Recently Harper has come out and said this. “On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country.” http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051210-090836 -6478r_page2.htm" title="http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051210-090836 -6478r_page2.htm" target="_blank"http://washingtontimes.com/op... In saying this Harper is clearly trying to obscure the fact that he supported Canada joining the coalition of the willing. You see, unlike most bloggers here, the vast majority of population can not list all the times Harper said he wished Canada had been part of the coalition of the willing. Here are two examples by the way.

“On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any  particular weapon of mass destruction. In our judgment, it was much more fundamental. It was the removing of a regime that was hostile, that clearly had the intention of constructing weapons systems. … I think, frankly, that everybody knew the post-war situation was probably going to be more difficult than the war itself. Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.” (Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003)

"We should be there with our allies when it counts against Saddam Hussein." March 26 2003 7 days after the war started, some two weeks before the collapse of Saddam’s regime

http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2004/05/20/So_Wha t_DID_Harper_Say/" title="http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2004/05/20/So_Wha t_DID_Harper_Say/" target="_blank"http://www.thetyee.ca/News/20... 

So how does the above passage do this? Well, look at the above passage again. Saddam Hussein has long since been removed from power. His government fell on April 8 2003 and he was fished out of Spider hole in December 2003. Yet Harper speaks as if it is not already a done deal. By speaking of the Saddam regime in the present tense rather than in the past tense he is able magically go back in time and state his position is/was that he will not send troops to help overthrow Saddam. Austin and Grice and the other founders of speech act theory are no doubt turning over in their graves.

That said, an example is in order. To understand how truly Orwellian all of this is, imagine for a second that the Swiss had declared in 1948 that “we support the removal of Hitler from power.”

Jeffery Simpson of the Globe and Mail made waves in May when he suggested that the Christian Right had “hijacked” various Conservative nominations and that this would cause Harper many a sleepless night. Conservative apologists launched a two pronged counterattack. One, they claimed that the number of nominations in question, eight, were not enough to fundamentally change party dynamics. Two, in so far as he failed to note that there are a number of socially conservative Liberal MPs, Simpson was guilty of bias.

The latter can be dismissed without much ado. Simpson was talking about the nomination process and Liberals did not nominate anyone with anywhere near the same socially conservative credentials as, say, a Darrell Reid. http://www.richmond-news.com/issues05/054105/news/ 054105nn2.html" title="http://www.richmond-news.com/issues05/054105/news/ 054105nn2.html" target="_blank"http://www.richmond-news.com/...  The fact that Simpson did not mention that there are several socially conservative Liberal MPs is no more noteworthy than the fact that he did not mention that there are socially conservative Conservative MPs.

The second line of attack on Simpson obscures a critical point of agreement, viz., that the Conservative Party is a socially moderate centralist party. According to Simpson, the Conservatives Party in its current manifestation is moderate centralist and that there was new evidence (i.e., the 8 nominations) that the Christian Right is seeking to infiltrate the party. It was not only newsworthy for this reason, but also because the Conservatives have long struggled to exorcize the ghost of Reform Party radicalism. Pace Simpson, the apologists argued that these 8 nominations out of 170 something does not a hostile takeover make. As such, this was not news.

Both Simpson and the apologists are wrong in the minds of the public and in fact. The MSM has been going on for years now about how Harper is trying to move the party to the center and this makes every risible comment by a Conservative newsworthy. Harper is no moderate though. All the evidence suggests that far from being unwelcome these 8 candidates would fit in quite nicely with the current crop of MPs and far from making room for Red Tories in the party Harper is pushing a more extreme socially Conservative agenda.

With regard to the current crop of MPs, only 8 out of 98 Conservative MPs have ever disappointed Life Site and most of these transgressions occurred when 6 out of 8 were with the PC party. http://www.lifesite.net/" title="http://www.lifesite.net/" target="_blank"http://www.lifesite.net/ Indeed, only former PC MP Gerald Keddy has continued his evil ways. In all, only three Conservative MPs (i.e., Keddy, James Moore, and Jim Prentice) backed gay marriage.

As for Harper, he is clear as what he thinks of Red Tories and it is also clear that far from not wanting, for example, the Darrel Reids of the world as candidates Reid is precisely the type of candidate Harper wants; this is particulary true with regard to large ethic populations such as Richmond BC where Reid is running. Harper believes, wrongly in my mind, that by emphasizing social issues he can split the electorate in two and to paraphrase Pat Buchanan the Conservative half will be the bigger of the two. Say what you will about Reid, one thing is sure. He is just the type of candidate Rove would employ to get the Conservative Party’s social Conservative base out to the polls.

“rebalancing means there will be changes to the composition of the conservative coalition. We may not have all the same people we have had in the past. The new liberal corporatist agenda will appeal to some in the business community. We may lose some old "conservatives," Red Tories like the David Orchards or the Joe Clarks.

This is not all bad. A more coherent coalition can take strong positions it wouldn't otherwise be able to take - as the Alliance alone was able to do during the Iraq war. More importantly, a new approach can draw in new people. Many traditional Liberal voters, especially those from key ethnic and immigrant communities, will be attracted to a party with strong traditional views of values and family. This is similar to the phenomenon of the "Reagan Democrats" in the United States, who were so important in the development of that conservative coalition.” http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/0601 03.html" title="http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/0601 03.html" target="_blank"http://www.ccicinc.org/politi...

A number of bloggers (James Bow, WASM and Josh) have added a new wrinkle to the whole debate about just how socially moderate the Conservative party is. They have suggested that as the Conservatives are not likely to capture a majority that the socially conservative impulses of the party would be checked by the party’s minority status should it form the next government. Now, leaving aside the fact that a Conservative government would table no socially progressive legislation and as such would represent a huge opportunity cost, there is little to justify such complicity.

With no natural partner in the house, the Conservatives would seek out short term alliances. This would mean that they would join with the Bloc in robbing the Federal government of power (addressing the fiscal imbalance is the word both use). A Conservative government would also do something else.

Issues, such as gay marriage, are open to free votes. In such cases what matters is not the sum total of MPs of parties that back, say, gay marriage but rather the sum total of MPs that back, for example, gay marriage. As the aforementioned Conservative apologists pointed out, there is a large bloc of Liberal MPs opposed to SSM. (There is a world of difference between having the Conservative party brass talking up how SSM posses a threat to Canadian children and the homophobic dribble of a bunch of back bench MPS who are very slowly but surely being pushed out of the party (e.g., Kilger and O'Brien.)) Calgary Grit has suggested to me that these MPs are the most likely to be defeated. No such luck. The vast majority of these MPs are in solidly Liberal ridings, including many in Toronto. In all, only 9 of 32 (e.g., Zed, Savoy, Boshcoff, Bonin) stand even a remote chance of being defeated and only a couple are likely to be defeated. What this means is this that these MPs would be strong enough to withstand any pressure to vote down party lines and that if the Conservatives should they get around 125 seats they would have votes to doom, for one, gay marriage.