A further example of attacking Harper at his point of maximum vulnerability with Canadians (man y of whom just do not trust him as a politician), is this:
Can you trust a man who promises one thing so that he can be elected, and then does another thing when in power?
Take the income trusts issue, for example.
Before the election, Harper made a clear, deliberate and firm promise not to tax the income from such trusts, because that would hurt elderly people and others. After the election, he taxed them, claiming that circumstances had changed, and so he had to act to protect Canada’s tax base.
Voters should think about this carefully.
Does this pattern mean that you cannot trust any promise which Harper makes, because his motives for making the promise is suspect (to get elected at all costs)?
Does this mean that his promise that he does not have a rightwing, hidden agenda which he will implement as soon as he has a majority government, is a promise which he will break as soon as he gets his majority?
Does this pattern of broken promises mean that Harper makes promises before elections, without carefully considering whether the facts support his promises, but knowing that if the facts do not, he can simply break the promise and claim circumstances have changed (as he did with the income trusts)?
If so, should you vote for a man who wants to have a majority government but who does not do his homework properly?
