Vaccine denial

Creationists and 9/11 conspirozoids are annoying, but at least their theories aren’t contributing to outbreaks of communicable disease.
Jenny McCarthy and her enablers, on the other hand, will soon have a lot to answer for. New rule: if Bill Maher and Glenn Beck agree on something, that something is very wrong and possibly deadly.

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Vaccine denial

  1. Yes, those pesky creationists are annoying. They want to know scientific facts of how something – ie the universe – could have come from nothing – and also how life came from dead chemicals when all scientific experiments have proved cannot happen. I guess questions like them are very annoying.
    If you can give an answer there is a million dollars waiting for you.
    Have fun trying

  2. It’s interesting how stories like this are being linked to questions about the H1N1 vaccine, particularly here in Canada.
    Flu vaccine, when tested in double blind studies, is as effective as placebo.
    Adjuvants are linked to autoimmune diseases.
    The government says the H1N1 vaccine is ABSOLUTELY safe, despite no real tests being done.
    Big Pharma is making BILLIONS off the H1N1 hysteria.
    H1N1 is killing a VERY small percentage of the people seasonal flu kills every year.
    The WHO redefined stage 6 pandemic to remove reference to deaths after their attempt at bird flu hysteria failed to achieve the desired results.
    So… are YOU getting a shot? Why or why not?

  3. “So… are YOU getting a shot?”
    Damian: “Yep.”
    Ditto. A friend spent two weeks recovering from H1N1 last year after returning from Colombia. He was a wreck.
    BTW, I now take the annual flu shots as well. I never knew what a real flu was until I caught one on a trip to Berlin six years ago. I always imagined that influenza was sort of a cold. Boy, was I wrong! My mistake cost me four extra days in Berlin (excellent care at the Charité Hospital, but even good hospitals aren’t much fun) and nearly $6000.

  4. I’ve had the real influenza before as well. Comparing it to a common cold is like comparing a .303 rifle to a pellet gun.
    I plan on getting the seasonal and H1N1 flu shots.
    However, that doesn’t mean you should be a jackass & start making snide remarks about people who don’t feel like being ordered to get a flu shot by the government and the media. If they don’t want to they don’t have to and it’s none of your damned business why.
    Or are you taking a page from the lefty playbook?
    When someone doesn’t act the way you think they should you smear them and call them stupid?
    (I mean, you ARE a lawyer – right? Sleazy behavior should come naturally to you).

  5. “When someone doesn’t act the way you think they should you smear them and call them stupid?”
    When they’re celebrities spreading nonsense that will likely lead to people dying I think it’s a fair call.

  6. Good link, Damian. The whole anti-vaccine thing smacks of the fluoridation hysteria many years ago. I’m against government compulsion too, but who needs a bunch of know-nothing Hollywooders using their celebrity to spread a lot of nonsense?
    Er, wait…that was Ron Howard and his Obama commercial ;o)
    BTW, Annoying One — God created everything, including the evolutionary record.

  7. Leaving snarkiness behind, there are some issues I think need to be pointed out regarding vaccines.
    First off, vaccinations for measles, mumps, rubella, etc., should not be optional for school attending children, especially not because of a parent’s uninformed opinion.
    I used to think that once children started dying in ways that children haven’t for decades this nonsense would evaporate, but now it appears that “a lot of” children will have to die to cut through the fog of media endorsed stupidity.
    Now, moving on to flu vaccines, the most important thing to consider is that these are all variations on the same recipe that are produced over a period of several months to deal with a new seasonal flu every year.
    Seasonal flu shots are created to vaccinate against a certain strain of the influenza virus that’s predicted to be the most prevalent. As (almost) everybody knows, the prediction is necessary because the virus is mutating or, dare I say, “evolving” to best spread its core genetic code around.
    This means two things:
    1. The H1N1 vaccine is likely not all that different than a normal seasonal shot in composition. Hence it is not that “rushed” or unproven compared to any modern vaccine which follows approximately the same schedule and shares a good deal of the methodology.
    2. The seasonal flu shot is a shot in the dark vs. the most important strain of influenza virus: the one that you encounter on the door handle of your office.
    After discovery of the new H1N1 it was observed that the virus was so strong in its initial form that it easily out competed other strains, which made it relatively stable in that sense.
    The really interesting questions about vaccination are all second order questions about how it could drive future mutations by changing the playing field and forcing the virus to adapt or perish.

  8. “Comment by Dara:
    Leaving snarkiness behind, ….”
    Oh yes, by all means, as soon as people start fighting back THEN it’s time to play nice, right?
    I mean YOU can get YOUR shots in, but if someone might counter-attack then it’s time to call a truce. Screw you.
    No wonder social conservatives & Christians are throwing up their hands and telling the CPC to shove it. With assholes like you involved.

  9. Heh.
    I have no problem with anyone fighting back. If you want to mount a defense of the scientific commitment of creationists go right ahead.
    Sounds like you need another Reform Party. The new CPC is too busy acting electable to cater to its old base.
    From the sounds of it, the old base might only take another 3-4 years to figure out that even Harper gets his precious majority, they’ll probably still act like Liberals.

  10. “From the sounds of it, the old base might only take another 3-4 years to figure out that even Harper gets his precious majority, they’ll probably still act like Liberals.”
    I have a sneaking suspicion you’re in for an unpleasant (for you, anyway…) surprise concerning that one, Dara.
    I don’t believe for a minute that Harper’s core values have changed much over the past decade. Politically, he’s had no choice but to distance himself from the most contentious components of that ideology. If Harper gets a majority next time the silly season rolls around, I expect we’ll see much more reflection of those values in CPoC policy,

  11. So you’re saying that Harper has a hidden agenda Mike?
    And that he’s specifically hiding his core values so that he can fool the electorate into voting for him only to bring out ‘scary’ Steve after his deception is complete?
    I thought talk like that was verboten. But I have said in the past that he certainly is fooling somebody.
    If it turns out to be all the Liberal voters that he’s been courting, he’ll be out on his ear after 1 term.
    It’s a good thing that you’re tacitly acknowledging that social conservatism is dead on it’s own merits in Canada though. I agree heartily.

  12. “So you’re saying that Harper has a hidden agenda Mike?”
    Absolutely. All democratically elected leaders have hidden agendas. To do otherwise would be political suicide. As I’ve said in the past, the overarching objective of all politicians at the top of their respective food chains is to convert into legislation as much of their ideological belief system as the voting public will allow them to. With few exceptions, this requires an incremental approach to governing and campaigning.
    “It’s a good thing that you’re tacitly acknowledging that social conservatism is dead on it’s own merits in Canada though. I agree heartily.”
    How did you spin that conclusion out of my comments? I’m making the exact opposite point, in fact. To name one issue near and dear to social conservatives, I think it’s quite possible that a conservative majority government would resurrect a push to bring back capital punishment. Similarly, I wouldn’t be surprised if a Harper majority resulted in radical changes at the CBC, the kind of changes that would send the likes of unavowed Leftists such as Carol Off, Anna Maria Tremonti, Neil MacDonald, and Bob McKeown right off the deep end.
    Even if I’m wrong, and there is no social conservative component to Harper’s “hidden agenda,” that would hardly justify your pronouncement that “social conservatism is dead on its own merits…”
    Take abortion on demand, or abortion as birth control, if you like. It may be impossible in both a political and practical context to enact legislation to place even modest impediments to unfettered abortion. That doesn’t mean that unfettered abortion has any “merit,” at least in the moral sense.

  13. The reason why I say that it’s dead on it’s own merits is that each one of the examples you listed would result in a Liberal landslide the next time ballots were handed out. No matter how ineffectual the leader.
    The right wing would be out in the woods for another decade and I don’t think that’s what Harper envisions as his legacy.

  14. A Liberal landside? Really? How could that be the case, when opinion polling in Canada reveals a majority (albeit slim) still support reinstatement of capital punishment?
    As for the CBC, it’s a marginal player in terms of audience share for both radio and TV. Further, its most ardent supporters are about as anti-conservative a demographic as you’ll find in this country. You can’t lose votes you’d never get. Going after the CBC wouldn’t hurt Harper nearly as much as you might think.
    If you re-read my earlier comment, I took abortion off the table as an issue that a theoretical Harper majority would attempt to restrict, so your point is moot. It won’t trigger a “Liberal landslide” because Harper will leave it alone.
    But I think that’s about the only third rail issue out there, when we’re talking about Harper’s ideological wish list. And while all this is speculation on my part, I couldn’t disagree more with your assertion that Harper is much concerned about where the electoral fortunes of the CPoC are, after he’s had 4 years to govern in a majority environment. No, I think he’s quite consumed by the prospect of having 4 years to essentially dictate the kind of change that simply isn’t possible with a minority government.
    If I’m right on that, the vast majority of our political punditry have him figured all wrong. They see him as just another in a long line of party leaders who, more than anything, are driven by ego.
    That’s why so many just assumed his end-around move to prorogue Parliament was nothing more than a desperate bid to retain power, for the sake of being in power. I don’t believe that’s the case with Harper at all. He was desperate to defeat the coalition, for sure, but the desperation emanated from the real fear that his political career would be finished if he didn’t keep the coalition from seizing power. And the prospect of being finished in politics didn’t terrify him because he would lose the perks and trappings of power, nor was it a concern over legacy. He wanted to hang on because he has unfinished business. Lots of it.
    That’s the way I see it, anyway. Stephen’s a different kind of cat than any of his predecessors. I think he’s perfectly comfortable sacrificing legacy, if it means engineering the changes that make the country and its government more to his ideological liking.

  15. “When they’re celebrities spreading nonsense that will likely lead to people dying I think it’s a fair call.”
    Especially when that is Maher’s stock in trade with the people he doesn’t agree with.

  16. To be honest Mike, I was thinking that those were just small examples.
    I thought that with a hidden agenda that was worth 4 years of play acting as a Liberal, Harper would have a bigger “reveal” than that.
    I mean, surely he’d have to do a lot just to undo the damage that the current Liberal government (that he’s running) is doing.
    For example, it would seem that withdrawal from Afghanistan is an issue that Harper has already put to bed. Would your “risen” Harper flip flop on that?
    Would he still believe that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.”?
    There’s also the required budget cuts to consider. His fiscal policy is bordering on NDP right now so I can only imagine how far right he’ll have to swing to fix it.
    If you point me to a finance minister who claims that budget cuts and/or tax increases won’t be necessary, I’ll show you a liar.
    Of course, we already know that the FM is a liar when it comes to bad numbers and the fact that Harper is sticking with him is problematic.
    I’m imagining a very simple campaign ad that simply lets Flaherty talk (or mumble) for himself starting with “no deficit” and building up to whatever godawful number that he grudgingly admits to now.
    The closing shot could be footage of him claiming that no budget cuts or tax increases will be required and then a big final screen that says “Really?”.

  17. “To be honest Mike, I was thinking that those were just small examples.”
    If you’ll recall, that isn’t what you were saying earlier:
    “…each one of the examples you listed would result in a Liberal landslide the next time ballots were handed out.”
    But I can do “bigger,” if you like. I expect a Harper majority result would free him from the political shackles currently in place on the global warming file. It’s certainly possible that Harper is a true convert to the cause, but odds are, he isn’t. It wouldn’t surprise me if he became an open skeptic again, and abandoned any form of carbon economics he deemed harmful to the Canadian economy.
    I predict a Harper majority government would come clean on how he really feels about private health care as an integral component of the overall health care system in this country. The result would be legislation allowing a full range of medical services to anyone willing to pay out of pocket.
    Afghanistan and Harper, well that’s a touchy subject with me. Nothing that he has done policy-wise has angered me more. Particularly some of the shamelessly defeatist, short-sighted comments he’s made. He could redeem himself somewhat by leaving Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2011 in another theatre. I believe that’s exactly what he will do, if he’s still PM. MacKay already seems to be hinting in that direction.
    “Would he still believe that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.”?”
    I don’t think he believes it now, then, or ever.
    Would he come clean, having been emboldened by the political security that comess with a majority government? Hard to say, but I harken back to my focal point. A majority in Parliament secures his flanks, his front, and his rear. He can pretty much say or do anything he wants, within reason, on any almost issue.
    “There’s also the required budget cuts to consider. His fiscal policy is bordering on NDP right now so I can only imagine how far right he’ll have to swing to fix it.”
    Hardly fair, that characterization…
    Opening up the floodgates of deficit stimulus spending was the price Harper paid to preserve his political career. Obviously, the opposition parties lose their extortion-style leverage if Harper achieves a majority. Prior to the economic meltdown and the return of deficits, Harper was hardly a spendthrift, as Andrew Coyne, among others, has been unrelenting in criticizing. Still, much of that spending was on the military, a thoroughly bona fide conservative policy move, popular with the base.
    That being said, Harper and his party have clearly been rattled by the hit to their fiscal image that has resulted from presiding over the return to massive deficits. More importantly, I’m confident Harper is far more concerned with the negative effect on the country that these deficits cause. Privately, I’m sure the cabinet has had some very candid conversations about mistakes made, mistakes which exacerbated the size of the deficit. Barring a miracle, it looks like big deficits aren’t going anywhere for a while, but I believe a Harper majority government would make it a priority to bring in deficits far lower than projected in each successive budget. If that means raising taxes and cutting program spending (and I agree with you that it does), then I believe that’s exactly what Harper will do.
    “I’m imagining a very simple campaign ad that simply lets Flaherty talk (or mumble) for himself starting with “no deficit” and building up to whatever godawful number that he grudgingly admits to now.’
    Look, everyone on the planet got this wrong, in terms of just how devastating this recession was going to be to government revenues. Substitute Dwight Duncan’s name for Flaherty’s, and you have the same commercial at the disposal of the Ontario PCs. Duncan’s budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year projected a modest $600 million dollar surplus. Earlier this year, long after the recession had really begun to bite into government revenue streams, Duncan revised his budget forecast to predict an inconsequential deficit of $500 million. This month, the Public Accounts have been submitted for 2008-09, and the deficit came in at nearly $6 billion, 12 times Duncan’s revised projection. Is he a liar too, Dara? Or, did absolutely no one envision the unfathomable: that corporate tax revenue in Ontario would drop by half, in one year.

  18. Oh, that’s rich…
    You’re asking me if Dalton McGuinty’s government might contains liars.
    Yes, many of them. In high places.
    But obviously, that’s not important to you.
    You’re claiming that Harper is being duplicitous on the major issues facing Canada and you think it’s sheer genius.
    This is the “hidden agenda” that everyone poo poos come election time, but you’re saying it’s a fact and, apparently, that you’re fully in support.
    Maybe you’re right and all the Liberal voters will vote for Liberal Harper and then, tada, Preston Manning, pulls the mask off and does what right wingers do best: Show that government doesn’t work by scuttling it and show that unbridled capitalism does work by fitting the law to well connected enterprises.
    But that will be the end of the right wing in Canada (except for Alberta) until the Liberals get too comfortable and get caught with their hand in the cookie jar again.
    Does Harper want that legacy?

  19. “But obviously, that’s not important to you.”
    ???
    The issue here is whether Flaherty, and by extension Duncan, were lying about the impending deficits. As I’ve mentioned previously, I don’t believe that’s the case. I don’t have a problem with questioning their competence, but there is considerable evidence that the size of the tsunami was grossly underestimated by everyone. Just look at all the mea culpas from economists in the private sector. They were blindsided by this too.
    “You’re claiming that Harper is being duplicitous on the major issues facing Canada and you think it’s sheer genius.”
    Sheer genius? On the contrary, he’d have to be dumb as a post to not hide his ideological preferences, and possibly his actual intentions, on many of the “major issues.”
    You word this as though I’m making some kind of revelation here. Throughout his time as PM, the opposition parties have been wearing out the airwaves with the accusation that Harper is “Being duplicitous on the major issues facing this country.” Not only that, it was their pat attack line while Harper was still in opposition. For that matter, Harper, the NDP and the Bloc often said the same thing about the Liberals when they were running the show.
    “This is the “hidden agenda” that everyone poo poos come election time, but you’re saying it’s a fact and, apparently, that you’re fully in support.”
    See above. This “everyone” generalization is simply false. And yes “I” am saying it’s a fact. That would be little old me, my opinion, based on my reading of Harper the man, and the political climate of the day. I didn’t always see it this way, but gradually over time, I’ve come to believe that Harper is the most ideologically fervent PM we’ve had since Trudeau. As I mentioned before, I don’t see him as a party leader overly enamoured with the prestige, the perks and the trappings of power. I think that description fits virtually all the Liberal and Conservative party leaders during my lifetime, except for the two I’ve just mentioned. Pure politicians in every sense. In a “legacy” context, I see Harper fixated on being remembered for major policy implementations which changed the social, political and economic direction of the country. Favourable polling in a historical context, after he has left office, is an afterthought to him, a bonus, but not the priority. That doesn’t mean I have it right. He may very well govern with a majority in the Liberal-lite manner you predict. I just don’t see it that way.
    Am I in full support? Absolutely. I want to see Harper attain a majority. I want him to implement the policy decisions, among others, that I’ve mentioned earlier. He can’t do that without a majority in Parliament.
    As I have mentioned in previous discussion threads, the consolidation of conservative support under one banner, combined with the creation of The Bloc, has made it exceedingly difficult for either major party to get a majority. Neither one has any hope of governing with a majority in the forseeable future by being candid with the electorate about their plans to govern. As I said before, there’s nothing new about this in Canadian politics, and it certainly isn’t unique to Harper. I assume you haven’t forgotten Chretien’s infamous reneging on his campaign pledge to eliminate the GST, or McGuinty’s similarly deceitful promise during the 2003 campaign, to not raise taxes if elected.
    “…and does what right wingers do best: Show that government doesn’t work by scuttling it and show that unbridled capitalism does work by fitting the law to well connected enterprises.”
    Ridiculous. Hyperbolic. Untrue. Take your pick Dara. Perhaps you can provide me with some recent specific examples of “scuttled government,” by conservative adminstrations. I see meddling, intrusive, hands-on governing by all parties when they control the levers of power, be they conservative, Liberal, or NDP. While you’re at it, maybe you can do the same with regard to your “fitting the law to well connected enterprises,” accusation. Once you provide your examples, I’ll trot out mine for past Liberal administrations, and then maybe you can try to explain why this is an exclusively “right wing” practice.
    “But that will be the end of the right wing in Canada (except for Alberta)….”
    Again, wishful thinking on your part, Dara. Policies that would prevent a party from being elected in the first place may well turn out to be quite popular, once implemented under a majority mandate. There are many Canadians who reflexively detest any and all ideas bearing the conservative label. There are also many who don’t. Mulroney’s downfall was largely a consequence of his overseeing a government widely seen to be corrupt. In my view, a repeat of that malfeasance under a Harper majority government is the only likely scenario that will bring about your “right wing exile to the wilderness” scenario.

  20. Flaherty’s original “no deficit” prediction was made with a mumbling delivery and included no detailed figures. Claiming incompetence, given his continued employment in the position, raises other equally important issues (at least from my engineering perspective where the two are about equal in consequence and probably mean that you’d lose your job for presenting them to the client).
    As for Harper, I’ve come to think that he’s lying to his core supporters and you think that he’s lying to bring in more stragglers. Either way, you and I agree that his first order of business upon becoming a majority prime minister is betrayal. You just don’t seem to have a problem with that.
    As far as dismantling government and twisting it to the interests of connected businesses I present to you Alberta, home of the right wing.
    Ralph Klein slashed and burned only to have the province become a huge spender recently (perhaps undoing some of the underfunding).
    You’d be hard pressed to find any regulatory body in Alberta (or even Ottawa) that is capable of, or even interested in, exerting substantial pressure on the oil sands operation, despite its massive environmental problems.
    Now I know you’ll bring up basically every industry in Quebec as being propped up by the Libs, which is true. I have no interest in defending the Liberals, I’d only vote for them to deny Harper. For the same reason that you’d vote for him apparently:
    We both expect him to betray the values of a significant number of the people voting for him after he gets his majority.

  21. I see you’re backtracking away from the “liar” accusation against Flaherty. Certainly, incompetence is a fair accusation, and there have been numerous calls for him to resign. Insert the name of virtually every finance minister in western democracies at the time the meltdown really started spreading panic, for similar treatment.
    “As for Harper, I’ve come to think that he’s lying to his core supporters and you think that he’s lying to bring in more stragglers. Either way, you and I agree that his first order of business upon becoming a majority prime minister is betrayal. You just don’t seem to have a problem with that.”
    Please. “Betrayal?” Core supporters, by definition, are highly partisan.
    Conservative core supporters are hardly going to feel betrayed if Harper garners a majority government and as a consequence, moves policy to the right.
    As for any Liberal defectors who end up with buyer’s remorse and feel “betrayed,” well, as I mentioned earlier, this is nothing new in Canadian politics, regardless of the political stripe of the party making the election promises. In fact, I would single out the NDP as the most dishonest of all the parties, given the outlandish policy statements they throw out during a campaign, safe in the knowledge that they’ll never get elected and be forced to actually make good on them.
    “Ralph Klein slashed and burned only to have the province become a huge spender recently (perhaps undoing some of the underfunding).”
    Chretien and Martin, his finance minister, did the exact same thing.
    As for regulating oil sand production, you mention Ottawa. The Liberals were in power for far longer than the Conservatives while then oil sands have been major producers of petroleum.
    “Now I know you’ll bring up basically every industry in Quebec as being propped up by the Libs, which is true. I have no interest in defending the Liberals,…”
    So what was the point of originally singling out conservatives? Clearly, that’s an inaccurate depiction.
    “We both expect him to betray the values of a significant number of the people voting for him after he gets his majority.”
    As I said earlier, betrayal doesn’t fit when talking about conservative core supporters. If anything, I can use your own argument to make a better case that he’s “betraying” (still too strong a term…)conservative core supporters more now, by governing in a Liberal-lite manner in a minority government.
    I think that’s the rub with you, Dara. You prefer that, to the prospect of Harper winning a majority and governing further to the right, hence this high dudgeon “betrayal” line of argument.

  22. First, where I said “the two are about equal”, the first was incompetence and the second was lying. I saw the video of him presenting those numbers and I think he knew that it was, to be polite, optimistic.
    “So what was the point of originally singling out conservatives?”
    I singled out right wingers, not conservatives. The difference between them and the (rather conservative in practice) Liberals are that they start from the position that government doesn’t work and govern from there. I find that to be a ridiculous contradiction.
    “If anything, I can use your own argument to make a better case that he’s “betraying” (still too strong a term…)conservative core supporters more now, by governing in a Liberal-lite manner”
    Yes, you can clearly use my argument to draw that conclusion since that is my argument. The status quo that he’s been running on is not acceptable to his core supporters but is the only version of himself that’s electable.
    If you don’t have a problem with that, then that’s fine. You’re sure that he’s not conning YOU and maybe he will be your guy. I’m not OK with that.
    As someone who’d vote Mike Harris for PM in a second, I don’t have a de facto problem with Harper moving to the right, but this social conservative BS doesn’t fly with me or anyone that I know.

  23. “I saw the video of him presenting those numbers and I think he knew that it was, to be polite, optimistic.”
    There was some justification for Flaherty’s optimism. During the boom surplus years under Chretien, Martin, and Harper’s first two years, surpluses were consistently much larger than the annual budget forecasts, so much so that these governments were routinely criticized for knowingly engaging in “excess taxation.” I think Flaherty had cause to believe that revenues would continue to exceed projections, cushioning the impending economic crisis. There is corroboration for such a mindset on Flaherty’s part, when one recalls that in late February of this year, bank economists were predicting that the Harper government still had a shot at bringing in a balanced budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year, which was to end approximately 6 weeks later, on March 31st. As it turned out, revenues were falling so precipitously that the 2008-09 federal budget ended up in the red by approximately $6 billion, virtually all of it coming in the space of that 6 week time frame.
    “I singled out right wingers, not conservatives. The difference between them and the (rather conservative in practice) Liberals are that they start from the position that government doesn’t work and govern from there. I find that to be a ridiculous contradiction.”
    That’s a specious distinction, Dara, and one that you glaringly contradict yourself with in light of your subsequent comment, in which you heap praise on Mike Harris. Mike Harris is considered by virtually every Left of Center columnist in this country to be the text book definition of a “Right Winger.” Further, he is also considered by these same people to be the epitome of a politician who endeavoured to ” Show that government doesn’t work by scuttling it and show that unbridled capitalism does work by fitting the law to well connected enterprises.” In fact, he’s been so thoroughly tarred with that depiction that I fully expected you would use him, rather than Klein, to try to prove that particular point. Surely, you must recall how Harris was excoriated throughout his tenure as a rash, irresponsible deregulator.
    “Yes, you can clearly use my argument to draw that conclusion since that is my argument. The status quo that he’s been running on is not acceptable to his core supporters but is the only version of himself that’s electable.”
    Well that concession creates a huge problem for your original premise, Dara. He will not be “betraying” his core supporters if he gets himself a majority and reverts to form, will he?
    “As someone who’d vote Mike Harris for PM in a second, I don’t have a de facto problem with Harper moving to the right, but this social conservative BS doesn’t fly with me or anyone that I know.”
    Then I suspect you move in a very small circle, Dara, and one, I’m confident to say, where you are the only one who a) doesn’t think Mike Harris is a “Right Winger,” and b)… would vote for him as PM in a second.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s