't stand not knowing and you are having fun

LOL

Really Scott Tribe ?

Actually I notice Ted Betts trolling Blogging Tories websites and leaving comments all over the place. He's done the exact same posts here over there.
http://canofcontemplation.blogspot.com/2010/07/hi…
http://rightchik.blogspot.com/2010/07/maxime-bern…

Does the most excellent blogger Scott Tribe think Ted Betts is a paid shill ?

(OK i'm being sarcastic about that excellent blogger thing, I think what you do is chicken scratch and laugh everytime you guys run around screaming "that's actionable" whenever your criticized)

Inquiring cats want to know.

a) yes it is or else you wouldn't have had a prissy insecure response.
b) ever hear of an alias ? I could be Acton Bell for all you know.

Cats loves this. I've caught two blind mice.

cyberstalking me again Cats?

Time to go back to your therapist.

Not my definition. Just my observation that being in the top 1% of income earners in the entire country is not an unreasonable way to define being "rich" (though more to the point, I only stated that if Kinsella is "rich" than Harper is royalty).

But net worth is definitely probably a better way to measure true wealth. I guess Harper is in the top 10% but that is just a guess. Certainly the top 25% with prospects as an ex-PM of great wealth.

I would agree with you that his net worth is definitely less than Martin and Mulroney who made their big self-made successes in the business world and Trudeau who came from wealth. Chretien is more interesting.

Both Chretien and Harper are career politicians, lived their careers at their desks and not in the world at large. So if you are going to make a true comparison of these two, do you compare them now? the dates they became PMs? or at the equivalent age? I would guess that Chretien's net worth was probably less than Harper at the age of 50 (Harper's age now; Chretien's in 1984, ironically the year he probably should have become PM), but almost assuredly more than Harper when they each became PM (for Harper age 46; Chretien age 60). But that is a factor of the fruits of a successful career in politics (Chretien exiting then re-entering pollitics and sitting on boards, etc.) which Harper won't benefit from until later this year.

You are getting seriously deranged, Cats.

Time for a catnap. Make it a Rip Van Winkle type of catnap.

Care to share what income level, in your view, separates rich from well off?

oooooo, fact based argument and with a touch of nuance. Shame on you LKO!!

Hmmmm, I'll go with incomes of $1000K or greater qualifies you as rich. That still leaves room for the very rich ($2.5M/y), the super rich ($5M/y) and even the filthy rich ($10M/y). I don't know where Harper, Kinsella, Baird etc would fall using those benchmarks.

But ultimately the actual incomes that mark those breakpoints actually aren't all that important to me. I say that because I find that using the term rich tends quickly lead to a tangential discussion about the exact definition of rich, which gets in the way of what could and should have been an interesting discussions about some other topic (as it did in this case).

I believe that the original premise in this thread was that Kinsella and his type (can we agree to call them well to do, or well connected?) may often benefit from special breaks to which most of the rest of the population does not have access.

Can you buy into that?

"You aren't looking far enough back. Look at his Chicago time. He supports single-payer, he thinks taxation is about redistribution of wealth, and for all the faculty lounge, leftwing causes, he is right in line."

Single-payer is not a leftwing issue. It is a common sense issue. Mulroney and Martin believed in it too. Are they socialists? As for taxation being about wealth redistribution, that's just not true. In a country where advocating tax increases is just plain political suicide, any politician looking to do sound fiscal management has no choice but to increase taxes on the 250k-and-up earners. In America, to increases taxes on the middle class is tantamount to signing one's own death certificate.

"Now, as senator and then as president, he has tacked away from it. Of course he would — he is playing to the middle, to be elected and reelected in what is still Ronald Reagan's America."

C'mon now. Dude was a Senator representing Illinois. All of the Illinois senators at the exception of one have been democrats since the 70s. As a democrat, Obama only needed to show up.

Re Illinois, not true. That seat was a GOP one before 2004, and had Ryan's divorce records not been unsealed, it was going to be a tough race in a Republican year.

Obama still would have won, but he was going to have to work for it — needed to trim his sails.

Re his ideology — I take him at his word in his pre-politics autobiography.

In Canada, yes, Obama would be a Liberal — not because of ideology, again, which is what it is (way left), but because he would want to be able to win government.

Incrementalist ideologues — that's who we have running North America right now.

That and the community organizing, and the New Party membership…

With respect, if that's your standard, one can just as easily say "Stephen Harper is no libertarian".

(Which most libertarians actually do say.)

Which renders this whole thread moot. If actions in office are all that count, why, Stephen Harper is a bleeding heart moderate! ;-)

In any event, I'd take issue with BTT's assertion that Harper's a libertarian. In some respects, I suppose. But in lots of other respects, not at all. E.g., Insite? Recreational drug use?

Where you stand depends on … where you stand. :p

Remember that party discipline is much looser down there, and nominations are not controlled by the centre. (Not at all.)

Bush had 230 seats in the House and 55 seats in the Senate, and couldn't even get a Social Security reform bill _written_, much less introduced. Obama has 256 in the House and 60 in the Senate last year, sure. but with Republicans unified in opposition against his agenda, he needed every last one of those votes.

Harper is going to push as far to the right as he possibly can, while remaining politically viable, and Obama has been pushing as far to the left as he possibly can, while still remaining politically viable. Occasionally, Harper has overshot the mark, and had to retreat ignominiously; Obama has done the same, and the fall midterms will give him a Congress making a course correction. (If he's as smart as he seems, he'll make that course correction and move just far enough to the right to get re-elected. If not… well, we'll see. He has plenty of time.)

And we can end friendly-like on that point of disagreement.

Re Illinois, not true. That seat was a GOP one before 2004, and had Ryan's divorce records not been unsealed, it was going to be a tough race in a Republican year.

Obama still would have won, but he was going to have to work for it.

Re his ideology — I take him at his word in his pre-politics autobiography.

In Canada, yes, Obama would be a Liberal — not because of ideology, again, which is what it is (way left), but because he would want to be able to win government.

Incrementalist ideologues — that's who we have running North America right now.

"And you think he's being clever and rising above it all? That you can seriously propose a zero growth budget when you have an aging and growing population? Drivel of the first order."

That's because you aren't a true libertarian rightwinger. For them, a zero growth budget is perfectly feasible because they would do away with just about every social program we have. Remove Medicare. Remove education. I don't even think that social security is sacred for them. If you are a purist like Bernier and believe that all social programs are expendable, a zero growth budget is most certainly possible.

Just because one disagrees with his viewpoint doesn't mean it is drivel. If it's any consolation, Bernier would most certainly change his tune if he ever arrived to power.