And one day, twelve years from now, I will send one of these monsters to Washington to represent my government -

And one day, twelve years from now, I will send one of these monsters to Washington to represent my government


Of course, astute readers of yesterday’s minor collection of Stephen Harper’s writings, will have noticed that the Prime Minister clearly foretold today’s appointment of Gary Doer more than 12 years ago, when he spoke to the Council for National Policy, an influential collection of American conservatives.

Let’s take the New Democratic Party, the NDP, which won 21 seats. The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it’s actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.

This party believes not just in large government and in massive redistributive programs, it’s explicitly socialist. On social value issues, it believes the opposite on just about everything that anybody in this room believes. I think that’s a pretty safe bet on all social-value kinds of questions.

Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology.

The NDP is also explicitly a branch of the Canadian Labour Congress, which is by far our largest labour group, and explicitly radical. There are some moderate and conservative labour organizations. They don’t belong to that particular organization.


And one day, twelve years from now, I will send one of these monsters to Washington to represent my government

  1. You mean Harper is now acting more "post-partisan" than the messiah-as-president south of the border? Who'd a thunk?

  2. Oh, dear. Are you flogging that dead horse again?

    • You have to admit that at least it's funny!

      Although Mr. Harper was just "jesting again" – I do hope that the Devil does not interfere with Ambassador's Bilateral trade agenda.

      For the record, I am also jesting – although I am a first-time jester on this topic.

      • I agree that it's funny, although the Harper bashers who quote that old speech tend to ignore the obvious tongue-in-cheek humour, pretending instead that Harper meant every word literally.

        • Ha! Now I get! Caring about the poor is an error in church doctrine! Why does he get such a bad rap for being a stiff?

          • Actually, Harper was making fun of Bill Phipps, who was then Moderator of the United Church of Canada.

            According to wiki:
            A theological liberal, Phipps engendered controversy when shortly after becoming moderator he said "I don't believe Jesus was God", that he didn't consider the resurrection a scientific fact, and that he was agnostic on the question of an afterlife. What is important, Phipps argued, is not notions of the afterlife but fighting poverty and suffering on earth. "Your soul is lost unless you care about people starving in the streets," according to Phipps. He said that what is important is not so much whether or not the Bible is a literal historical record but the teachings and example of Jesus. This sparked great debate in the church, with some congregations passing motions asserting their faith in Jesus' literal resurrection.

          • I am little biased I suppose as I am a member of the United Church the now retired Phipps also attends…but this may be a surprise to you but not ALL Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the bible…

  3. "This party believes not just in large government and in massive redistributive programs…"

    Poor Harper, the Devil truly lives and interferes in the affairs of men.

  4. Honestly Aaron…Is there nothing the man can do that warrants an acknowledgement of a job well done, or does everything Harper does drive you so insane that you have to find some reason to take an obviously baseless partisan smear at him?

    You know, every time you pull something like this, you discredit yourself such that when you actually do have a valid criticism about Harper (which you do reasonably often), it's very hard to take you seriously on it because your agenda is so obvious and it gets lost in obviously partisan BS like this.

    I have to say that Paul Wells has been far more influential and effective in pointing out the many faults of Harper than you have; mostly because Wells attacks based on real substance, not on partisan nonsense, and because he's not afraid to rip a new one for the other parties when they deserve it as well. No one who pays attention to Wells could in good faith call him a Liberal partisan, so his criticism carries real weight with me; but posts like this make you come across as a liblogs or rabble reject with terminal Harper Derangement Syndrome. It is very difficult to take you seriously as a Harper critic when you post things like this.

    • I know I'm not reinventing the wheel here, but you could just stop reading this particular blog if it bothers you so much.

      • It's not that easy. I like several bloggers here so I bookmark blog central.

        Besides, Aaron does post useful stuff. I would have missed his compilation of Ignatieff publications, which I appreciated seeing. All I'm saying is that this post is not really a legitimate criticism of Harper, it's just a partisan shot for the sole purpose of taking a partisan shot. That kind of stuff belongs at liblogs or rabble, because Macleans should be better than that.

    • I agree. The ease with which one can show Harper a hypocrite is far too easy.

      Ohh wait, that wasn't your point at all…

      • Yes, if the only defence the CONbot puppets can display for their leader is that, look, using his own words to show him for a hypocritical fool is shooting fish in a barrel, then i guess the terrorists have won.
        But they've got all the time in the world for those ol' out-of-context Ignatieff quotes, tho.

    • I agree with john g. If Aaron wants to be an opposition blogger, he should join liblogs, or something like that, and not be sponsored by Maclean's.

      • As per Silly_walks, do you have the same opinion of Steyn and Taylor here at Macleans?

        • Haven't seen too many Steyn and Taylor blogs on Macleans "blog central". Are there any? That's my point: Aaron should be independently blogging and not be featured by a national magazine being as he is so unabashidly (sp?) partisan. It's truly amazing how he twists things. Aren't journalists supposed to show at least a grain of honesty in their interpretation? He doesn't… therefore he should not be featured with journalists, but as an independent blogger.

  5. Wherry, I know you don't need any help with ideas, seeing as how you're so prolific.

    And you are clearly the "juxtaposing" king of Macleans, if not the entire blog-o-sphere. So isn't there SOMETHING that Layton said yesterday and today that you could juxtapose for our amusement and enlightenment ?

    • As Layton isn't running the country, I can hardly see how that would be relevant. Why don't you just read Steven Taylor's blog?

      • Huh ? You're only allowed to blog about the guy "'running the country" on here ??? I guess Wells, Coyne et al didn't get that memo from Maclean's head office.

        And what's "relevant" got to do with anything ? I'm only suggesting a POSSIBLE, completely seperate blog posting for Wherry.

  6. Forgive me for jesting, but isn't it interesting that Socialism, also known as Christ's Disease, is guided by the work of the Devil?

  7. I'm not saying "Your mother is a whore", but isn't it interesting that she has money?

  8. Apparently you are not ready to forgive me for jesting.

  9. So you feel that the free online section of Macleans magazine owes you more than it's currently providing?

    • It's providing me a forum to feedback to the authors that I think their work could use improvement. I'm not owed anymore than that I guess (or even that much), but as long as that forum exists I'll take advantage of it and hope things improve.

  10. I thought I was joining you in referencing.

  11. I thought I was joining you in referencing, albeit something completely different.

    • I had to google it… I ruined a great reference… I feel like a Turd Ferguson.

      • The important thing is that now you've seen it.

  12. The forum is to facilitate discussion among the users, not to critique the writers work.

    Do you think Wherry is sitting in his office thinking 'oh, well if john g says I should change what I write about…'

  13. I disagree. I think it's for both, particularly since most of the bloggers here are happy to join the fray. I've seen both Wells and Kady in their blogs indicate that they welcome criticism of their posts, but to lay off personal attacks against other commenters. I assume that goes for all bloggers here, or they can make like Potter did for a while and turn comments off. My comments may well not result in any change or improvement but at least I am on the record.

    • It's all fine and good for you to say you're trying to affect change, but really all you're doing is bitching that he's pushing his point of view on his blog as opposed to yours. Start your own blog, or don't read this one. Beyond that, try to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.

      • I'm grateful to Aaron Wherry for his prolific blogging output, and for providing a forum where we can share our views. That said, John G has every right to criticize the content of Wherry's blog posts. To their credit, all of the Maclean's bloggers seem open to such criticism.

      • I'm grateful to Aaron Wherry for his prolific blogging output, and for providing a forum where we can share our views. That said, John G has every right to criticize the content of Wherry's blog posts. To their credit, all of the Maclean's bloggers seem open to such feedback.

        • I suppose the only logical conclusion to this is that free speech runs both ways. There is still an inherent paradox in arguing your right to free speech so you can turn around and use it to try and dictate what another person says/posts.

          I just find it odd that after so long, it's like people are surprised by the content of this blog.

          • John G isn't trying to dictate what Wherry posts or impinge on his free speech. He's just respectfully expressing his opinion, which he considers to be constructive feedback. Nothing wrong with that.

          • Fair enough.

            I've registered your displeasure with my displeasure of john g's displeasure with Aaron's pleasure at Harper's displeasure.

      • I'm not asking for my point of view. All I ask is that journalists who criticize the government do so on reasonable grounds, and avoid using their bully pulpit to take shots that are clearly partisan for partisanship sake. I hope I'm not alone in believing that should be a requirement of the job.

        • This is a blog, it's not like he's doing it on CTV.

          • Aaron is a journalist who has a press pass and is blogging on behalf of Macleans which is Canada's leading news magazine. It's a fine line I guess. I still don't think it's too much to ask that a journalist eschew obvious partisanship, particularly one who has been quite prolific in his criticism of the partisan nature of this government.

          • Do you make these same rants in Mark Steyn's articles as well? Just curious.

          • Touche.

  14. This is a blog.

  15. The Manitoba NDP is not the same thing as the Jack Layton NDP at all (they are more fiscally prudent than the Harper Tories, in fact). Unfortunately, details like that escape the Aaron Wherry formula of thing A + thing B = HYPOCRISY!