The Neocon Invasion Continues

Link.

With friends like these ...

The Conservatives better hope this one doesn't get around: Right-wing think tanker Patrick Basham lends his support to the Conservatives in an op-ed -- ''Gift from Canada? -- for the Washington Times:

Why does President Bush hope Christmas comes a little late this year? Because on Jan. 23, Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the Western world. Free-market economist Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, is pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative. Move over Tony Blair: If elected, Mr. Harper will quickly become Mr. Bush's new best friend internationally and the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader.

Now that's something the Liberals should be grabbing for their negative/attack ads.

Basham goes on:

A Harper victory may prove to be the exception to the international rule -- a rare foreign event that manages to put a smile on President George W. Bush's face.

Don't you just love how these AmeriCONS care so much about Canadian taxpayers?

It figures this would appear in the Times, said to be Bush's preferred (and probably only) paper. It's owned by the Moonies.

I'm wondering if the Canadian press will start catching on to Harper's unpopular positions and start asking about whether he will stick to his commitment to "our strongest ally, the United States" and commit Canadian troops to fighting in Iraq? Or, if he believes in smaller government but higher militar spending, which parts of healthcare and education would he sacrifice in order to buy more guns? (My talent for polemic sometimes even scares me.)

As for the Liberals, they managed to find a way to help the US fight the Iraq war while fooling Canadians into thinking they were opposed to it. Canada dutifully doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan as soon as the US wanted to move their resources to Iraq. George Galloway, the British Respect Coalition MP who famously bulldozed U.S. Senator Norm Coleman, was being interviewed on CPAC a few weeks ago and he said that to the rest of the world Canada's Iraq position is that it is trying to achieve the state of being a little bit pregnant. (link goes to an article with similar comments but not from the same interview.)

An MP for the Respect Party in Britain, Galloway pointed his finger at Canadian politics during his recent stop in Toronto. "I'm not going to let the Canadian Government off the hook," he said.

Galloway spoke at Convocation Hall in Toronto on September 16th, the only Canadian stop on his eight-city tour of the United States. Internationally known as a fearless opponent of the war in Iraq, it lost him his seat in the Labour Party in 2003, which he had held for 16 years.

Undiscouraged, Galloway struck up his own party called Respect – The Unity Coalition. At 20 weeks old and working under "a total media black-out," his party defeated the pro-war Labour Party incumbent. It was an unprecedented success story, and the first time in 60 years that a "left-of-the-Labour" party had won a seat.

Canada was not spared in his scathing criticism of the UK and North American governments for their involvement in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

"There's a certain myopia in countries like Canada," he said. "You can't send 1000 soldiers as 'peacekeepers' and claim to be neutral. It's like saying a woman is a little bit pregnant. You're either neutral or you're not."

So basically it's the same thing again, the Conservatives say they'll do something, the Liberals beat the drum and sound horrified in the campaign, and then go and do by half measures what the Conservatives were after all along. But "campaign like the NDP and govern like the Tories" has been a long-time Liberal theme, so who's surprised?