dnsfurlan

Funny, I was thinking the same thing when I was reading your post, but I wasn't thinking it about Harper.

Guess what? It's never going to happen. He's already gone down the road of bashing corporate Canada. He has also insulted right-of-centre voters by implying theyr'e part of the old scandal structure that exists between the Liberals and Conservatives. "They just go back and forth" I think were the words he used. For all those people who think Jack Layton is the second coming, I'd start re-examining that proposition. If you look at his rise in the polls, its come essentially because he's thrown eggs at the Cons and at Paul Martin. I still don't think Canadians have taken a close look at the guy. If they do, my bet is tha they'll see a guy who is nowhere near being our Prime Minister, and probably not even our leader of the Official Opposition. If Jack Layton himself started being the focus of attention for Canadians, instead of the hard-left in this country, I think the Libs would start breathing a sigh of relief concerning their left flank. Once people take a hard look at Jack Layton, they may see less image and more substance. And I'm not sure that's a good thing for him.

Yes, much better than Belinda!

Also, I have yet to find a link to this new poll. Interesting. Laschinger's tricks?

By the way, this leadership race is NOT a one member - one vote system of selection, as per the demands of the PC's. Therefore, any poll citing general percentages has to be taken with a grain of salt. A polling of the riding associations would be a much better assessment of where this race is going. If you recall, during the PC ratification of the merger deal, a sense of where the ridings were headed was being assembled in the run-up to the final vote. Only a similar compilation will get us anywhere, in my opinion. Who has the ridings and where. That's what we need to know. Plus, this poll could just plain well be bogus. After all, why would the Conservative Party select someone who doesn't even want to debate the issues with the fellow candidates? What's she gonna say to Paul Martin during the election? "Sorry, I'm Busy"?

I don't know. Maybe you like dreaming or something. This party, for better or worse, is what they have right now. It took a lot to break it in the first place. It took a lot to put it back together again. These kinds of things don't happen every other year. All the important players are committed. Only thing that remains is the shape the new party takes in future years, not whether it continues to exist, in my opinion.

There is no PC Party of Canada any more. Its now a part of the Conservative Party of Canada. Live with it!

Morgan, This is not the PC Party. This is the Conservative Party. Let's try to remember that.

I agree with that. My only concern is that this initial hyping turns out to bolster a candidacy into the leadership of this party when the substance isn't there. The media is already hyping her up. I suggest members of the party, or prospective members, let them do a lot of that stuff, and stick to some more sober scrutiny of our candidates.

Well, yes you can. History has shown that tax cuts can have a stimulative effect on the economy, resulting in a net increase in tax revenues. A similar analogy would be a budget for a business. Yes, you can try to reduce costs. And you can charge more for your product and service to generate more revenue. But the latter tactic can actually serve to reduce sales and revenues. Putting more money in the economy and in people's pockets can make people happy, and can put more money in cash registers, which means more money for Mr. Government.

Don't you read my posts? If you had you wouldn't be criticizing me with an unsubstantiated characterization. Here it is again for you: SHE HAS NO POLITICAL EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER! What is it about this statement you don't get? I'm sorry if I'm raining on the hopes of your dream candidate. But it IS substance that I'm worried about here. Policy positions are important. But in a leadership contest, how can you possibly ignore who it is that is providing those policiy positions. You seem to want to ignore her qualifications for leadership. I don't. And I hope the Conservative Party membership doesn't either.

Just how do you know that? Its one thing to have business smarts. Its quite another to have politcal smarts. And, for all we know, she could make Stockwell Day look like Winston Churchill.

Just how do you know that?

My stance on Belinda: SHE HAS VIRTUALLY NO QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE JOB! Doesn't matter what her policy positions are if she can't sell them to the public as a credible national leader. And, regarding patience, that's exactly what I'm asking for. Some of you think that patience means waiting for that moment when Belinda proves to us she is ready for the job. My definition of patience includes not going ga-ga over her candidacy because she looks good on camera and adopts a stand you find favourable on some paricular pet-issue. My definition is the safe one. Your definition, one that seems to include caving into the hope, could lead this new Conservative Party down the path of Joke-City. A reality-check might be in order. I'm fully willing to see what she has. But we have to see what she has before knowing what she has. People have already supported her 100% without any of this happening yet.

Please. That's a very knee-jerk response. And it doesn't take a partisan to obvserve that she did indeed trip up on a number of occasions. Whether she can improve on the performance is at issue. She stood their blank-faced while someone had to fix the teleprompter. A more skilled politico would have filled the time with some playful banter. I've seen Joe Clark do it in person. She seemed stumped on a few questions, not having anything to say for a few seconds - politicians simply don't do this. Her speech was flat and not very well written. She failed to give pause and emphasis in order for the crowd to jump in. And, by the end of the speech, the place was sapped of much of its energy. She also completely blew the question on Iraq. If she gave that kind of an answer in a national debate it would have been headlines for an entire week. So this notion that she didn't trip up is just not supported by what actually happened. What lays ahead may be more important, yes. For the people who want to see Belinda win this race, I at least hope that at some point they make sure they ask themselves the question of whether she is truly prepared to take this party into a national election, or if she has enough time to do so. I guess all I'm asking for is a little less hype, and a little more scrutiny. That' all.

I have. Mackay's drawbacks became pretty clear. As for Harper, he's someone who has already been leader fo the Official Opposition and has performed competently, if not sensationally. Why throw that away because someone with a daily blog wants to be PM after having thought about it for a couple of days.

She's been in public life for about two seconds. She hasn't had any time to waffle. I think we need to slow down a bit here. I'm still open to the idea of her winning. But I guess I just don't understand how people can come to the opinon that she is PM material based on what we have seen so far - which is just about absolutely nothing.

So, your view that she is the best person to run the country is based on the fact that she believes gay marriage is a human right? If Shania Twain came out and said the same thing would that mean she's the best person to run the country?

What exactly is this view based on? A person is thrown in front of a TV camera and all of a sudden they become the best candidate to become Prime Minister of a country? Shouldn't candidates actually have to make the case for why they should be selected? So far, I don't see what Belinda has done in this regard.

So, the opinions you posted aren't unbiased? Give me a break. And, yes, money matters here. Harper has a helluva lot of it too. Has raised it from actual members, by the way. The Stronach candidacy, right now, is the epitomey of style and hope over any kind of substance. And, by the way, a lot of important PCs supported Campbell too. We've been down this road before. The conservative movment needs less hope and more competecy - plus a reality check, by the looks of it.

Well, chew on this, Chantal Hebert on Belinda: www.thestar.com/hebertCraig Oliver on Belinda: Link to ArticleSo, you have two of the more prominent Ottawa correspondents trashing Belinda's performance yesterday. Its amazing what some people will latch on to in their desire for political success. We've been down this road before. Their names were Campbell and Day. But some people never seem to learn.

What's the story with Keith Martin? Here's a guy who ran for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance last time around and now he's turning turncoat? I don't get what these guys hope to accomplish by being another face in the crowd within the Liberal Party machinery. Is the lure of power that great? It wasn't for John Nunziata. And it just smells of political opportunism. What could possibly be the principle involved in going over to the Liberals?

Just to let you know, they're not Ontario MLA's, they're Ontario MPP's. Regarding Harper, I think his M.O. so far has been to ride under the radar and slowly exceed expectations. I can see Martin having some kind of meltdown by eleciton night. I can also see Layton unravelling at some point when performance and results actually matter.

Reiterating some of my ongoing sentiments, Walter Robinson, former head of the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation, and nominee for Conservative Party candidate in the Ottawa area, has written an article cautioning people about embracing a Bernard Lord candidacy on hype alone. Its been done before without much success. No guarantees that Lord will be saviour Here is an excerpt that I particulary agree with:

Actually, I'm not as convinced as I was a few days ago that Bernard Lord will enter the race. A few members of the media have signalled that its still a longshot. Part of the reason is that anyone who now enters will have a huge organizational and money disadvantage to Stephen Harper. Indeed, I think one of the main reasons some of the potential candidates have decided to stay out is because they know Harper is in a position where he's hard to beat. And the fact that Lord is waiting so long to decide only means Harper gets stronger while Bernie waits and waits and waits. Furthermore, other names are being thrown into the ring I think because there may be a realization that Lord will not run. So, to put a good face on this run as many candidates as possible would lessen the impact of a Harper juggernaut. I may be wrong about Lord and Harper, but at some point hard facts have to replace wishful thinking. Whatever you might think of the relative merits of Harper and Lord as candidates, the challenge for a Lord candidacy would be considerable, only because he would have less than three months to become a viable federal challenger, then have to turn around and face Martin in a general election. Lord's waffling on the issue of a leadership run I think has cost him a good amount of time in getting himself ready for a challenge far different from what he faces now as Premier. Hey, it could certainly be done. Merger was done in less time than that. But the shift from where he is now to where he needs to be to take over the party reigns is something perhaps many of his admirers don't fully appreciate. And Harper is no slouch in these things. Even if you accept that he is not popular among voters yet, winning leadership contests require a different set of skills than winning general elections. And I think Harper is primed for the task. I don't think Lord is. But, we'll see. Lord could announce tomorrow, blow Harper out of the sky, and make me look like a buffoon. Time will tell.