Did any of you guys see the debate?

It was Belinda's first and I swear to God, she stuck to her script ad verbatim (If that's the correct term... I'm rusty on my Latin.) When reporters asked her questions, she would start on her obvious rhetoric with little spontaneity and when questioned further before she finished going through her memorized cheat sheet, she would tell the reporter to wait for her to finish and start exactly where she left off.

It's pretty obvious she's not her own person and I don't see any reason as to why Conservatives should vote for her.

She was exactly the same when interviewed for Question Period on CTV yesterday. Maybe one day, she'll be leadership material, but she obviously is a work in progress.

I especially like the way she got all frazzeled when the questions started coming in French. She waited for the translator and then replied in English. If I were to undertake such an expensive venture as running for government office I would at least learn passable French like Harper.

This woman is way out of her depth. It's like watching Paris Hilton on Jeopardy!, just sad and a waste of everyone's time.

I'm really leaning toward Harper on this one. He knows what he's doing. Clement is just a little too green in federal politics.

-Dunefish

Clement is the only guy who can lead the Conservatives to Victory. Stronach just doesn't have the tools yet, and Harper makes everyone west of Manitoba cringe. Clement is experienced, but doesn't have Harper's baggage. A fresh yet experienced face is what the Conservatives need...

Exactly, there is no way the Conservatives will ever win with Harper. No way in hell. Quite Frankly, as a social and fiscal conservative, it will be a tough hill for him to climb in more socially liberal places(ie Quebec and Ontario maybe?). For myself, I will never vote for this conservative party, b/c all I'll remember is the hostile takeover by the CA of the PCs. Just the same way the Sask Party here took over the libs (more or less) to disassociate themselves from that wonderful man named Devine :P :P

Now, I don't think Clement will ever win them a election and clearly not Stonach. There's only one man for the job, only one man, who could rally the conservative troops and defeat the Liberals...

Jean Charest

That will never happen. A red tory like Charest is not welcome in the United Conservative party.

I think they would, after they've been smacked around by the libs and few times and the NDP gets ahead of them regualarly in the polls, I'm sure they'd try anything to take the power back.

I think you're probably right. And that's why they aren't likely to be in government any time soon, despite the current shift in the polls. It's not that a red tory would necessarily be a good choice as leader. But, even after supposedly uniting, they're still cutting out a big chunk of the constituency that has been traditionally necessary to elect conservative governments.

My gut feeling, with no evidence to back it up, is that the conservatives would do best in the next election under Harper, with Stronach and Clement producing roughly equal numbers of seats. None of them is likely to make any gains east of Ontario. And none of them seems likely to be able to hang on to all of the atlantic tories, who are generally fairly red. Stronach and Clement might gain some seats in the East, at the expense of some in the West.

Regardless of which candidate becomes leader of the conservatives, the election is the Liberals' to lose. And they'll have to try harder (they seem to be working on that), to do so. Without the red tories and the soft nationalists in Quebec, the conservatives lose by default. At least unless something weird happens, like the Rae government in Ontario. Which is a possibility.

Everybody's welcome to join, but Charest isn't so much a red Tory as a centre-right Liberal. All red Tories are closet Liberals.

The real interesting part of this whole thing is when (not if) Harper gets back into Parliment and in the election debates. The man needs to be vicious. Make like a pitbull, bite on to the billions wasted and shake 'til a minority government falls out.

Not being able to push though programs that the NDP, BQ, and CPC all find, shall we say fu*king stupid, will really slow down the Liberal's destruction of my beautiful country. At least until the Conservitives get back in, clean it up, become unpopular FOR cleaning it up, and lose to the Liberals.

-Dunefish

SO long as the Conservatives are an exclusive club that boots "closet liberals" (or Red Tories, as the rest ofthe world calls them) out of the party, and so long as the Conservatives are bent on not only economic conservatism (which is popular) but Social Conservatism (which is not popular), they will never win.

Canadians are a moderate people. We don't elect the far left (the NDP) and we won't elect the far right (ALliance, Reform, United Conservatives).

The only time either the NDP or Conservatives do well nationally is when they have a moderate at the helm (Broadbent's NDP, Mulroney/Clark/Diefenbaker/Stanfield's Conservatives).

Harper is a departure from the type of leader and values the Conservatives requre to win. He is a social conservative, and therefore not espousing values that the majority of Canadians support.

Conservatives would do a great service to Canada by concentrating on Economic policies, and putting the Social Conservatism on the back burner (heck, they can feel free to throw it into the fire, for all I care).

Unless they do that, the Liberals will win continually (because the NDP also has no chance, as Jack Layton is a radical who believes cars should be banned from certain parts of the country - hardly your moderate lefty).

Distruction of the country, please, I'd like to see you back that up. From what I've seen, although we could be better, I fail to see how the libs are destroying this country. And quite frankly, w/o these"red tories"(who I agree w/ you, liberals in disguise, or who just don't want to admit they like the libs) the conservative party won't win with it's social conservative values.

Red Tories were more than Liberals in disguise.

Liberals are a party devoid of any ideology. They strip the popular planks of other parties, adopt a modified, watered down version as their own policy, and stay in power (Stealing Medicare, UI, CPP etc from the CCF/NDP, stealing 1970's wage and price controls and deficit slashing from the conservatives). Liberals can go from the left (as Trudeau did in his early days), to the right (John Turner, Paul Martin).

On the other hand, Red Tories are more ideologially pure. They believe in a mix of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. They pull to the right economically, but are more socially liberal when it comes to "morals".

With a Red Tory, you know what you are dealing with. Not so with a liberal.

Well, i've found that generally, most liberals are fairley centrist, as I would describe many "red tories". Currently, I would describe, the libs as being, social liberal, however, fiscally conservative. Based on my experience w/ "red tories", I would describe them in the same manner, that is why, I believe, they are just libs in disguise, however, they just aren't in power that often.

Not physical destrution. But what would you call (what are we up to?) multiple billions of dollars worth of programs that do...nothing. And our Armed Forces can barely do actual physical destrution to anything anyway.

The simple fact is every 4 years we elect a absolute monarch who does whatever he wants. This is why the American system is superior. The President is the leader but he is by no measure in control. Congress and the Supreme Court do whatever they feel like, as do the states.

And the worst part about our system is the majority doesn't pick the PM (let's not mince words, you vote party and leader, not for your MP). I can't remember the exact numbers but the Liberals didn't get a majority of the vote. They would only have a minority government if we had proportional representation.

-Dunefish

(Plus your guys' NDP and Green would get a bigger say)

"Not physical destrution. But what would you call (what are we up to?) multiple billions of dollars worth of programs that do...nothing. And our Armed Forces can barely do actual physical destrution to anything anyway.

The simple fact is every 4 years we elect a absolute monarch who does whatever he wants. This is why the American system is superior. The President is the leader but he is by no measure in control. Congress and the Supreme Court do whatever they feel like, as do the states.

And the worst part about our system is the majority doesn't pick the PM (let's not mince words, you vote party and leader, not for your MP). I can't remember the exact numbers but the Liberals didn't get a majority of the vote. They would only have a minority government if we had proportional representation.

-Dunefish

(Plus your guys' NDP and Green would get a bigger say)
"

I gotta disagree on the American system being vastly superior. it's quite complicated, it's checks and balances can sometimes railroad major issues (social security and healthcare get in deep shti when the rebulcians and democrats split control of one house each and then the presidency), their election system is really not THAT much better.

I personally would rather see a mixed PR system, and then just redistribute some of the powers of the PM to some of the other positions, or to some of the already existing committees.

that way third parties get more say, and less power is concentrated without making a mess of our electoral system.

and I agree with set election dates, like say every 4 ears in the fall or summer, with the specific date being set by the recommendation of Elections Canada (which is quite seperate from government influence)

I'm interested in what you mean by "destruction" of this country. Are you saying scandals and misspent money does not occur in other countries and that with the Conservatives in power, we would not see similar scandals occurring? I'm not saying that the Liberals are perfect by any means but to say the Conservatives are immaculate in comparison seems rather naive.

I really liked the Progressive Conservatives (federal ones anyways...) but with the merger, I'm finding it a little difficult to throw my support towards the new party. When the chips are down, the Alliance was ultimately the bigger party and will be the ones dictating policy. It feels too much like a takeover and I'm not sure how willing Canadians are willing to support a party that espouses American like... Um... social conservatism to put it nicely I guess. Oh well.

Oh yeah, I thought Tony held himself well and was reasonably aggressive. I thought he was the winner but I guess opinions will differ...

I find it odd that the Conservative Party, which has yet to elect a leader or vote on policy initiatives, is being consistently referred to, here and in other places, as a far right party. Huh?

The fact that this party has a majority of members who were formerly members of the Alliance doesn't make it far right wing, it makes it right of centre. NAZIS are far right wing. People who say in one breath that government should be smaller and waste less money but then in the next say that Healthcare and Education are their priorities sound positively CENTRIST to me, and that seems to be the prevailing set of opinions coming out of the party thus far. I don't know how anyone could categorize those sentiments as "far right", unless they consider the Liberal party as "right wing" itself.

Belinda Stronach came out in support of Gay Marriage and the woman's right to choose. Not exactly "Social Conservative" hallmarks. And yet, when the polling was done AFTER she came out in support of these things, her stock ROSE to almost 40% of decided CP voters for leader. FOUR OUT OF TEN decided CP members wanted her to lead the party after coming out in FAVOUR of gay marriage and pro-choice. Someone explain to me again how the party is made up primarily of right-wing gun nuts and social conservative kooks? Not with polling numbers like that...

Stronach can't lead this party to victory, yet. She has corporate baggage that will have Layton screaming from the rooftops of downtown Toronto all election long. I LOVE some of Clement's proposals, especially the one that says that the first $250,000 of income that every Canadian earns in their life will be completely tax-free. But he doesn't have significant support in the West.

Harper will win the party leadership, which I think is a big mistake. His leadership, whether or not it is skillful, will be seen as proof positive that the CP is just a re-branded Alliance party, with some Tories thrown into the mix. Unless Harper learns how to play Celtic fiddle and shares Mama Harper's Poutine recipe, the CP's will get blown away in most of the East. Which will give us the Liberals, AGAIN, which NO ONE thinks is a good idea.

Sybilla

Sybilla- let me clarify what I mean by far-right politics....

far right politics is not ultra-right politics. far-right politics includes hard line social and fiscal policies which quite often are extremely unpopular with moderates (which a large portion of the population are)

good lord. Please do not let Harper win. Harper is a buffoon of the same neo-con mould as Mike Harris and Ralph Klein.

Presto Manning at least had a certain dignity about him.

Uh, Too late. Harper won on Saturday.

I'm sure that was just a typo, but I really like the name 'Presto' :lol:

Better to be a neo-con (who wants to conserve the values and ideals of Fathers) than to be a left-wing radical who would like nothing better to rip the country down and rebuild it like, at best, Sweeden or, at worst, the USSR.

If there's one thing I'm sick of it's the vilification of democratic and upstanding men like Ralph and Mike and the glorification of the mass murderers of the former Soviet regime. Every second person on here is "Commie" this or "Stalin" that or "The Soviet Republic of..." wherever. It's the same in the States. "George Bush is EVIL!!" This from people who wouldn't know evil if it bit them in the ass, and then when it does (or did on 9/11) they blame the people trying to protect them and suggest that if there was more international aid and if America wasn't such an "imperialist, evil, explioting" power this wouldn't have happened, so didn't we just bring it on ourselves?

It's this sort of moral relativism that conservitives abhor and liberals embrace as (ironically) an absolute.

-Dunefish

I find it ironic that someone would complain about "vilification" and then do the exact same thing to the Swedes.

Trust me, the Swedes did not "rip down" their "old system" and "rebuild it" as the Soviets did. The Swedes, like most mixed economies, slowly allowed their nation to evolve based on what the electorate told them. They are no different than Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan, who took 17 years and FIVE CONSECUTIVE ELECTION WINS to gradually put Medicare into place, or the Federal Liberals, who had a Medicare plan as a policy starting in 1919, but did not manage to put it into place federally until 1967.

If that is "ripping the country down" then one would have to suggest that George Bush's somewhat large and sudden tax cuts would be nothing more than a positively draconian attempt at social re-engineering.

I would personally never say that about Bush - but here you go, opening the door wide open to allow the left to engage in the vilification that you state you despise, simply by doing the same thing to the Swedes.

And ladies and gentleman, that is the danger of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You can't say its not ok to villify the moderate right as a bunch of extremist wackos, and then similarly villify the moderate left in the same breath by linking them with the Soviet Union. That is absurd as me linking George Bush to Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.

The bottom line is it is not ok to villify any moderate approaches as extreme. The reason for this is that it is dishonest and not a reflection of the truth, and causes the debate to deflect away from heart of the matter (as is reflected by this post).

whoa, hold up...I don't think that anyone here is singing the praises of Stalin. Just because you're a leftist doesn't mean you endorse Soviet communism. I'm sure you'd say the same about being right-wing and praising Hitler.

I'm sure if someone were to refer to their nation as "National Socialist" or "The Fascist Regime Of..." some people might take umbrage.

For me, this is a game, and I'm taking it as such and not getting too worked up about the whole thing. But I can see where Dunefish might be set off...

As a matter of fact, wasn't there an issue not too long ago when someone suggested that Hitler had some good ideas? I don't recall exactly, but it seems that the offender got run out of town (which he no doubt deserved). If it is contrary to the public good to praise National Socialist policies, it should be equally contrary to praise Stalinist policies. Both were responsible for millions of senseless deaths.

Moderation is all fine and good. Some people lean somewhere outside the "moderate" area near the center, and that's fine. To each their own. I'm not accusing Layton of being a Red any more than anyone (that I've read of, anyway) is accusing Ralph of being a Nazi. But there does seem to be a stigma attached to the word "conservative" or "neo-conservative" that seems to equate it with "extremist" or "fascist" to some people here.

Again, not that I'm particularly offended by anything that goes on here... just making an observation. Because of the board's tendancy to lean to the left, "Communism" (which is NOT the same as Stalinism) is made to seem perfectly reasonable, while anything right of the Federal Liberals seems to evoke images of armband-wearing thugs.

Let's stay away from tales of the "dark side of humanity" and the "evil reds" and the "evil neo-cons", and debate sides based on fact instead of jingoism, eh, folks?

It is, after all, the moderate, CANADIAN, thing to do. :)

Sybilla

Every few months some person says Hitler had some good ideas. Bobby Hull, NHL Hall of Famer and dad of current NHL start Brett Hull said "HItler had some good ideas, but he went too far" to a Russian newspaper. In an attempt to "get out" of the controversy, he said he as misquoted and that he said that "Sittler had some good ideas", referring to fellow NHL hall of famer and NHL single game points record Darryl Sittler.

In mid-90's, a Reform MP from BC included a quote from Hitler in his newsletter to his constituents. He didn't say he approved of Hitler, but the very fact that he chose to include a quote from him in his "quotable quotes" portion of his newsletter got him in hot water.

Others have made similar missteps. Marge Schott, the late owner of the Cincinatti Reds Baseball team, and a few European far right politicians.

Just as there is a stigma perpetrated by some to equate "Socialist" or "Left-wing" with "tax and spend" fools who economically mismanage the books, which, when you look at the history of Canadian governments, is not warranted at all. The left's experience in handling government finances is no more or less successful than that of the right.

It works both ways. All such incorrect stigmas have to be eliminated on all sides. It really comes down to respecting those of different views, and not trying to warp their views for political gain.

just a quickie here.. presto was a commonly used nickname for Preston Manning.

And for the record.. Mike harris raised taxes brutally.. just indirectly.

He gave out tax cuts.. but then took away so many sevices.. that people would now have to pay for them..eating up your tax cuts.. and much more.. and totally screwing lower income earners.


Im not against tax cuts.. I think if implimented correctly.. they can indeed stimulate growth.. but are not the be-all and end all cure to our problems.

and sorry.. but Bush and his gang are pretty rotten.. I just think its a shame that people sometimes bad-mouth Americans in general for things Bush and his administration do, and no Im not comparing Bush to Stalin.. or anyone.. just stating that Bush isnt as on the side of good as some would like to think..

I'm not vilifiling the Swedes. I don't agree with their system of doing things, is all. To me, a Swedish system is something I'll fight to my grave. I just don't think it's a good way to govern. That's why it's the best that I could hope for from a radical left revolution.

And I did specify "left-wing radical," never equating the Liberals or NDP with the term. I mean the Black Mask anti-globalization thugs who smashed up Seattle and Quebec City. No one should condone their attacks on property and (worse) the police. I'm going to go out on a limb here and figure that someone on this board participated in the protests in Quebec City. If you sat in a circle and clapped and sang songs, good for you. You expressed your opinion peacefully. If you threw a rock at the riot squad, hope you liked your cell.

I can't wait for another good protest rally here in Lethbridge so I can pull a Rick Mercer and do "Talking With Hippies." The ones who are just in it to be a protester and look cool, wear their Nike shoes and drive their Honda Civic to the rally.

-Dunefish

So what side is he on? I've always wanted to hear the answer to this.

-Dunefish

But that's not what neo-cons want to do. They call themselves neo-conservative because they are not the same as old conservatives, who wanted to presrve traditions, give a big role to the state, make changes only slowly, keep Canada very distinct indeed from "the rabble-run republic" of America, etc etc.

Neo-cons want to tear apart the state and welfare in particular, make rapid changes like deep tax cuts and downsizing government, change Canada to make it much more like the USA. For better or worse, they're not Tories in the old Canadian tradition of Sir John A and Dief the Chief. They are Republican-lite.

And no decent Canadian likes lite beer.

The phrase "neo-con" was invented by liberals to have a scary name (notice the similarity to neo-Nazi) for people who are social and fiscal conservatives that wouldn't alienate anyone. eg "Religous Right"

Nobody called themself a neo-con until it was already in common usage.

Remember? George Bush was a "compassionate conservative." Not a neo-con.

-Dunefish

For that matter, I can't think of anyone in Canadian politics who calls themselves a "Neo-Conservative"... Sure, the Liberals and NDP toss the term around, but only to spin the public perception of the CP and try to win votes. I wouldn't take the word of anyone who is paid to represent a political party (ANY party), or is trying to get elected, when they were describing the other parties or their candidates.

Thus, the only "Neo-Conservatives" on the Canadian Political landscape are the ones that are pointed at and we are told, by politicians or biased media (which we see on both sides), are "neo-cons". I suspect that few politicians, ESPECIALLY ones who make it through the Federal nomination process, can sneak their way onto the ballot without making such extreme views as those attributed to "neo-cons" in the above post public record. We'd know without having to take the word of their opposition that these candidates were planning on being that reckless with welfare, health care, etc.

Sybilla

OK, this is just a for the record kind of thing. According to Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal a neo-conservative could be described as the following:

capitalism: both, admiration for it, and some suspicision of it.
economics in general: genrally oppose spending tons of money on social programs. Instead, perfer to see the spending gradually increased, so that massive debt can be avoided.
Domestic problems: While there should be state sponsered social programs, they should aim to get people to become independent, not dependant on the government.
Foreign Affairs : Completely anti-communist, and, believe in supporting anti-communist regimes with military and economic assistence. In more modern context, they argue this same point in terms of "terrorism"
Culture: Neo-conservatives generally argue, that left-leaning intellects, feminists, and assorted mal-contents pose a greater threat to our values and way of life than any threats from free market capitalism. Many neo-conservatives could easily be classified as cultural conservatives, who believe, that society needs to return to self-restraint which is what all decent societies have.