Gay Patriot Header Image

Another anti-Bush Government Voted Out

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:24 am - January 24, 2006.
Filed under: Politics abroad

It seems that just like their neighbors to the South, even the Canadians don’t pay much attention to Michael Moore. Despite the last minute desperate appeal from this anti-American propagandist, Canadian voters yesterday rejected the Liberal government of Paul Martin. Those in the Great White North were not swayed by the Liberals’ fear-mongering that a pro-American government would be bad for their nation.

With 123 seats in the Canadian House of Commons, Stephen Harper’s Tories may not have mustered a majority, so will likely form a coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois.

Just like the Germans last fall, Canadians voted out a government whose leaders made clear their opposition to President Bush’s policies. While the Bush’s critics continually claim that people in other lands share their distaste for our Commander-in-Chief, it seems that when it comes time to vote, those abroad are not as obsessed with bashing the President of the United States as are some of their leaders — and their cheerleaders in the American media and blogosphere.

During his campaign, Canadian Prime Minister-designate Harper has made clear that once in office he will improve relations with the United States. As President Bush works with his new Canadian counterpart to further the longstanding ties between our two great nations, the Left will have an even tougher time proving their ludicrous claim that his policies have isolated our nation.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit reports that Portugal elected its first center-right president since a 1974 “military coup toppled a repressive right-wing dictatorship” (via Instapundit). Two countries rejected Socialism yesterday. Seems like it was a good day for conservatives around the world. I wonder if the MSM will notice.

UP-UPDATE (on 01-29): Reader Mer (comment #104) informs me that “the idea that Harper will form a coalition with anyone given the composition of this Parliament is giggle-worthy.” Apparently, I misinterpreted an article suggesting the Bloc Quebecois may cooperate with the Tories on some issues as meaning they would form a coalition with the Tories. She links this Canadian article on the election returns.

Share

122 Comments

  1. So now where are our liberals going to threaten, but never have the guts, to run away to?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 2:40 am - January 24, 2006

  2. Canada will still be socialist a long, long time.

    The Canadians made it clear they don’t want their health system (that secretly depends on the U.S. filling in the gaps) changed in the slightest. The Conservatives won because they moved to the center, and their opponents self-destructed – not because Canada shifted right.

    Dan’s ending quote would have been most accurate if it read, “Two countries rejected ADDITIONAL Socialism yesterday.”

    Comment by Calarato — January 24, 2006 @ 3:56 am - January 24, 2006

  3. #2

    True. But do you think they’ll finally have somebody that will give a shit about their military and start spending some money?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 4:31 am - January 24, 2006

  4. Perphas liberal ideaology is fading into the past. Its been around for a long 40 years and I am so tired of it/them. And now perhaps, so are other normal folk. Its a great time ot be observing the world.

    Comment by gaywhatever — January 24, 2006 @ 4:43 am - January 24, 2006

  5. GPW, shouldn’t we find out a little more about Portugal’s new government before we’re happy about this?

    Comment by Carl — January 24, 2006 @ 5:24 am - January 24, 2006

  6. Looks like a temporary setback. My Canada friends are upset about this. From what I understand, there was corruption and/or the appearance of corruption in the Liberal Party. And unlike this country where corruption and ineptitude doesn’t stop people from voting for them, many Canadians thought it was time for a change. Anyway, since it is a minority government, people are giving the conservatives 18 months before they’re out of power. We’ll see.

    Comment by Pat — January 24, 2006 @ 7:21 am - January 24, 2006

  7. As I commented on a post downstream, this post reminds me of a comment a British woman made to us on a plane several years ago: “Americans are very keen on themselves.” Not everything revolves around the US and its incumbent president. It is far more likely that the Libs were voted out of office in large part because of their corruption or perceived corruption. It is highly unlikely that the conservatives in Canada are going to substantially change course on their social welfare system.

    Just as it is highly unlikely that the new Merkel CDU government is going to substantially change course in Germany in their social welfare system, either.

    If and when Canada or Germany commit ground troops to Iraq, I might sit up and listen. Other than maybe training help for Iraqi police, Germany has sent next to nothing.

    Comment by raj — January 24, 2006 @ 8:47 am - January 24, 2006

  8. #6 And there you have it America: the Democrat’s spin on the Canadian elections –the Libs there lost because they had a culture of corruption akin to Bush Administration and the House. Therefore, it wasn’t the Libs that lost (or didn’t win as the Libs like to opine), it was that corrupt politicians (just don’t look too closely at the vast differences in the financial corruption in the Canadian Lib Party and the alleged corruption filling the Bush Administration and the House) were turned out of office.

    No shifts to the conservative pole. No change in Canadian govt’s view of the world order. No recriminations about failing socialism. Nope, it’s all about the culture of corruption.

    HowieDean’s screaming point #1 for the week.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 24, 2006 @ 8:51 am - January 24, 2006

  9. Best line of the Canadian Elections?

    Comes from the future PM Harper who, when chastised by now-outgoing Liberal PM Martin about not identifying revenues to pay for the modest $45m in tax cuts (to lift the burden on capital gains tax), Harper offered:

    “I don’t measure progress by the level of emotion or by the intensity of the sales pitch,” he said. “I measure it by achievement, one step at a time. I believe it’s better to light one candle than to promise a million bulbs.”

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 24, 2006 @ 9:10 am - January 24, 2006

  10. No question Harper and Merkel will struggle against statist inertia to achieve any lasting reform.

    But, not to compare apples to oranges too much, the U.S. was still mired in the ’1970′s’ when Reagan took office in 1981. He, too, was considered a fluke, had to contend with a Congress in the hands of his opposition and had to push back against three decades of leftward momentum in politics and society. All without alternative media.

    I know too little about Harper at this point. But, one can hope . . .

    Comment by cosmo — January 24, 2006 @ 9:15 am - January 24, 2006

  11. So I guess you BIG Bush supporters here CAN jump for joy today – Bush’s buddy got elected but luckily without a TOTAL victory. So you guys at Gay Patriot can celebrate that Canada will be closer to taking the “Right to Marry” away from gay people there….you happy now?

    Comment by JRC — January 24, 2006 @ 9:20 am - January 24, 2006

  12. I’ve mentioned before the Canaddian health care system only works well for the “worried well”.Frankly,I don’t care that much re’ “Right to Marry”.My sexuality doesn’t define my politics.

    Comment by corwin — January 24, 2006 @ 9:30 am - January 24, 2006

  13. This is an extremely simplistic analysis, and a poor post by GPW. However, great insight here in the comments. The Conservative Party wasn’t elected for the conservative ideals, and I fear that their platform doesn’t offer too much in the form of the thatcherism that once held the old party together in the 1980s.

    Comment by Jeremy — January 24, 2006 @ 9:54 am - January 24, 2006

  14. Besides, look at all the anti-Bush governments that have been voted IN recently – Uruguay, Bolivia, Chile. Of course those are all Latin American so I guess they don’t count in your world view

    Comment by zen_less — January 24, 2006 @ 9:59 am - January 24, 2006

  15. Uruguay, Bolivia and Chile don’t count in anybody’s world-view, clue-less. Canada, Germany, the UK and Italy still count though, and they’re moving away from Bush-bashing and hysterical anti-Americanism. No, Canada has not abandoned socialism just yet, and Harper will be forced to make more compromises to govern, but I suspect he will make some important changes. Foreign policy is one area in which he will have a free hand. Also, a strong contender for the Liberal leadership, Michael Ignatieff, supported the Iraq War. The Liberals could end up making a comeback with a pro-American (formerly living in America), pro-Iraqi academic at the head. Wouldn’t that be funny!

    Comment by Philip Cassini — January 24, 2006 @ 10:13 am - January 24, 2006

  16. cosmo — January 24, 2006 @ 9:15 am – January 24, 2006

    No question Harper and Merkel will struggle against statist inertia to achieve any lasting reform.

    Regarding Merkel, you are extremely naive if you believe that she will even propose any “lasting reform.” Merkel is the Ossie (East German) protege of Wessie (West German) Helmut Kohl. He was CDU Kanzler for on the order of 16 years. The CDU is the self-styled “conservative” party, but they would not be recognized as being self-styled “conservatives” in the US sense. Schroeder succeeded Kohl.

    Did Kohl make any changes to the German social security system (which includes not only retirement, but also organizes (but does not fund) medical care while he was in power? No. Not a bit.

    What did Kohl do? He bought reunification with East Germany by significantly debasing the West German currency, the D-Mark. But it doesn’t mean a whole lot, since the only people left in East Germany are the elderly and the depert. Reunification has been a significant drain on West Germany over the last 15 years. All thanks to the conservatives under Kohl.

    And Merkel is Kohl’s protege. Stupid is as stupid does.

    Comment by raj — January 24, 2006 @ 10:16 am - January 24, 2006

  17. #13 Jeremy, the Conservative Party wasn’t elected for its conservative ideals? Cutting taxes, stressing a values-driven govt, arguing for greater military spending while gaining control over govt spending… those are all conservative values. Hell, soon2b PM Harper offered he could bring in the next year’s federal budget within a $1b of Labor’s old budget… that even sounds conservative these days. Granted, Harper didn’t speak about wholesale deconstrcution of the socialist state in Canada… but that will come as he gains power in the years ahead. The thing he understood well is that you have to get elected first before you can change govt.

    Wasn’t elected on conservative values? Ha! Put down the coolaid for a second and take in some oxygen.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 24, 2006 @ 10:18 am - January 24, 2006

  18. My Canada friends are upset about this

    My Canadian friends are ecstatic.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 24, 2006 @ 10:20 am - January 24, 2006

  19. Uruguay, Bolivia and Chile voted IN? You can’t be serious – haha! It’s funny how the left trusts foreign communists, dictators and drug runners more than they trust their own government. What ninnies!

    Anyway, Harpers election is a healthy first step toward Canadian reform. The best antidote to socialism is a vibrant, dynamic private sector economy. Tax cuts will help to that end and are already stated as part of his plan.

    As far as gay marriage is concerned the gay activists (in the US) blew it in ’04 when they insisted upon the word “marriage.” Civil Union would have been, and still is, a perfectly good alternative. God forbid everyone be happy. So the Libs just had to keep stickin’ it in the traditionalists eye – and look what’s happened.

    Anyway, CONgratulations Canada!!!!!!

    Comment by Dave — January 24, 2006 @ 10:33 am - January 24, 2006

  20. Michael Moore -> typical american.

    What amazes me is how many conservatives in the U.S. are applauding this.

    A key plank in the Canadian Conservatives campaign was that they were going to “get tough” with the Americans on the $5 billion dollars in softwood lumber tariffs that were stolen.

    Warning – Choppy waters ahead…

    Comment by BC — January 24, 2006 @ 10:40 am - January 24, 2006

  21. #16 Reunification has been a significant drain on West Germany.

    Gosh, according to this guy fixing a broken nation, half of which had just been freed from decades of oppression, just wasn’t worth it. I’m sure the families who were separated for decades by the Wall were very upset by the effort. Leave it to a lefty to spin even a noble act in a negative way.

    Comment by Dave — January 24, 2006 @ 10:41 am - January 24, 2006

  22. How is your self loathing these days? Nice to see you still enjoy oppressing people even if they are white. Harper will put his foot in his mouth within a month and be voted out of his position. Canadians unlike Americans actually pay attention to politics and recognize a fascist when they see one.

    Comment by madmatt — January 24, 2006 @ 10:45 am - January 24, 2006

  23. I recently read the Conservative Party’s platform, and to me at least, it seems a pretty sound set of principles. They may be a little to the right of my philosophy regarding marriage, but hey, they want to protect the environment, and embrace reform at many levels of government. They also want to rein in spending. How can any of that be bad?

    How, also, can anyone seriously compare their platform to the US’s so-called conservatives? In the US, the so-called conservatives calling the shots are the absolute antithesis of conservative. They’re married to the extremist, religious-whacko American Taliban. To defend capitalism at all costs, they trounce the environment at every turn. And in a turnabout that absolutely makes my head throb when I hear American “conservatives” prattle on about “tax and spend liberals”–”conservatives” in the US spend like drunken sailors on a Bangkok binge. Only they do it on credit, rather than actually paying as you go, through taxation…Gee, there’s some real conservatism for you, huh? Oh, lest I forget, they also use the Constitution of the United States as toilet paper.

    Geesh, I would vote for a Canadian conservative over the losers we in the US have any day.

    Comment by JasonM in NH — January 24, 2006 @ 10:47 am - January 24, 2006

  24. “A key plank in the Canadian Conservatives campaign was that they were going to “get tough” with the Americans on the $5 billion dollars in softwood lumber tariffs that were stolen.”

    Don’t interrupt their party. Why think when you can just jump to the conclusion that a Canadian Conservative government = Bush government. The right has become so insecure that they have to find their victories in other countries.

    Comment by Adam — January 24, 2006 @ 10:51 am - January 24, 2006

  25. Dave — January 24, 2006 @ 10:41 am – January 24, 2006

    For those of this who had actually paid attention in the 1990 time frame, it is clear that the Kohl strategy was to buy reunification via debasement of the West German currency. That sincerely is beyond dispute. The Kohl gov’ts plan to exchange Ossie marks for Wessie marks was heavily criticized in the same time frame, but it was recognized as sorely lacking.

    The point being, Kolh’s CDU/CSU’s policy, of which Merkel was a co-conspirator, was a sham.

    Comment by raj — January 24, 2006 @ 10:51 am - January 24, 2006

  26. Please, Raj and Jason!

    Don’t confuse us with meaningful distinctions or facts.

    R. Mutt in GA

    Comment by R.Mutt — January 24, 2006 @ 11:13 am - January 24, 2006

  27. “I don’t measure progress by the level of emotion or by the intensity of the sales pitch,” he said. “I measure it by achievement, one step at a time. I believe it’s better to light one candle than to promise a million bulbs.”

    I like him already.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 24, 2006 @ 11:24 am - January 24, 2006

  28. 25. The Kohl gov’ts plan to exchange Ossie marks for Wessie marks was heavily criticized

    So what would your solution have been Raj and Jason?

    Comment by Dave — January 24, 2006 @ 11:32 am - January 24, 2006

  29. And Adam, its the left has become so insecure becase all they can do is attack conservatives.

    There’s no doubt that Canadian conservatives differ from their American counterparts, but at least they have made clear they will not be our adversaries in world politics — and will likely work amicably to resolve such differences as the timber dispute.

    While it’s always nice to see the failure of a party campaigning on an anti-American agenda, it seems it’s the left that’s constantly looking abroad for their victories since, at least on the national level in the US, they don’t seem to be scoring so many here.

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — January 24, 2006 @ 11:34 am - January 24, 2006

  30. Jeff? Jeff Gannon? Is that you, Jeffy, you big military stud you.

    Comment by Bottom Boy — January 24, 2006 @ 12:08 pm - January 24, 2006

  31. Dave — January 24, 2006 @ 11:32 am – January 24, 2006

    So what would your solution have been Raj…?

    My solution as to what? What I was saying, as should have been apparent, was that the likelihood there will be any substantial change in direction under a Merkel CDU government in Germany is between slim and none. And that her mentor, Helmut Kohl (CDU), was a substantial cause of the demise of the Deutsche Mark, West Germany’s former currency.

    Stupid is as stupid does. And there are more than a few stupid conservatives.

    Merkel’s government is in a highly unstable coalition with its adversary, the SPD. I’d expect to see another election within 18 months. She isn’t going to rein in the German social security system. The Conservatives in Canada will probably find itself in a similar condition–a minority government in an unstable coalition.

    Comment by raj — January 24, 2006 @ 12:12 pm - January 24, 2006

  32. So does anyone here know anything about Portugal’s new government? Can you tell us?

    Comment by Carl — January 24, 2006 @ 12:41 pm - January 24, 2006

  33. Dave — January 24, 2006 @ 10:41 am – January 24, 2006

    I’m sure the families who were separated for decades by the Wall were very upset by the effort.

    I doubt that they were “upset by the effort.” Not after the Ossies got all those Wessie Deutsche Marks in their pockets. Reunification, purchased by Wessie DMs at bargain rates. The families didn’t have to remain separated after the demise of the DDR. There were tour buses that travelled between France & West Germany, Italy & West Germany, Austria & West Germany and Switzerland & West Germany, and that could have travelled between East Germany & West Germany. We fly into West Germany on an airplane from the US, and have been doing so since 1985. Kohl didn’t have to debase the West German currency in order to allow East Germans to visit their relatives in the West. Some East Germans at the time wanted to form their own independed country. But Kohl, stupid that he was, gave the East Germans an offer that they would have been stupid to refuse: an exchange of 1:1 on their worthless currency.

    And Kohl was Angela Merkel’s mentor.

    Comment by raj — January 24, 2006 @ 12:49 pm - January 24, 2006

  34. OT: Definition of Irony. The same Democrats who whine that Republicans are a “Culture of Corruption” that only serves the bidding of the interest groups that donate to them… have just voted party-line against Alito because the interest groups that donate to Democrats ordered them to.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - January 24, 2006

  35. But, not to compare apples to oranges too much, the U.S. was still mired in the ‘1970’s’ when Reagan took office in 1981. He, too, was considered a fluke, had to contend with a Congress in the hands of his opposition and had to push back against three decades of leftward momentum in politics and society. All without alternative media.

    I know too little about Harper at this point. But, one can hope . . .

    For what to happen? Start an underground terror operation and then forgetting about it?

    Comment by DDT — January 24, 2006 @ 1:20 pm - January 24, 2006

  36. #34 – Hah hah :-)

    Speaking of “culture of corruption”, Gateway Pundit has a very good post about it.

    It seems it’s just another frantic Kos/DNC/MoveOn talking point, because here we are in the 6th year of the Bush Administration, and they have only 1 indictment and 0 convictions, whereas in the equivalent 6th year of the Clinton Administration, they were up to dozens of indictments AND convictions of a variety of senior officials.

    Maybe that’s why the imagery of “frog marching” is so prominent in Leftists’ minds?

    Comment by Calarato — January 24, 2006 @ 1:24 pm - January 24, 2006

  37. How is Steven Harper winning a minority government a “vote against socialism”? His lips are going to need to be firmly planted on the ass of Gilles Duceppe and probably the ass of the openly gay André Boisclair as well. The Bloc can do to Harper exactly what the NDP did to Martin. He better keep his lips pressed against Jack Layton’s ass as well for good measure.

    No matter how hard Harper tries, he cannot stretch 124 seats into 155 or more.

    Comment by The Angry Fag — January 24, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - January 24, 2006

  38. #33. Raj, I still want to know what you would have done. West Germany had to integrate East Germany. This could not have been done if the former East Germans money remained worthless. You say the West German Mark was devalued as a result. So? Would you have preferred that the entire East become a permanent welfare state? The resulting strain on the West would have caused devaluation of the Mark as well. I don’t see your point as being much of an argument for debasing Conservatives.

    Comment by Dave — January 24, 2006 @ 1:38 pm - January 24, 2006

  39. Calarato,

    It would be fun if it were actually a sports event as extremists on both sides appear to view it. It’s our country, not a ball game. Heck, I mean it’s the whole world . . .

    Comment by tired of political playtime — January 24, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - January 24, 2006

  40. #8 Matt, you pretty much nailed the analysis in your first two paragraphs there. Of course, you’ve meant it as sarcasm, but I wonder how one can claim this is a big victory for conservatives in Canada when the reason appears to be that most voters were tired of the corruption. But we’ll see. If the government does last for more than two years, and is reelected, then you and GPW could be onto something. Also, it is a minority government, so again, it’s hard to say how much of a conservative win it is. Further, we have to see if the conservatives listen to the religious conservatives there and see how it affects gay rights and marriage there, or if they tell them to stick it, like the Republicans (and Democrats) should do here.

    Some of my info came from friends I know in Canada, not Howard Dean. It’s possible that they got their views from Howard Dean’s “screaming” points. Anyway, you seem more in tune with Howard Dean than I am. Further, if there was a screaming hysteria contest between you and him, I’m betting you put up a good fight.

    Comment by Pat — January 24, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - January 24, 2006

  41. #23 JasonM in NH…. “Geesh, I would vote for a Canadian conservative over the losers we in the US have any day.” Really now?

    Have you thought about crossing over into the green flannel state –last I heard, most residents there thought they were part of Canada already. Besides, New Hampshire can always afford to lose another trailer home; but be advised, mobile home trailers aren’t legal occupancy units in Vermont.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 24, 2006 @ 2:57 pm - January 24, 2006

  42. #22 MadMatt… “How is your self loathing these days? Nice to see you still enjoy oppressing people even if they are white. Harper will put his foot in his mouth within a month and be voted out of his position. Canadians unlike Americans actually pay attention to politics and recognize a fascist when they see one.”

    Care to place a wager on your nonsense claim? If Harper’s out 30 days, no 60 days, no, I’ll give you 90 days after taking office, I’ll donate $100 to the HRC. I won’t like it and will have to swallow real hard, but I’ll do it.

    If he isn’t, you donate $100 to the TomDeLay Defense Fund.

    Come on bigboy, quit playing with yourself, pull up those britches and be a man.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 24, 2006 @ 3:01 pm - January 24, 2006

  43. “With 123 seats in the Canadian House of Commons, Stephen Harper’s Tories may not have mustered a majority, so will likely form a coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois.”

    Unlike the winger mantra that liberals are traitors, the Bloc are *actually traitors* to the country. (Although up here we’re a little less stupid about it and try and see their point instead of demonizing them)

    They actively pursue the failure of confederation and the breakup and injury of the country.

    And Harper is forming a coalition with them. Wow. I guess it makes sense considering he’s really an Alberta separatist.

    If that coalition happens it will be clear who the real enemies of Canada are.

    Comment by Angryflower — January 24, 2006 @ 3:46 pm - January 24, 2006

  44. Don’t hold your breath, Dan. You know it was only a “trend” in the media when Bush-hating lunatics went on a little streak, like Zapatero in Spain. Meanwhile, the last several months have seen conservative victories in countries including the U.S., Australia, Denmark, Germany, Portugal and Canada, and a key American ally won in the UK. *YAWN!*

    Comment by Malcontent — January 24, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - January 24, 2006

  45. Can bush now expect some Canadian troops to do a little dying in Iraq for us?

    We all know that every ‘patriot’ at this site is too cowardly to volunteer for the war they support so much.

    Dave, which military battle won the cold war? I can’t remember which country that bloody battle we fought in? Or were you dodging military duty back then too?

    I’ve only heard the Republicowards say that it was because the wise Reagan spent taxpayer money like a teenage girl at the mall with daddy’s credit card.

    bok bok Chicken Hawks

    Comment by Lars Gruber — January 24, 2006 @ 4:44 pm - January 24, 2006

  46. I’m sure al-Qaeda could use a few human shields, Lars. Why not go sign up?

    Comment by Malcontent — January 24, 2006 @ 4:52 pm - January 24, 2006

  47. #14

    So now we’re supposed to care what the Socialists think?

    Besides, when the liberals were using their whining points about how we should have listened to our “allies”, I don’t recall them ever mentioning Bolivia, Chile etc.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - January 24, 2006

  48. Dave — January 24, 2006 @ 1:38 pm – January 24, 2006

    West Germany had to integrate East Germany.

    No it didn’t Kohl didn’t have to do anything. There were a number of people in the DDR who wanted to establish their own state in East Germany, and not all of them were communists–or former communists. Kohl wanted to become known as the “Kanzler von der Wiedervereinigung,” and he bought it by debasing West German’s currency.

    Kohl could probably have also bought re-unification (“Wiedervereinigung”) without debasing the Deutsche Mark, by exchanging East German currency at something approximaing a reasonable then-going exchange rate. He didn’t; he exchanged it on a one-to-one basis.

    Kohl could also have allowed the East Germans who wanted to emigrate to West Germany to do so without annexing East Germany and without debasing the currency. The West German constitution had a standing provision that they would accept ethnic German immigrants–regardless of how tenuous their German ethnicity. (There was a standing joke in West Germany that, for more than a few of the ethnic German immigrants from the former USSR, the only thing that was German about them was that they owned a German shepherd.) That would not have required re-unification, and it would not have debased the Deutsche Mark.

    One side remark, a major issue in the reunification debate was abortion. The DDR had much more liberal abortion laws than West Germany. I don’t know how that eventually played out (not having a need for abortion services–Abtreibungsrecht–I didn’t follow it), but that was a significant issue on the DDR side. I’m not going to get into a discussion of abortion rights–I’ve done that too often over the last 10 years for it to be interestin–I just wanted to make an observation.

    Comment by raj — January 24, 2006 @ 5:11 pm - January 24, 2006

  49. Dave — January 24, 2006 @ 1:38 pm – January 24, 2006

    This could not have been done if the former East Germans money remained worthless. You say the West German Mark was devalued as a result. So? Would you have preferred that the entire East become a permanent welfare state?

    This makes no sense whatsoever. A welfare state of whom? West Germany? What would suggest that West Germany would be paying welfare to East Germany, if the East Germans maintained their own country? There have been several instances in which countries remained divided–East Pakistan and West Pakistan is one example. After splitting off from West Pakistan (now just Pakistan), East Pakistan became what is now Bangla Desh, of course, and, after a few years of problems, reports have been that they are muddling through quite handily. And the Czechs in the former Czechoslovakia jettisoned the Slovaks when they became obstreperous in the country’s parliament. I don’t know how well Slovakia is doing, but the Czech Republic is reportedly doing fairly well.

    Comment by raj — January 24, 2006 @ 5:22 pm - January 24, 2006

  50. Malcowardtent,

    I didn’t mention anything about Al Qaeda. I said Iraq. You know, the country that didn’t attack us. Don’t confuse it with the Saudi Arabians based in Afganistan that actually did attack us. You can tell the difference between the two because the attackers are free, and the ones that didn’t attack us are dead.

    Why would I want to be a human shield for Al Qaeda. I don’t support Al Qaeda. They represent the opposite of my convictions.

    You are the coward that supports the war in Iraq and yet, you are too chicken to go fight. Much as you are too chicken to get from behind your keyboard. Perhaps you were bullied as a child, or daddy beat you, but you still have to deal with your cowardice.

    The fact that Osama walks freely and does what he wants is an insult to every American. But without Osama free, how would bush boy cajol the Useful-Facists? He desperately needs you frightened and ignorant, and YOU are doing a heck of a job.

    bok bok Chicken Hawk

    Comment by Lars Gruber — January 24, 2006 @ 5:22 pm - January 24, 2006

  51. #20
    Michael Moore -> typical american.

    So typical Americans pretend to care about “the little guy” while flying in corporate jets? Typical Americans deny, on multiple occasions, owning any shares of stock while actually holding shares in numerous energy and military contractors, not to mention the dreaded Halliburton? Do Typical Americans pontificate about how racist America is, yet lives in practically all-white areas and hires virtually no blacks? Do typical Americans claim to be from one town, but actually come another? Do typical Americans make films which piss off the UAW, pushed by Hezbollah, and thoroughly debunked by anybody who’s not a Kool-Aid drinker?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - January 24, 2006

  52. #50

    Yeah he’s free. Who kicked his ass out of Afghanistan, freed 25 million people in the process and relegated bin Laden to hiding in caves?

    BTW, how old were you when your daddy started molesting you?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 5:30 pm - January 24, 2006

  53. Lars: Spoken like a man who gets all of his “news” from the Democratic Underground.

    Comment by Malcontent — January 24, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - January 24, 2006

  54. Dear Lars Gruber, Iraq attacked the US many times. Even if it had not shot at our planes every day for ten years, and had not attempted to assasinate Bush Sr. there would still have been ample grounds for going to war with Iraq due to the long list of UN resolution violations. I realize you’re not open minded to accept this truth. But I make the point (for the hundredth time it seems) for the benefit of other readers who are open minded, especially the newer ones.
    Happy Harper Day everyone!

    Comment by Dave — January 24, 2006 @ 6:02 pm - January 24, 2006

  55. I wouldn’t portray either the German election or the Canadian election as some sort of vidiciation for Bush abroad. Germany’s economy had been in the sh*tter prior to the election and unemplyment was at something like 11%. I think Germans voted much more with their pocketbooks than any greater world view. Canada, although it seems many voters — including liberals — want a better relationship with the U.S., voted to rid itself of a corrupt do-nothing government.

    Comment by PatriotPal — January 24, 2006 @ 6:04 pm - January 24, 2006

  56. #55

    Besides, Bush was directed by the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, signed by lord B.J., to remove Saddam from power.

    #53

    Are the more than 100,000 dead innocents in Iraq freed?

    You did get that DNC memo that this lie was debunked a long time ago, right?

    TIMMERRR!!! fucktard.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - January 24, 2006

  57. WOW! Mal, looks like you just got called out!

    Scared????

    I’ll meditate for you.

    Are the more than 100,000 dead innocents in Iraq freed?

    Yes. From their mortal coil. JK

    I seem to recall that they were killed by something called the insurgents and NOT by US soldiers. If the UN would have let Bush 1 finish the job in 91, maybe those 100,000 innocents would still be alive.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 24, 2006 @ 6:56 pm - January 24, 2006

  58. I just wanted to point out that Harper’s victory up here is most only a “victory” for Conservatism in the most superficial sense. Canadians were tired of Liberal corruption and they elected a minority Conservative government as a way of keeping the reins on a bunch of politicians they’re far from certain they can trust yet… if ever. For Harper to succeed, he must move toward the centre — safe traditional ground for Canadian governments historically (Americans, don’t forget our “centre” might well be a tad leftward of your “centre”).

    Not only that, but the NDP, the socialist (more strictly: social democratic) party gained 10 seats since the last federal election and came within a whisker of holding the balance of power. The Bloc itself is a left wing party, too. What has occurred here is a very delicate balanced compromise that, however fragile, and however hard you spin it, most definitely doesn’t represent a wholesale embracing of Conservatism in Canada (Alberta notwithstanding).

    Comment by David — January 24, 2006 @ 7:07 pm - January 24, 2006

  59. The important thing is that a conservative power block can get its own message out better and speak for itself instead of the socialist-leaning bullies that run Canada speaking for (about) them. That, and the internet, will just start that hateful Leftist coil unwinding and finally let Canada prosper again. It is a small first step but who in 1980 or even 1990 saw the Republicans running the entire government one day?

    Comment by VinceTN — January 24, 2006 @ 7:35 pm - January 24, 2006

  60. “So typical Americans pretend to care about “the little guy” while flying in corporate jets? Typical Americans deny, on multiple occasions, owning any shares of stock while actually holding shares in numerous energy and military contractors, not to mention the dreaded Halliburton? Do Typical Americans pontificate about how racist America is, yet lives in practically all-white areas and hires virtually no blacks? Do typical Americans claim to be from one town, but actually come another? Do typical Americans make films which piss off the UAW, pushed by Hezbollah, and thoroughly debunked by anybody who’s not a Kool-Aid drinker?”

    Bill O’Reilly made a movie?

    Comment by JT — January 24, 2006 @ 7:39 pm - January 24, 2006

  61. #56 – But that’s what’s nice about freedom-based ideas (“conservative” ideas if you prefer). They work. They support life in reality.

    Sooner or later, reality catches up with all the hateful socialists in the world, and forces them (or their country / audience) to shift toward greater freedom.

    Comment by Calarato — January 24, 2006 @ 7:41 pm - January 24, 2006

  62. I just did some more thinking on this.

    If you compare it with the 2004 Federal Election, of course the conservatives have done well this time around. However, I’d still caution against seeing this as a sweeping victory for Conservatism. When you break down the results in terms of seats, regional differences become very stark indeed.

    In Atlantic Canada, the situation very much mirrors that of 2004. In fact, the Conservatives had a net loss of one seat in the region as a whole (Newfoundland).

    In Central Canada, Conservatives made their biggest gains, and yet those two provinces, Quebec and Ontario, still returned majorities for the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals respectively. The NDP also gained in the latter (from 7 seats in ’04 to 12 this time around).

    In the Prairie Provinces, the Conservatives gained two net seats from 56, hardly a significant blow in an area already known for Conservative politics (they lost a seat in Saskatchewan, gained one in Manitoba, and gained two in Alberta).

    In British Columbia, the Conservatives lost a significant number of seats (5 of 36), mostly to the NDP, while the Liberals even gained one seat, suggesting a distinct leftward lurch in that Province.

    And finally, in the North, of the three seats up for grabs, no Conservatives were elected, which is no real change from ’04, except that one NDP candidate supplanted the Liberal incumbent in the Northwest Territories, indicating a 33% leftward lurch.

    So, it was in Central Canada where the Conservatives made their biggest gains, albeit still behind the other dominant parties there, and since those two provinces have consistently voted left and centre left traditionally, I wouldn’t put money on them voting that way again come next election. The Prairie provinces and Atlantic Canada virtually cancel each other out in terms of net loss/gain (Conservatives gain one overall), and the Conservatives took a significant hit in BC. The North is virtually unchanged.

    This really wasn’t a bad set of results from the perspective of the left, especially when you take the long view.

    [See this website.]

    Comment by David — January 24, 2006 @ 7:58 pm - January 24, 2006

  63. listen, you dumb queer-ass fag, we’re really tolerant in canada, and these extremist right wing Bush-loving Conservatives who just took power up here will be gone and our socialists will be back in power in no time.

    suck on this mad cow, queer boy

    Comment by dave — January 24, 2006 @ 9:01 pm - January 24, 2006

  64. Lars said:

    We all know that every ‘patriot’ at this site is too cowardly to volunteer for the war they support so much.

    No. More likely too Gay, too Old, or both.

    Ooops, sorry guys. I just outed us as being old:-)

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 24, 2006 @ 9:04 pm - January 24, 2006

  65. I agree with those who note that this does not represent a vindication for conservatism in Canada which, if you read the post, wasn’t its point. It represents instead a repudiation of an anti-American government and improvement in relations between our two nations.

    I have been in classes all day — and still have two hours more, so regret that I have not been able to join what has, by and large, been a wide-ranging and good discussion.

    Those leftists who joined in merely to bash conservatives or call us names show their true colors. Some on the left have raised valid points, while others have shown that they see the political arena merely as another forum in which to throw a temper tantrum.

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — January 24, 2006 @ 9:20 pm - January 24, 2006

  66. What happens when liberals stop BSing and start being honest???

    listen, you dumb queer-ass fag, we’re really tolerant in canada,…suck on this mad cow, queer boy

    Yeah. Real tolerant there, Timmy.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 9:38 pm - January 24, 2006

  67. #63

    So in other words, Canada still sucks?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 9:42 pm - January 24, 2006

  68. Congrats to fellow conservatives. Isn’t it amazing…Liberals can’t progress cos they never admit first of all when they lose. Imagine being on a team who’s bright lights are Cuba, Bolivia, Peru, HRC, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and now defeated govt’s in Canada ,Germany and Portugal. Is it any wonder these people are misrable? And btw it’snot cos their ideas are horrible, it’s cos they’ve been cheated or the “people” are stupid.
    Now that Prez Bush has an honorable friend in Ottawa…I bet he sets to work on allowing the Canadians to win a Stanley Cup again.
    *About the corruption scandals. The scandals in Canada were primarily bribary in the Liberal party. The DC scandal will dirty both dems and republicans. Republicans ask our tainted guys to leave…Democrats throw large celebratory dinners for theirs. Ahhem Teddy the towel Kennedy the “lion” of the democrat senators. Mary Jo Kopechkne was unavailable for comment. Robert “sheets” Byrd was a grand exhaulted wizard, not just an average run of the mill KKK. Joe “I did too write most of that speech myself” Biden. God couldnt we go on and on….

    Comment by Gene — January 24, 2006 @ 9:43 pm - January 24, 2006

  69. Oh by the way I’m gay, a conservative and ex army. Served 72-74
    Nutts to the lib, frenchey anti patriots. Keep smiling bois!

    Comment by Gene — January 24, 2006 @ 9:47 pm - January 24, 2006

  70. #53

    Brace yourselves, cowards. The adults are coming back into power and impeachment is on everyone’s lips.

    I thought West Wing was cancelled & Commander In Chief was in the toilet.

    Seriously though, as long as you little kids don’t take the war on terror seriously, as long as you think Bush is the enemy, as long as you have to have meetings to figure out what you stand for and as long as you can’t be honest about what you stand for, nobody’s going to vote for you. The only place the liberals will go is deeper into the quagmire they put themselves in.

    Besides, you keep telling us how the liberals are spineless and don’t stand for anything. Who the hell is going to have the confidence to vote for that????

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 9:51 pm - January 24, 2006

  71. #69 & 70

    Cheers!

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - January 24, 2006

  72. “Brace yourselves, cowards. The adults are coming back into power and impeachment is on everyone’s lips.”

    Said the 2-year-old to the real grownups, who looked on indulgently.

    LOL

    Actually, I really hope the Democrats run on an impeachment platform this year. There are certain issues/ideas the Democrats could win with. And impeachment is the exact opposite of being one of them.

    And maybe if the Democrats get creamed again for running insanely on the exact wrong platform (again), the grownups in their party will finally come back.

    Then maybe, just maybe – looking at ’08, ’10 or beyond – we can finally have a competitive, functional 2-party system again.

    Comment by Calarato — January 24, 2006 @ 10:33 pm - January 24, 2006

  73. #65 – You got me, sonic. (Too old, too weak-eyed and too gay, all at once.)

    Comment by Calarato — January 24, 2006 @ 10:36 pm - January 24, 2006

  74. if you had done your homework, you’d have learned this wasn’t an endorsement of conservatism as much as it was a reaction to the liberal’s scandal. what a sloppy post. do some research.

    Comment by rightiswrong — January 24, 2006 @ 10:37 pm - January 24, 2006

  75. LOL – again!

    How sloppy RIW is! (Since Dan (1) did his homework, (2) DIDN’T claim the Canadians have gone conservative.)

    Comment by Calarato — January 24, 2006 @ 10:43 pm - January 24, 2006

  76. Lars is the typical loony leftard. He thinks that as soon as you catch or kill Osama, the War on Terror is over, the Jihadists will immediately drop their weapons and go out and get jobs selling Amway.

    Comment by Mr Kennedy (Kennedy) — January 24, 2006 @ 10:46 pm - January 24, 2006

  77. RE #41 “Besides, New Hampshire can always afford to lose another trailer home;”

    Phenomonally ignorant, Michigan-Matt.

    Wow.

    Comment by JasonM in NH — January 24, 2006 @ 10:52 pm - January 24, 2006

  78. I wasn’t aware that foriegn governments voted for their own leaders based on the United States. Hmmmmm. It’s kinda like the term “leader of the free world” to apply to the president of the US. Last I checked, no one in the free world outside of the US had a vote for the president of the US….

    Comment by Kevin — January 24, 2006 @ 11:07 pm - January 24, 2006

  79. Harpers words, worth repeating (and a bit of commentary by a fellow blogger)

    “I don’t measure progress by the level of emotion or by the intensity of the sales pitch,” he said. “I measure it by achievement, one step at a time. I believe it’s better to light one candle than to promise a million bulbs.”

    I like him already.

    Comment by Dave — January 24, 2006 @ 11:09 pm - January 24, 2006

  80. Raj – you sound like a currency speculator that got burned in the Wessie Mark/Ossie Mark tango.

    Comment by Queer Conservative — January 24, 2006 @ 11:09 pm - January 24, 2006

  81. V the K, #34, why are you assuming every Democrat opposing Sam Alito is doing so because liberal interest groups have ordered them to do so?

    I’m a lifelong Republican — voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964, Dick Nixon in 1968 and 1972, Jerry Ford in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, George H. W. Bush in 1988 and 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 — and I strongly oppose the confirmation of Alito to the Supreme Court. The thought of him replacing Sandra Day O’Connor makes it hard to sleep soundly.

    Comment by Jack Allen — January 24, 2006 @ 11:11 pm - January 24, 2006

  82. Jack, word to the wise…the “I’m a lifelong Republican and even I….” line doesn’t work here.

    Stick to substance.

    Comment by Calarato — January 24, 2006 @ 11:36 pm - January 24, 2006

  83. 1.)I believe the reason for the solid conservative support in the West is related to the fact that our farmers are strained by trade agreements with the US and government interference. Nothing more. Very little of the “light to flame” garbage was even considered. Canadians also know what is bull*&t and what isn’t in our elections. That ranting showed us one thing though…enough to know that Harper needs to be on a tight leash=minority government.
    2.) Over 75% of Canadian History has seen Liberal Leadership. They get a bit of a slap every so often, but historically they have been the Canadian party. The Liberals will regroup, Harper will F&^% up, and they will be out.

    Comment by Left of Centre Kanuk(not gay;)) — January 25, 2006 @ 12:14 am - January 25, 2006

  84. PS. Hopefully he represents his agricultural constituents before he goes though.

    Comment by Left of Centre Kanuk(not gay;)) — January 25, 2006 @ 12:17 am - January 25, 2006

  85. #79
    God Lord we have to keep educating “these people…”
    Leader of the free world….ummm probably came into the language because the USA helped to free France and most of Europe from the Nazis 50 years ago. Freed the Japanese from a tyranical military government absorbing east Asia 50 yrs ago, unlocked the Soviet gulogs during Reagan/Bush 41/JPaul 2, and most recently freed over 40 million Iraqi and Afgani peoples. Now I hate to rub it in and Libs hate to acknowledge the greatness of America. But what would you call the leader of such a nation? Cheer up. Bush 43 is the leader of this magnificent nation, and “leader of the free world” is very aprop.

    Comment by Gene — January 25, 2006 @ 12:22 am - January 25, 2006

  86. nod

    Comment by Left of Centre Kanuk(not gay;)) — January 25, 2006 @ 12:25 am - January 25, 2006

  87. Gosh another thought….
    when exactly are the Republicans suppose to start all the crap?
    I thought Jan 2001 children were going to be startved ,old people thrown into the streets, gay people hanged, african americans returned to the plantations, college loans cut off, back alley abortions begun anew, etc. Then it was 2004 if HE got re elected..oh boy then it ll start. Look out! Now it’s oh man if he gets any more supremes …holy cow hide the children! Sorry Libs the unwashed masses arent that stupid.

    Comment by Gene — January 25, 2006 @ 12:28 am - January 25, 2006

  88. #79

    Give the liberals time. They’ll “dig up” all kinds of folks to vote for them. Hell, won’t be long and they’ll have Puerto Rico & Guam voting just so they can get a few.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 25, 2006 @ 12:33 am - January 25, 2006

  89. You have a good night, Gene

    Comment by Left of Centre Kanuk(not gay;)) — January 25, 2006 @ 12:34 am - January 25, 2006

  90. #88

    Where’s the draft we were promissed would begin early last year. Bear with Kevin. I think he’s still trying to find those gay internment camps. I’m optimistic, though not holding my breath, that he’ll have a report for us some day.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 25, 2006 @ 12:36 am - January 25, 2006

  91. [...] Gay Patriot lo resume todo en el título: Cae otro gobierno anti-Bush [...]

    Pingback by HispaLibertas » 24 de Enero — January 25, 2006 @ 3:52 am - January 25, 2006

  92. [...] Sobre la extinción de la especie, en Gay Patriot (vía HL) Just like the Germans last fall, Canadians voted out a government whose leaders made clear their opposition to President Bush’s policies. While the Bush’s critics continually claim that people in other lands share their distaste for our Commander-in-Chief, it seems that when it comes time to vote, those abroad are not as obsessed with bashing the President of the United States as are some of their leaders — and their cheerleaders in the American media and blogosphere. [...]

    Pingback by Desde el exilio » Blog Archive » La extinción de los Gobiernos anti-Bush — January 25, 2006 @ 6:06 am - January 25, 2006

  93. PatriotPal — January 24, 2006 @ 6:04 pm – January 24, 2006

    I wouldn’t portray … the German election … as some sort of vidiciation for Bush abroad.

    I wouldn’t either. (I won’t comment on the issues involved in the Canadian election.) Several years ago, Schroeder made a comment to the effect that, if we (the SPD government) can’t get unemployment down, we do not deserve to be re-elected. It was plastered in huge print on the cover of Der Spiegel a couple of months ago. And he wasn’t.

    It is unlikely that Merkel’s CDU government will be able to get unemployment down to any significant degree, either. On the other hand, Merkel’s government is a “grand coalition” of the CDU and the SPD, and so the blame for her inability to reduce unemployment will be distributed to both major parties.

    Comment by raj — January 25, 2006 @ 6:16 am - January 25, 2006

  94. Going upthread a bit (via references from Matt) to

    # 23 JasonM in NH — January 24, 2006 @ 10:47 am – January 24, 2006

    How, also, can anyone seriously compare their platform to the US’s so-called conservatives? In the US, the so-called conservatives calling the shots are the absolute antithesis of conservative. They’re married to the extremist, religious-whacko American Taliban. To defend capitalism at all costs, they trounce the environment at every turn.

    I’ll merely comment on the bolded portion. I don’t particularly care if the US conservatives trounce the environment at every turn. We don’t have any children, and, frankly we won’t. We’re in our mid-50s, and the evironmental sh!t won’t hit the fan until long after we’re dead and gone. So why should we care what your children may have to deal with?

    We’re perfect conservatives.

    BTW, we feel the same about the conservatives’ borrow and spend liberalism. We won’t have to pay the bills, and we don’t have children who will have to, either.

    /sarcasm

    Comment by raj — January 25, 2006 @ 6:27 am - January 25, 2006

  95. #86 Gene — January 25, 2006 @ 12:22 am – January 25, 2006

    Leader of the free world….ummm probably came into the language because the USA helped to free France and most of Europe from the Nazis 50 years ago.

    Not really. The US helped to free France–and Italy for that matter–from the Nazis, but it was primarily the USSR that defeated Nazi Germany. The US and the UK helped by opening up a third front in France (a second one had already been opened in Italy following the defeat of Rommel in North Africa), but it was primarily Soviet troops who defeated Nazi Germany.

    The appellation “leader of the free world” arose some years following the end of WWII, when the US became the primary voice in NATO. Recall that NATO was once described as existing to keep the Americans in (Europe), the Russians out, and the Germans down. That was by a British burocrat, of course.

    Comment by raj — January 25, 2006 @ 6:43 am - January 25, 2006

  96. “They’re married to the extremist, religious-whacko American Taliban… they trounce the environment at every turn.”

    So take that NeoCons! Uh, but wait a sec. I love the environment, all the trees and pretty birdies. Yet I, like billions of people in the developing world, exhale CO2 – a greenhouse gas, with EVERY single breath. I don’t deserve to exist! I HATE MYSELF…. WAAAAAAaaaaaaaa……………. . . . . . .

    Comment by Dave — January 25, 2006 @ 9:23 am - January 25, 2006

  97. LOL

    Comment by Calarato — January 25, 2006 @ 11:30 am - January 25, 2006

  98. rai, baby, get that history book will ya? “Leader of the Free World” was used by Churchill to respectfully introduce Roosevelt during a press opportunity briefing at the Yalta Conference. It was counterpoint to deGaulle introducing himself as Leader of Free France.

    Go figure. Dude, you gotta spend more time studying US History and less time with your head stuck up the German… well, you know.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 25, 2006 @ 2:45 pm - January 25, 2006

  99. Love these leftists’ expertise in hyperbole–calling us conservatives the American Taliban. Are they able to distinguish between all groups they oppose or do they just lump them all together becuase they’re incapable of distinguishing the various shades of “bad” (to them) governments?

    Perhaps it’s how they see the world. More likely it’s how they see themselves and they just project it onto their opponents. It’s all about attacking conservatives, not about understanding them.

    Comment by Dan — January 25, 2006 @ 3:40 pm - January 25, 2006

  100. #99 Michigan-Matt — January 25, 2006 @ 2:45 pm – January 25, 2006

    “Leader of the Free World” was used by Churchill to respectfully introduce Roosevelt during a press opportunity briefing at the Yalta Conference.”

    Thank you for telling me that. I would presume that you have a citation for your claim. I did a rather lengthy search on google and was unable to find any reference to your claim. It would seem somewhat strange for Churchill to have made such a declaration at Yalta, since one of the parties to the Yalta conference (Stalin) was the head of a country that certainly was not part of the free world.

    What I did find during an earlier google search was the following:

    “Because of the superpower status of the United States, the American President is widely considered to be the world’s most powerful person, and is usually one of the world’s best-known public figures. During the Cold War and continuing into the present day the President is sometimes called “the leader of the free world.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States (emphasis added)

    The Cold War revved up over a period of several years following the surrender of Nazi Germany, but got into full swing only several years following the Yalta conference.

    Comment by raj — January 25, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - January 25, 2006

  101. #101 Raj baby, using a discredited, wildly edited wiki cite is like a US Supreme Ct Justice using French law or European conventions to fashion an opinion on US law… oh wait, that’s already happened; thank you Mr Justice Kennedy.

    Nope Raj baby, you’re showing your true colors –”give me a cite on the InterNet or else it can’t be true”. Brain flash, dude: Not everything worthy of public note is on the InterNet you book bigot.

    See Columbia’s History of the World edited by Garraty & Gay, p 1061.

    BTW, Raj baby, you being a book bigot is politically incorrect even in the blogsphere. Let’s get that history book and crack it open for a change. Cool gramps?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 25, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - January 25, 2006

  102. #101 Raj, I can’t get over it… a wiki citation?? is nothing sacred? how far we’ve devolved as humans pursuing intelligent inquiry and debate.

    A wiki cite? Ha!

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 25, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - January 25, 2006

  103. Going all the way back upstream to the original post, one inaccuracy hasn’t been challenged yet. As poster #59 noted, the Bloc Quebecois is a separatist party (which is however distinct from treason!). There is no possibility for a “coalition government” with this party by any of the other federal parties because of the Bloc’s raison d’etre. And yes, many Canadians do see the inherent contradiction in a federal separatist party. But the fact remains that Harper can’t make any kind of coalition per se – the NDP don’t have enough seats, the Liberals are his de facto enemy, the Bloc would be political suicide (for the Bloc as well as Harper – remember, they are separatists, they can hardly have their members sitting in cabinet), and that leaves… nobody (the one independent won’t help much). So it will have to be an issue-by-issue negotiation where there are shared objectives. It will be a tough road. If Harper navigates that minefield well, he might be well-positioned for a majority next time. But the traditional-values conservatives or true-blue neo-cons in his party might not be patient enough. So we’ll see what this means. Watershed or blip? Let’s check back in a few years. Some background: The corruption scandal that hit the Liberals was entirely based in Quebec, and there were implications the Liberals were trying to buy Quebeckers’ loyalty to Canada. So a non-separatist in Quebec who was insulted, and furious with the Liberals, was more likely to vote Conservative this time, in part because Harper speaks French and campaigned really well in Quebec. By the way, you could have gotten all this information from reading a single Canadian newspaper article about the election results – do you just read the headline and post something? Seriously, to a Canadian the idea that Harper will form a coalition with anyone given the composition of this Parliament is giggle-worthy.

    Comment by Mer — January 25, 2006 @ 6:44 pm - January 25, 2006

  104. I had read that Prime Minister-designate Harper is likely to cooperate with the Bloc Quebecois. (Perhaps I misread them to understand coalition.) I’m not sure whether that was in a Canadian paper, though I did read some Canadian articles on the election. If you have links which show that I got my information wrong, please provide them and I would be delighted to include them in an update to this post.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 25, 2006 @ 9:23 pm - January 25, 2006

  105. #104

    Going all the way back upstream to the original post,

    That and the long winded bloviation sounds an aweful lot like Raj. Thing is, the lack of any reference to Germany is a little confusing.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2006 @ 2:31 am - January 26, 2006

  106. What makes you think that voters in other countries take the U.S. and Bush into consideration when they vote a new government into office?

    Not only is this a jingoistic position, it is profoundly ignorant and arrogant.

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — January 26, 2006 @ 7:49 am - January 26, 2006

  107. #102 Michigan-Matt — January 25, 2006 @ 5:17 pm – January 25, 2006

    See Columbia’s History of the World edited by Garraty & Gay, p 1061

    I will when I get to the local public library over the weekend. I don’t have a copy of the book, and I was unable to download any text from it over the internet. And I can’t assess the reliability of the text. Just because something appears in what appears to be a rather old text doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with reality. Do you have any transcripts (which might be considered “primary sources”) of the Yalta conference?

    Comment by raj — January 26, 2006 @ 10:55 am - January 26, 2006

  108. #107 Devil’s Advocate — January 26, 2006 @ 7:49 am – January 26, 2006

    What makes you think that voters in other countries take the U.S. and Bush into consideration when they vote a new government into office?

    Because, as I have mentioned before, Americans are very keen on themselves.

    That actually did not originate from me. It originated from a British woman with whom we were confersing in France.

    Comment by raj — January 26, 2006 @ 11:01 am - January 26, 2006

  109. Going up a bit

    #81 Queer Conservative — January 24, 2006 @ 11:09 pm – January 24, 2006

    Raj – you sound like a currency speculator that got burned in the Wessie Mark/Ossie Mark tango.

    Not hardly. That had nothing to do with our being in Germany. All of our investments are nominally denominated in US$, as are my German mother-in-laws. My objection is that Kohl’s debasement of Germany’s currency by buying re-unification has damaged the German economy. The Munich area is doing quite well, also es ist mir wurst. My point, that you apparently wish to avoid, is that self-described conservatives can be and often have been economically dumb. Kohl was. St. Reagan was. GWBush is.

    #84 Left of Centre Kanuk(not gay;)) — January 25, 2006 @ 12:14 am – January 25, 2006

    This is probably true. As far as I can tell, Harper’s is little more than a caretaker government. Given his minimal plurality, one misstep and there will be a vote of no-confidence. The (reported) fact that he needs the Bloc Q, which is headed by a gay man, should give Harper pause to go into social issues any time soon.

    Prediction: another election in Canada within 18 months. Same for Germany.

    Comment by raj — January 26, 2006 @ 11:51 am - January 26, 2006

  110. #106 ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2006 @ 2:31 am – January 26, 2006

    That and the long winded bloviation sounds an aweful lot like Raj.

    Just to let you know, I have been using the same handle “raj” (which are my intials Richard A Jordan) for at least a decade. And, to a lesser extent I have used raj49 (1949 was my birth year) or rajmgk (mgk are my partner’s initials) when “raj” alone was not available on a web site.

    In the late 1990s, when I was posting on a now defunct message board, a poster, reacting to my “raj” handle, suggested that I go back to India. I, along with the other posters on the web site, were laughing at the comment.

    Point: I do not use other handles when I post. Never. Don’t even suggest otherwise.

    Comment by raj — January 26, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - January 26, 2006

  111. #104 Mer — January 25, 2006 @ 6:44 pm – January 25, 2006

    And yes, many Canadians do see the inherent contradiction in a federal separatist party. But the fact remains that Harper can’t make any kind of coalition per se – the NDP don’t have enough seats, the Liberals are his de facto enemy, the Bloc would be political suicide (for the Bloc as well as Harper – remember, they are separatists,

    I’m going to assume that you’re Canadian and understand Canadian election law. I have a couple of questions.

    I understand the issue regarding a coalition between the Conservatives and the separatist Bloc Q. But is there anything to inhibit a “grand coalition” between the conservatives and the liberals–similar to what happened a few weeks ago between the CDU and SPD in Germany? I recognize that “grand coalitions” are largely unstable, since they are generally coalitions between competing parties, but since Harper hasn’t anywhere near a majority, it would appear to suggest that he will have to undergo another election within about 18 months or so. Unless he pays off his coalition partners, of course, which is hardly conservative.

    Comment by raj — January 26, 2006 @ 12:18 pm - January 26, 2006

  112. Um, Devil’s Advocate in #107, I don’t know to whom you’re addressing your comment #107. In the post, I wrote, “when it comes time to vote, those abroad are not as obsessed with bashing the President of the United States as are some of their leaders — and their cheerleaders in the American media and blogosphere.

    Thus, my point (as suggested by the title) was that Canadians rejected Bush-bashing. That they didn’t want the party which campaigned on attacking the government of its neighbor to the South. My sense is that, if they took the U.S. and Bush into consideration at all, it was that they thought that they would rather the government focus on issues of concern to the Canadian people than in scapegoating a foreign government. Indeed, it was likely the ignorance and arrogance of Canada’s liberals in assuming Canadians so hated President Bush that they would not vote in the party which was not anti-Bush and which had indicated that it would cooperate more with the U.S.

    The ignorance (and arrogance) seems largely among those who think that Bush-bashing is the ticket to electoral success. A conclusion which today’s Democrats don’t seem to have reached.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 26, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - January 26, 2006

  113. #104 “”the Bloc Quebecois is a separatist party (which is however distinct from treason!). There is no possibility for a “coalition government” with this party by any of the other federal parties because of the Bloc’s raison d’etre. And yes, many Canadians do see the inherent contradiction in a federal separatist party. But the fact remains that Harper can’t make any kind of coalition per se -”

    Am I to understand then, that if Canada is attacked Quebec will surrender immediately? j/k

    Comment by Gene — January 27, 2006 @ 11:17 pm - January 27, 2006

  114. When it came time to vote, the Canadians didn’t give a rat’s ass about pro- or anti-Americanism. They cared about throwing out a corrupt government filled with scandal. Plain and simple.

    To even mention Michael Moore in the context of the election is to live in delusion. You might as well mention Madonna, O’Reilly, Clay Aiken or Trent Lott. Canadians don’t care about our politicians or public figures of any kind when they vote. Why should they?

    Stop reading Canadian politics as a Siamese twin of the American version. Try learning about their country’s history and political culture. You might find it informative.

    As for closer relations with the US, hah! Harper has already chided the American ambassador about Arctic territorial rights and warned the US not to sail through Arctic waters Canada claims.

    Comment by Taurus — January 28, 2006 @ 10:10 am - January 28, 2006

  115. Indeed I am Canadian, and am emphatically not Raj.

    No grand coalition is going to happen – Libs and Cons in Canada are the historical arch-enemies as the only parties to ever form federal governments in our history. Their platforms don’t usually diverge too much – the current divergence in social values (e.g. gay marriage) comes from the Reform Party roots of the current incarnation of the Conservatives. But essentially you define yourself as a Liberal by not being a Tory, and vice-versa. So the Liberals would have everything to lose by entering into any kind of stable coalition with the Conservatives. Also currently the Liberals are in a leadership race because Paul Martin said he was stepping down, so nobody is in place to make that kind of commitment anyhow. When a new leader comes in they will be focusing on picking a time to take the government down, and running to get a majority (as will Harper!). I concur with the prediction of 18-24 months longevity for this government.

    For stories on the election, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/decision2006 is a good source. Stories don’t stay on that site forever for free though.

    Overall bear in mind Canada is profoundly more socially liberal than the US. Harper is way to the right of the mainstream personally – his platform is a huge compromise.

    Sorry for the long-winded bloviation, but I was asked the question!

    Comment by Mer — January 28, 2006 @ 3:44 pm - January 28, 2006

  116. re #110, the Bloc isn’t headed by a gay man – you are getting the provincial Parti Quebecois headed by Andre Boisclair (a gay man, recently elected) mixed up with the Bloc Quebecois headed by Gilles Duceppe (a straight former union leader, in place for a few years now). Same separatist objectives though. Both parties are socially liberal though as a matter of platform.

    Comment by Mer — January 28, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - January 28, 2006

  117. [...] Gay Patriot: Just over four months ago, when Instapundit linked a piece where I asked “If Iraq is like Vietnam, how come the rallies keep getting smaller?, we received a record number of comments — and not just from those who agreed with the post. We attracted a number of critics, many of whom expressed their disagreement in less-than-civil tones. And I saw an uptick in the amount of hate mail I received. The same thing happened again last week when Glenn linked my post on the Canadian elections. We got a lot more comments and I got a little more hate mail. [...]

    Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Blogosphere Illumination II — January 29, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - January 29, 2006

  118. #103 Michigan-Matt — January 25, 2006 @ 5:19 pm – January 25, 2006

    Raj, I can’t get over it… a wiki citation??

    It is easier for me to cite to it than to re-type the information that I have reason to believe to be correct.

    Comment by raj — January 30, 2006 @ 10:15 am - January 30, 2006

  119. Mer — January 28, 2006 @ 3:44 pm – January 28, 2006

    Sorry for the long-winded bloviation, but I was asked the question!

    Thanks for the answer. I follow the elections in Germany and arch-enemies CDU (Merkel) and SPD have entered into a “grand coalition.” It is an unstable coaltion.

    Comment by raj — January 30, 2006 @ 10:16 am - January 30, 2006

  120. #57 ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 6:12 pm – January 24, 2006

    Are the more than 100,000 dead innocents in Iraq freed?

    You did get that DNC memo that this lie was debunked a long time ago, right?

    You might have gotten that memo, but I did not. The article containing the statistics regarding the excess Iraqi deaths during both the Clinton and Bush II administrations was published in a peer-reviewed British medical journal.

    If and when the DNC–or, for that matter, the RNC–publishes in a peer-reviewed journal, I might sit up and listen. Until then, no.

    Comment by raj — January 30, 2006 @ 10:27 am - January 30, 2006

  121. [...] rejected Gerhard Schroeder in September 2005, we’ve seen anti-Bush governments voted out in Canada and France while a pro-American Prime Minister, once defeated, has been returned to office in [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Biden: Clueless on World Affairs — August 28, 2008 @ 4:05 pm - August 28, 2008

  122. [...] even three years ago, I posted on the election of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada, ousting the liberal government of Paul Martin, a leader often at odds with President [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Canadians Give Conservatives Larger Plurality — October 15, 2008 @ 5:48 am - October 15, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.