I read few weeks ago in a blog about similarity in Harper and McCain speech. They both use “the economic fundamental are strong”. I also noticed Harper said Bush favorite line at the start of campaign when he says “we must stay the course”. But today’s scandal is the clearest sign yet of Harper belonging to the ultra right wing, pro-Iraq war axis of Bush, Howard and Blair. It was exposed today that Harper pro-Iraq war speech was word for word copied from Australia’s John Howard. Harper quickly try to sweep it away by having his speech writer Owen Lippert take the fall. End of story? Not so quick.
Remember when Harper and Australia’s John Howard was working very closely with each other? when John Howard expressed his admiration for Harper and advised him on his campaign? Never heard of it or don’t remember? Here’s an articles to refresh your memory.
Globe and Mail January 17, 2006 article: Stephen Harper’s Canada? (click on the link to read the whole article). Here’s an excerpt:
“As The Globe and Mail disclosed on Jan. 7, it’s no accident that the Harper campaign feels like it has been ripped straight from the pages of the John Howard campaign manual. Mr. Howard’s national campaign director, Brian Loughnane, is advising the Conservatives; last fall, Conservative Party strategists closely watched the tactics used by Mr. Howard to record his fourth election victory.”
“Mr. Harper’s strategy appears to be a carbon copy of that adopted by the Liberal Party in Australia. Just as Mr. Howard uses the phrase “mainstream Australians,” Mr. Harper talks about giving “mainstream Canadians” a tax cut and offering tough anti-crime policies.”
The article end with this statement:
“If Canadians are asking themselves what a Harper government would do to their country, they just have to look at John Howard’s Australia today.”
It’s interesting to see the dog, I mean Mike “wag the dog, Harper’s apologist” Duffy going all out in defending Harper on Mike Duffy live tonight. CBC’s Don Newman said when the story broke the Conservative was scrambling and did not know what to do. They try to dismiss it with their now favorite line “it’s just gotcha journalism so it does not matter”. Well Nixon’s Watergate was a gotcha and it sure did matter. It took Harper and his men a while before they come out with Owen Lippert to claim it is his fault.
Mike Duffy meanwhile started by immediately downplaying the controversy as wag the dog by a dying Liberal party. Baird agree of course and claim it has nothing to do with election. Baird then alleged that it must have been sitting with Liberal for a while already. Mike Duffy then follow through saying that it must have been sitting with the Liberal for a while. It’s wag the dog. He keep repeating that word throughout the night. Mike Duffy even went as far as saying it’s not about plagiarism but… guess what? Wag the dog. Why is he such a suck up? What does he have to gain by going so far up Harper’s rear? Has our media really lost its sense of professional journalism and become this corrupt? Mike even try to insult his Liberal guest by saying it must have been a really a tough day for Liberal (for them to come out with such stuff).
Sorry Mike, if Nixon’s could simply dismiss the Watergate scandal expose as Wag the Dog and irrelevant, he would not have to pay for his crime. And Mike, gotcha means you’ve been caught doing something. You repeating Harper’s line that since it’s “gotcha” it’s irrelevant makes you look like a fool.
Update:
Here is another news article about carbon copy / similarities between Harper and Howard.
Christian Science Monitor, January 23, 2006: Canada’s Surging Conservatives.
Some see parallels between Harper’s campaign and the successful election bid of Australian Prime Minister John Howard, which ended the 13-year rule of the more liberal Australian Labour Party.
Like Mr. Howard’s campaign, Harper’s featured solid, easily understandable promises with price tags attached: a $100-per-month child-care subsidy for parents, for example, and pledge to cut the federal sales tax to 5 percent from 7 percent.
“Cash value for voters, cash for child care – they can understand what that means,” says Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto.
Cyberwanderer's Blog 