dnsfurlan

I saw the interview too. What caught my attention was his demeanour - the stammering, the nervous posture, the putting of the fingers on the chin when answering an uncomfortable question. And I also noticed how, when answering a question he wasn't ready for, he said a few words and tried to leave it at that. I also got the sense that Mansbridge noticed the discomfort of Martin in the interview. My initial assessment: Martin simply has not undergone the kind of scrutiny most people do when becoming PM. Its one thing to be admired by those you surround yourself with, its quite another to impress others who don't really give a darn who you are. Therefore, this guy needs to be challenged and put off balance. Chretien was the master of poise and deflection. I'm not sure if this guy is. We'll see. P.S. He's talking about a new decade for Canada. Where the heck was he for the last ten years, for goodness sakes? Yeah, somebody smart and cool should be able to start picking him apart.

Martin was the Finance Minister who made all those cuts to Defence and Health Care in the first place. Martin was the most senior member of Cabinet right next to Chretien. If Martin doesn't take some responsibility for his own govt., then who can? Like Harper keeps saying, Martin is now running against the Chretien/Martin govt. of the past decade. And we'll see how Martin can keep all of his promises together. Frankly, no liberal in recent memory has done what Martin plans to do - make govt. more efficient and increase stature in the world, while at the same time maintaining a strong social safety net. Either Martin is a strong leader with a truly new kind of vision for this country, or he's a wild-eyed dreamer who's going to have everything crash in on him like an old house in a rainstorm. Just keep showing pictures of Chretien and Martin together. If Martin was the visionary he claims to be, he would have seperated himself from the Chretien government a long time ago - resign honourably and go into private life. Instead, he used the resources of the government to form a government-in-waiting, sat quietly by implementing all of Chretien's schemes, while slowly pushing the man out the door without so much as one vote being cast for such purposes. St. Paul is no saint. And an election campaign can certainly expose that.

Unity usually comes from the need to come together under extraordinary circumstances. In the States, it took a civil war. The Revolutionary War before that might have had something to do with it as well. In Canada, there really hasn't been some extreme challenge which forced people to put their difference aside in order to finally start acknowledging the unifying similarities. Either that, or extraordinary leadership, which probably won't come from anyone of the current players. Even then, only some unifying event usually does it - and it ain't constitutional squabbles.

Did you read the pure spin in the first few lines of the article? It sais that the new conservative party barely gets the support the Alliance got in the last federal election. This stuff is laughable. Only last week the Star was remarking how the new party was only getting 15% of the vote, and that 1 + 1 = 1. Now, when the support is significantly more than that, the goal-posts they use are the results from the Alliance in 2000. Give me a break. The fact that a Star poll shows the Conservatives at well over 20% shows that the merger was well worth it, and that any talk of an NDP official opposition is also quite laughable.

Gugsy, I have no problems with these kinds of arguments against Harper, even thought I think they're wrong. I know Begbie and respectfully disagree with his well thought-out opinions. However, the problem I have with some of your posts is that you summarily dismiss a candidate that many in the new party will support whole-heartedly, and you do it either by making unsubstantiated claims or by displaying outright contempt for Harper and his supporters. I just think your posts should be a little more well thought-out.

That is such a gross over-statment that is seriously sheds doubt on your ability to make clear judgements on these matters, in my opinion. He has turned his party around, accomplished merger despite Mackay's clear reservartions, and a leading candidate in the upcoming leaderhsip race. To say his performance is poor and laughable makes me wonder about your ability to judge and reason. Its one thing to have doubts about Harper. Its quite another to make the enourmously bloated claims you've made in this thread.

Gugsy - Newsflash: Bernard Lord hasn't proven he's the saviour. If he comes into the leadership race and proves himself capable against Harper, then so much the better for him. But I really don't get where this hysteria over Lord comes from. He's a premier of a small province with modest accomplishments and modest challenges. And I don't think the charisma and intelligence are there to the extent people - especially PCs - believe. The only thing Lord has proven so far is that he is a small-timer. Again, I think Lord's entry into the race is more about appeasing PCers than it is about electoral success. Lord has something to prove before becoming leader of this party. So does Harper, for that matter. Let the fights begin. Let's roll!

Let's try to get a few facts straight here. When Harper took over the party, the Alliance was like 8% nationally as a result of the Day debacle. He has brought them back up to pre-day levels, as well as led the way on merger - so much so that people think its a takoever. Funny. On the one hand the Alliance is supposed to be so weak under Harper. On the other hand it is so strong that it simply over-powered the haplesss PC Party of Canada. Furthermore, Harper has focused on exactly what he needs to in a mid-term cycle for a party badly in need of a re-build. That's exactly what he's done - also a small thing known as merger. I think Harper has accomplished an extraordinary amount in a very short time. They have? There was the one riding in Ontario where the Alliance was third place in the first place anyway. If you go by by-elections, Mario Dumont would now be premier of Quebec. Neither has Paul Martin. For that matter, what has Lord proven? He can win an election in a small Canadian province, and almost lose another to a virtual no-name? As the above clearly shows, I don't think you've done any such thing. Clearly, Harper is more than about policy. He has turned around the CA, and led the way on merger. He has also been leader of the Official Opposition in parliament, and gotten Martin to develop policiy initiative he's been championing all along. That's why policy matters. Harper is a fresh face, for goodness sake. And done a heck of a lot to boot. Prentice is a novice who is in no position to lead a new national party against Paul Martin. For that matter, Lord is a novice on the federal stage too. Look, Lord's greatest contribution to the party is that he will add a legitimate voice to the PC faction, one which Mackay has abandoned because of a lack of credibility. But so much of the praise of the man I think is hype as opposed to sober analysis. But that's what leadership races are for, aren't they?

In Nova Scotia! I think Harper is smart enough to fend of criticisms such as the ones outlined. He didn't get merger passed by being a limited ideologue. And he's not Preston Manning. He's already fended off the firewall criticisms. You might have noticed that everyone, indluding the Libs, have failed to use it against him. As for Lord, why would the new party want to elect Paul Martin Light as their new leader? Seriously, on Bourque it was reported that the Liberals are really afraid of Lord. Yeah, I bet. In Lord, they'll have a guy who wants to be Paul Martin but quite isn't, who has no federal experience, who has no organization of his own to speak of, and who IS a regional politician - HELLO, he is premier of a province. The other day Harper said that people continue to underestimate him . I also think that one big reason many have stayed out of the race is because they saw Harper as too stron a candidate. So, the media types and the moderate-mongers will tear down any wall to have their Super-Hero Lord come in and swoon his way to the leadership of the new party. I think Harper will have a few things to say about that. Just my opinion.

I guess this is what's known as dreaming in technicolour. Let's first have a race before we start going ga-ga over some of the potential candidates.

The splitting could end up happening in a number of ways. Prentice, being from Calgary, could take votes away from Harper. And if Stockwell Day enters the race who knows what happens. Ontario will be the key. Lord will have support in the Atlantic, and will probably lead in Quebec. Harper probably takes the West, depending. And, if you believe Ontarians are obsessed with Quebec, Lord probably has the heads up in that province too. If Harper wants to win this, he's going to have to show what he's really made of - no more policiy development or party building. What kind of national leader can you be for Canadians. So far, he's been weak in this area, and would have needed to make the case against Martin anyway.

Neal, The way I see it Paul Martin may well be to the right of Bernard Lord. And I get the feeling that we're going down the same path as before by rallying around a leader who talks more like a liberal than as a conservative - throwing around the word "moderate" as an excuse to articulate some bold initiatives. I think his entry into the race is great. However, making this a truly new party has to work both ways. On the one hand, this should not be an Alliance takeover. On the other hand, this should not be a re-hash of the same kind of Progressive Conservatism that led to perpetual Liberal rule in the first place. If Canadians want parties who wrap themselves up in the"moderate" label, they already have the Liberals. You can attract unaligned voters without being a wishy-washy moderate. I think BOTH Harper and Lord need to work at building coalitions that represent a new party with new hopes for this country - none of this double-standard and one-way-street kind of stuff that already seems to be developing. If Harper wins, its an Alliance takeover. If Lord wins, somehow, its not a PC takeover. Lets get a grip here, folks.

If this does materialize, then don't Harper's chances become severely handicapped? However, before wel all go ga-ga over Mr. Super Moderate, shouldn't we remind ourselves that: - He is a premier from a small province who almost got the boot last time 'round. - Has short amount of time to build a national organization. - Has no federal experience. - And is probably over-rated because he slaps the label "moderate" in front of his name. Hey, Bernard Lord may be more of a liberal than Paul Martin!

Is there ANY possibility of Super Mario entering this race. If there was, you would think the rumours would have swirled by now. If somehow he were to enter this race, the profile of this party in Quebec would be enhanced exponentially. It would have to start turning some heads in La Belle Province.

Hey, easy there now. There's a leaderhsip race yet to be run, and a man by the name of Stephen Harper who might have a desire to kibosh your celebration there.

Little doubt to me that Harper's challenge got that much more tougher with Lord in the race. Almost all of the PR momentun will start shifting towards Lord, since the common perception is that Haprer is a CA guy and not very popular with the public yet. Maybe now we get a chance to see just what Harper is made of. But I do get the sense that the wind will start blowing in Mr. Lord's sails.

I agree that this completely changes the complexion of the new party. But is Quebec still in play even if Lord loses? I fear that if people think its not, that the pressure to have him as leader would perhaps skew the race towards him. And you know that Lord is going to be the establishment pick for leader (ie. media, talking heads, etc, etc) The challenge for Harper all of a sudden becomes large. At least now there's some excitment around the new party again.

I'm surprised Borotsik is still on board. He must be extorting some promises from someone, since he's been bad-mouthing this merger since the day negotiations became public.

No Kidding. If Stephen Harper were to cut himself shaving CTV would call it a 'serious blow" to the new 'CPC'. There is NO ethical consistency in this move. He certainly did set himself up as a potential leadership candidate. He also voted YES for the merger - just the other day. Now he's crossing the floor over to an entirely other party? Sure, in the short-term this doesn't look good for the Conservative Party - a gay man doesn't see a place for himself in the new party. In one easy move Brison makes the Liberals look more tolerant than the new pary. However, I think I would have to agree with Neal. For someone to show such a lack of consistency within a matter of days might be a sign of a politician who has some ethical problems of his own to deal with.

If Harper wants a continuation of the charge that this is simply an Alliance takeover then, by all means, go with the blue and green again. However, if he wants to send the message that this is a re-establishment of the traditional conservative coalition in this country, he should go with the traditional blue, red, and white of the Conservative Party. If anyone has seen the new Canadian Alliance email newsletter, I don't think that's a bad place to start for a new logo. Go with dark blue, red, and white. And have the word "conservative" displayed prominently with a retro-classical font, and a big red leaf somewhere in there. And no CPC PCPC CPOC or CPCanada stuff either. Lets just go with "Conservative" just like Libs go with "Liberal". -------------------- Also, what's with the Harper and Hitler stuff? Borders on hate speech, if you ask me.

Is this an "internet" poll where any chump clicks a button and tallies their vote? If it is, I think its meaningless. Is there a link to this poll?

Too soon to tell. Way too many variables left open six months before an election. And there may even be some pressure on Martin not to call one in the name of democratic spirit - give the new party a chance to get its feet on the ground. Will the new party be organized in time? Will the new leader and the new message be crafted well enough to attract enough voters from coast to coast to coast? Will Paul Martin stumble? Will Jack Layton stumble? Will external events spin the dynamics in a way yet unforseen? Personally, and I know I'm biased, I'd like to see a number of these factors go our way. Harper is a smart guy capable of smart policies. Paul Martin looks like a John Turner waiting to happen all over again. Jack Layton looks like a Jack Layton waiting to happen all over the place. The new Conservative Party could deliver a message Canadians have been waiting for for a long time - esp. restoring some pride in our country once again. Hey, if these kinds of things can happen, and Harper is known for his organizatianal ability, I'm not going to rule out a minority Conservative government - 75 seats in the West, 35 seats in Ontario, 15 seats out East, 5 in Quebec (depending on what happens with the BQ).

Was the written promise made to you? Or was it made to David Orchard, who has the audacity to claim that Mackay has been played like a piano. I think Orchard's the one who's been taken to the cleaners. I think the membership of the PC Party will have the final say about what they think of Peter Mackay's deal with Orchard. It always did stink, regardless of whether merger proceeded or not. And Mackay has payed the political price. He will soon no longer lead any national party.

Good work. And good news. If results like these keep coming in, it makes you wonder what all the fuss was about. Methinks WAY too much attention was paid to David Orchard, Joe Clark, and all the rest of them nay-sayers. Just the challenge of conservatism in this country, I guess. Lets keep our fingers crossed, though.

I think a big problem for Martin is that he's promising everything to everyone. I can't remember the last time a politician became successful without a more targeted message. I'd also like to see what kind of temperament Martin is made of. Its one thing to have developed an almost cult-like following within your own party. Its quite another to lead the rest of us. Depending on the quality of the opposition in the next election campaign, somethng tells me Martin is capable of a big stumble - a lot of idealism, not enough pragmatism.