|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 9, 2008 9:16:46 GMT -5
.... voices coming out now, breaking ranks. Most against Dion yes, but by doing so showing their personal beefs against recent decision, goes against unity and the country does not need that right now .... Dion has solved a lot of things by resigning quickly. And the only "unity" in the minds of most Canadians is "national unity" in the form of "in bed with separatists". Harper is still banking on that fear....and it needs to fade away. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 9, 2008 9:34:14 GMT -5
Correct Dis, IMO. That's why the Libs need the cooler head, Ignatieff, as leader....and not Rae, who will most certainly travel the country (has that plan been scrapped?) espousing, "Harper can not be trusted no matter what?" I think Canadians will have a lot more respect for the approach: "Let's give the PCs the chance to come up with a workable budget that's open to collaboration." Somebody has to take the high road....if that's possible in politics....and Ignatieff is the guy to convey that message. I like the "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition" direction. The best solution for this country right now, is for Harper to focus on working on the economy through fiscal conservatism....while, as he said in his address to the nation, being open to collaboration from the other parties. I agree. The Liberals have to take a step back and regroup. And by "step back and regroup" I mean "four years." The next time they make a move it should be when they are reasonably confident that they have a shot at a majority Liberal government. And that means they have a LOT of work to do to regain what they have lost. Flip-flopping around, using coalitions and constitutional loopholes to take power are doomed to failure. They may take power, but for how long? All they are doing is pushing themselves further and further away from ordinary Canadians who are getting tired of the whole fiasco. Regroup. Rebuild. Grass roots. Get a leader that people are not embarrassed with. Come up with sound and decent ideas that, you know, can actually work. If Harper is as bad as they think he is, he'll be riping for the picking in four years, and they can retake Ottawa. But the circus has to end. We know Harper will NEVER let a minority Liberal government stay in power, so the best thing the Liberals can do is win outright. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 9, 2008 10:57:51 GMT -5
They never had that problem when they had strong leadership, Skilly. Mind you we'd have to go back a ways for that ... possibly he who must not be named Trudeau. Even in the early Chretien years Dis ... this whole coalition was sound when they were "united" - yes, it was political and they were playing it as "for the better of the country", but they were united .... .... voices coming out now, breaking ranks. Most against Dion yes, but by doing so showing their personal beefs against recent decision, goes against unity and the country does not need that right now .... I was going to mention Chretien, Skilly, but I found he lost his grip on the party as soon as he entered his power struggle with Martin. He got caught up in trying to find someone who could challenge Martin, more than running his own government. I think we're still seeing the residuals of that today. The Liberal Ship is missing a captain and, as a result, a rudder. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 9, 2008 11:59:58 GMT -5
And then there was one. Bob Rae has bowed out. He fully accepts that there will be no internal party vote and is moving forward with what is good for the Liberal party as a whole. Good on him. That's two good decisions by the Liberals in, what, 48 hours? They still don't have my vote, but I'm interested in seeing where this ship will go. They look like they have a captain who is willing to wait until all the information is on the table before basing his decisions. Wonder how he'll manage his crew? This has been one of the factors to their ship floundering in the past, no? ============================================================== Bob Rae abandons leadership bid
Liberals broaden leadership consultation OTTAWA - Michael Ignatieff has secured the federal Liberal leadership without a fight after his last remaining rival, longtime friend Bob Rae, bowed out. Rae informed his supporters of his decision during a conference call this morning and is to make it official at a news conference later today. His decision came just hours after the Liberal national executive rejected his plea to find an expedited way of giving all party members a vote for Stephane Dion's replacement. Rae gave his supporters an advance peek at his statement, in which he said he still believes an open process would have been "a vital and healthy process for the party." But he vows to accept the party's choice "without rancour or undue disappointment." "I offer my full and unqualified support to Michael, a friend and colleague of 40 years standing. I call on all my friends and supporters to do the same," Rae will say in the statement. "There are many who will be deeply disappointed with this decision and indeed troubled with what has happened. But I ask them to recognize that we cannot always control the flow of events and that our own interests and ambitions are much less important than the public interest of the Liberal party and the country."
Rae will appeal to Liberals to pull together to fight Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
"The Liberal party has known too much division in the past and I have no intention of pursuing a course that would hurt the party." cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/12/09/7684061-cp.html |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 9, 2008 14:03:53 GMT -5
I think that if Iggy had won the leadership of the Liberal Party in the first place he'd be PM right now . . . even though he is a "mere academic that abandoned Canada until it suited him" [you'll hear that in the next few years].
Harper can't let it go four years until an election . . . and for that matter, neither can the Liberals. While in four years the economy will be on the upswing and Harper can say "see what I did?", four years give the Liberals enough time to solidify, Iggy can look Prime Ministerial, and the Liberals will have money enough to run an election without flying a DC9.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 9, 2008 15:40:28 GMT -5
Good on Rae for stepping aside and abandoning his cross-country "evil Harper" show.
(I assume he has cancelled that tour.)
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 9, 2008 18:44:33 GMT -5
I think Canadians will have a lot more respect for the approach: "Let's give the PCs the chance to come up with a workable budget that's open to collaboration." I suspect the Conservatives like it when people in the East refer to them as the PCs as it makes them seem less threatening, but, at the risk of sounding partisan, I think people should remember that this is not the old PC Party. I won't stoop to calling them the Reform Party, but the influence of the Reform Party within the Conservative Party is certainly not zero. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 9, 2008 18:49:30 GMT -5
If Harper is as bad as they think he is, he'll be riping for the picking in four years, and they can retake Ottawa. Come on now, you know that's not true. George W. Bush won a second term after all. If the PM can run a good PR campaign and if he is willing to abuse his powers to sway public opinion in his favor at any cost, he has a HUGE advantage. Harper fits that description perfectly. It doesn't matter how bad a PM Harper is, there is no guarantee he won't win an election in 2, 3, or 4 years. The fact that he's polling at over 40% after what he's done recently only proves my point (granted, the Liberals might be doing better if they had a different leader, but still). |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 9, 2008 22:14:13 GMT -5
I think Canadians will have a lot more respect for the approach: "Let's give the PCs the chance to come up with a workable budget that's open to collaboration." I won't stoop to calling them the Reform Party, but the influence of the Reform Party within the Conservative Party is certainly not zero. And you know this because you frequent Conservatives meetings? LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 9, 2008 22:18:47 GMT -5
"The Liberal party has known too much division in the past and I have no intention of pursuing a course that would hurt the party." [/b] [/quote] Bobby boy, you and your buddy Geraldine "Me Commy" Kennedy and you other buddy DodoDion are the reason the Liberals are in this mess. Get over yourself and let the Liberal party get back it's central roots. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 9, 2008 23:44:35 GMT -5
I won't stoop to calling them the Reform Party, but the influence of the Reform Party within the Conservative Party is certainly not zero. And you know this because you frequent Conservatives meetings? LOL! ...Former Reform Party members such as Harper make up a significant part of the membership of the Conservative Party (I can't find any numbers unfortunately). Are you suggesting that they have no influence? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 10, 2008 9:25:02 GMT -5
"The Liberal party has known too much division in the past and I have no intention of pursuing a course that would hurt the party." [/b] [/quote] Bobby boy, you and your buddy Geraldine "Me Commy" Kennedy and you other buddy DodoDion are the reason the Liberals are in this mess. Get over yourself and let the Liberal party get back it's central roots. [/quote] Actually, I read a paper article two days ago that said something like, "... Bob Rae's desire to merge the NDP with the Liberals is no secret." That's a paraphrase though. If this is true, then we may know some of the real reasons for Rae turning Liberal. Of course, turning in your colors for another set of colors suggests a few things as well. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 10, 2008 12:07:28 GMT -5
If Harper is as bad as they think he is, he'll be riping for the picking in four years, and they can retake Ottawa. Come on now, you know that's not true. George W. Bush won a second term after all. If the PM can run a good PR campaign and if he is willing to abuse his powers to sway public opinion in his favor at any cost, he has a HUGE advantage. Harper fits that description perfectly. It doesn't matter how bad a PM Harper is, there is no guarantee he won't win an election in 2, 3, or 4 years. The fact that he's polling at over 40% after what he's done recently only proves my point (granted, the Liberals might be doing better if they had a different leader, but still). Yup. It's impossible that the Canadian people have decided that they - for better or for worse - want Mr. Harper running the government. It's unfathomable that they could feel that he has done good, or even that the feel her is the lesser of five evils. And the suggestion that the coalition - what with their back-room deals and whatnot - might bear even the slightest bit of responsibility for the current constitutional crisis is completely without merit. Yup, we're all sheep being blindly led by the Great Conservative Shepherd. Baaahh! |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 10, 2008 12:18:06 GMT -5
Yup, we're all sheep being blindly led by the Great Conservative Shepherd. Baaahh! Is that why my fur is itching? I say to the left and coalition huggers, CALL AN ELECTION...... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 10, 2008 12:28:58 GMT -5
Actually, I read a paper article two days ago that said something like, "... Bob Rae's desire to merge the NDP with the Liberals is no secret." That's a paraphrase though. If this is true, then we may know some of the real reasons for Rae turning Liberal. Of course, turning in your colors for another set of colors suggests a few things as well. Cheers. Rae is a virus as long as he is inside the Libeeral party. Like I said before, I use to be a die hard Liberal to the point that I had as much disgust for Mulrooney (sp?) as I now have Rae and Dodo. The problem with the Liberals is that Kennedy and Rae are two uber coniving urban leftist who know how to usurp a political party. It's not hard to do is anyone knows how and has the resources/time to do it. Iggy needs to purge the party or he will find that he will have knives stuck on his back and his agenda hijacked at any moment. BTW, "grass roots" is code word for enviro whackos and far leftist stuffing the members list....and hijacking the party. THAT is why Rae keeps babbling about grass roots. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 10, 2008 12:33:27 GMT -5
And you know this because you frequent Conservatives meetings? LOL! ...Former Reform Party members such as Harper make up a significant part of the membership of the Conservative Party (I can't find any numbers unfortunately). Are you suggesting that they have no influence? Again, when was the last time you attended any Conservative meeting of any kind? The agenda is about the economy, big government and environment policies. The taxpayers paid orgies come afterward. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 10, 2008 13:11:35 GMT -5
Come on now, you know that's not true. George W. Bush won a second term after all. If the PM can run a good PR campaign and if he is willing to abuse his powers to sway public opinion in his favor at any cost, he has a HUGE advantage. Harper fits that description perfectly. It doesn't matter how bad a PM Harper is, there is no guarantee he won't win an election in 2, 3, or 4 years. The fact that he's polling at over 40% after what he's done recently only proves my point (granted, the Liberals might be doing better if they had a different leader, but still). Yup. It's impossible that the Canadian people have decided that they - for better or for worse - want Mr. Harper running the government. It's unfathomable that they could feel that he has done good, or even that the feel her is the lesser of five evils. And the suggestion that the coalition - what with their back-room deals and whatnot - might bear even the slightest bit of responsibility for the current constitutional crisis is completely without merit. Yup, we're all sheep being blindly led by the Great Conservative Shepherd. Baaahh! A bit touchy, aren't you? I never said any of that. Furthermore, it's totally orthogonal to what I said. It's entirely possible for people to feel that way, but it doesn't mean they are right, and doesn't mean they aren't being influenced by the propaganda campaign. With respect, I don't really get the point of your post because you aren't saying that I'm wrong and you aren't really making an argument that has much to do with what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 10, 2008 13:13:02 GMT -5
...Former Reform Party members such as Harper make up a significant part of the membership of the Conservative Party (I can't find any numbers unfortunately). Are you suggesting that they have no influence? Again, when was the last time you attended any Conservative meeting of any kind? The agenda is about the economy, big government and environment policies. The taxpayers paid orgies come afterward. Again, way to dodge the question. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 10, 2008 13:16:24 GMT -5
Dion has solved a lot of things by resigning quickly. A great act of leadership? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 10, 2008 14:01:32 GMT -5
Yup, we're all sheep being blindly led by the Great Conservative Shepherd. Baaahh! Actually, I believe this is the way most politicians view their electorate. Whether they come right out and say it, all of them take us, and our votes, for granted. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 10, 2008 15:00:47 GMT -5
Again, when was the last time you attended any Conservative meeting of any kind? The agenda is about the economy, big government and environment policies. The taxpayers paid orgies come afterward. Again, way to dodge the question. I suppose I'll have to answer it .... If you compare the 36th parliament (the one where the Reform Party switched to the Canadian Alliance, and then eventually rebranded themselves as Conservatives ...) with the current 40th parliament ... There are 19 members of the Conservative Party of Canada that were also Reform Party members in the 36th parliament. There are currently 3 members in the Conservative Party of Canada whose spouse was a member of the Reform Party in the 36th Parliament. Now this means nothing, just answering the question. Also of note, Steven Harper, Jim Prentice, Rona Ambrose, and others that I am too lazy to go back and cut and paste were not counted in this little exercise because they were not sitting members in the 36th parliament, but all have strong reform roots .... ... Not as many as I would have thought ... the Conservatives do seem to have a very high turnover with their candidates in elections.... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 10, 2008 15:07:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 10, 2008 18:53:12 GMT -5
Again, way to dodge the question. I suppose I'll have to answer it .... If you compare the 36th parliament (the one where the Reform Party switched to the Canadian Alliance, and then eventually rebranded themselves as Conservatives ...) with the current 40th parliament ... There are 19 members of the Conservative Party of Canada that were also Reform Party members in the 36th parliament. There are currently 3 members in the Conservative Party of Canada whose spouse was a member of the Reform Party in the 36th Parliament. Now this means nothing, just answering the question. Also of note, Steven Harper, Jim Prentice, Rona Ambrose, and others that I am too lazy to go back and cut and paste were not counted in this little exercise because they were not sitting members in the 36th parliament, but all have strong reform roots .... ... Not as many as I would have thought ... the Conservatives do seem to have a very high turnover with their candidates in elections.... Thanks for those numbers, but it's not just the MPs that count. I'd be interested to know what fraction of the membership of the Conservative Party were members of the Reform Party. Ultimately, the party membership chooses the leader and directs party policy. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 10, 2008 19:17:19 GMT -5
[/color] Hey, if you can't laugh at yourself... (its a little long, about 9 minutes)[/quote] Very funny. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 10, 2008 22:23:41 GMT -5
Sounds like Harper is talking about a coalition with Iggy.
Not!
But he does seem to be asking "can't we just get along?". Iggy says . . . "sure . . . but if we don't there's still the idea of my good friend BobRae to consider . . . "
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 11, 2008 9:09:59 GMT -5
Yup. It's impossible that the Canadian people have decided that they - for better or for worse - want Mr. Harper running the government. It's unfathomable that they could feel that he has done good, or even that the feel her is the lesser of five evils. And the suggestion that the coalition - what with their back-room deals and whatnot - might bear even the slightest bit of responsibility for the current constitutional crisis is completely without merit. Yup, we're all sheep being blindly led by the Great Conservative Shepherd. Baaahh! A bit touchy, aren't you? I never said any of that. Furthermore, it's totally orthogonal to what I said. It's entirely possible for people to feel that way, but it doesn't mean they are right, and doesn't mean they aren't being influenced by the propaganda campaign. With respect, I don't really get the point of your post because you aren't saying that I'm wrong and you aren't really making an argument that has much to do with what I said. No. You said Harper's current popularity rating is due mostly to the spin doctors he's got working in his camp. I am, admittedly less that respectfully (I tend to get my dander up when someone implies that the electorate isn't up to the task of being the electorate, because then it's only a hop skip and a jump to simply saying we should remove their right to vote), disagreeing - instead giving other reasons why Harper might enjoy the support of the people. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 11, 2008 9:23:44 GMT -5
Yup, we're all sheep being blindly led by the Great Conservative Shepherd. Baaahh! Actually, I believe this is the way most politicians view their electorate. Whether they come right out and say it, all of them take us, and our votes, for granted. Cheers. There is a tendency in politics to act as if the people will follow you like the pied piper. I don't know if it's ego (of course they'll follow me, I'm Stephane Friggin' Dion) or that they just don't care (I'm sure Skilly has a quote somewhere about the electorate of Newfoundland). How they see us and how we act are two different things though. People have a habit of acting stubbornly when they feel politicians are getting too big for their britches. Observe what happened in NL during the last election, or what happened in King-Hants with Scott Brison. Kings-Hants was, before Brison, a Conservative fortress. But when Scott crossed the floor many of the people of the riding went with him, because they felt he had been mistreated. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 11, 2008 11:05:33 GMT -5
Actually, I believe this is the way most politicians view their electorate. Whether they come right out and say it, all of them take us, and our votes, for granted. Cheers. There is a tendency in politics to act as if the people will follow you like the pied piper. I don't know if it's ego (of course they'll follow me, I'm Stephane Friggin' Dion) or that they just don't care (I'm sure Skilly has a quote somewhere about the electorate of Newfoundland). Ask and you shall receive ...  Harper definitely doesnt care about Newfoundland .... from The Telegram, Jan. 14th, 08 Premier Danny Williams says the prime minister told him last year that he doesn’t need to win seats in Newfoundland and Labrador to win a federal election.
Williams told reporters today in St. John’s that Stephen Harper offered “a very telling” comment when they met in St. John’s in November that he hasn’t previously disclosed.
The premier says at one point, Harper told him he doesn’t need the province’s support to win a future election.
Williams says that shows the kind of disdain the prime minister holds for this provinceThe one thing to note here is that while it is entirely possible the premier could have made this up for his ABC and feud over the equalization issues, the PM never never ever denied the comment. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 11, 2008 17:12:05 GMT -5
A bit touchy, aren't you? I never said any of that. Furthermore, it's totally orthogonal to what I said. It's entirely possible for people to feel that way, but it doesn't mean they are right, and doesn't mean they aren't being influenced by the propaganda campaign. With respect, I don't really get the point of your post because you aren't saying that I'm wrong and you aren't really making an argument that has much to do with what I said. No. You said Harper's current popularity rating is due mostly to the spin doctors he's got working in his camp. I am, admittedly less that respectfully (I tend to get my dander up when someone implies that the electorate isn't up to the task of being the electorate, because then it's only a hop skip and a jump to simply saying we should remove their right to vote), disagreeing - instead giving other reasons why Harper might enjoy the support of the people. With all due respect to the electorate, of which I am a part, it seems absurd to suggest that the fact that Harper and the Conservatives are good at PR and the Liberals under Dion were awful at it isn't having an impact on the numbers. Voters run the gamut from those people who will vote for Party X almost no matter what (probably a large fraction of the people who actually vote), to those who prefer one party but are willing to consider others, to those who could vote either way depending on the specifics of the election. There's also a wide range in terms of how informed people are and how well they understand different issues. For example, someone who doesn't understand how our parliamentary system works, no matter how intelligent and informed they are, may be easily fooled by the Conservative PR that says that there is something illegitimate about the opposition forming a coalition. And that's even more likely if that person has Conservative leanings to begin with. Most (actually probably all) people have issues about which they are not well-informed or which they do not really understand, and PR exploits that. If people aren't hearing both sides of the argument, how can they make a reasoned conclusion? I've heard some people say that public funding for political parties is bad anyway. I don't hesitate to say that SOME of those people quite frankly don't know what they are talking about. It's not that I can't respect those who disagree with me, but it's clear from the arguments that SOME of those people use that they haven't really thought it through. If the Liberals did a better job of explaining their side, some of those people would have been swayed. BTW, I don't want to take away anybody's right to vote, but I do wish society was set up to allow us to be better informed and more capable of dispassionate reasoning. The idea of a system where "the people" make decisions on issues about which they have very little knowledge is a bit wacky, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 11, 2008 18:41:42 GMT -5
Listening to John Oakley on AM640 Toronto this morning.
The guy is beyond right wing. No matter what the issue....from Harper wanting to fill the 18 Senate positions with PCs before the House resumes at the end of January....to the proposed cutting of public subsidies for political parties....to not dealing with the economy straight away.
The argument he fell back on 100% of the time: "At least the PCs aren't in bed with Jack Layton and the Separatists." In other words: "All I got is the National Unity card...and I do believe it trumps anything you're holding."
He even had a Liberal Senator as a guest....and he wouldn't agree to ONE point the Senator was trying to make. In fact, it bordered on total disrespect.
Not too far from Rush Limbaugh....complete with the derisive chuckle.
|
|
