dnsfurlan

If McGuinty rises to anywhere near Harris' ability to confront adversity he'll receive my praise indeed. Harris came from nowhere to win a majority government. He did it with the media and the elites snickering at him all the way. When he was in office, he implemented programs which had every special interest group and media liberal types calling him things like Hitler. Mcguinty will not get anywhere near that kind of scrutiny. But he can't hide from challenges forever. Life won't let him off that easy. We'll see what happens. Harris may have become a tired politician. Adversity, however, is something he did not back away from for many years.

More confirmation of what I have been saying since the start of the campaign: Welcome to one-party Ontario - watch your wallet by Bob MacDonald of the Toronto Sun. Here is the relevant passage: Before you Lefties give your standard and very predictable "its all perspective" and "everyone is biased - Left and Right" answers, there are a couple of points you need to take into consideration. As Macdonald points out, even the Sun has been critical of Eves. Alternatively, the Star did not in any way back away from its Dalton McGuinty propaganda. Also, all of the media outlets cited above are either liberal or can lean that way - except for the Sun. Lets face it. The media hated Mike Harris and his government and did everything they could to prop up Mcguinty. This is not to say that Eves ran a good campaign. Its just to say that the media was one of the cards stacked against him this time around. And he certainly was not up to the challenge. And here is some food for thought. McGuinty ran a very well scripted campaign. He was also not very much challenged by the media (if he was, I would like ample evidence, not more predictable Lefty responses). So, lets see what happens when the inevitable happens: SOME ADVERSITY. Something tells me this guy is not quick on his feet, nor does he have a very thick skin. But his performance will be the evidence. We'll see what he has as premier.

There is even more to that quote. Here it is in even more interesting detail: Tories blame Alliance for failed merger talks; Harper says talks can resume So, on the one hand you have Mackay and his emmissaries telling us they were eager to have the discussions continue. On the other hand, you have Geral Keddy telling us there is now way the PCs should continue to deal in a "pit of snakes". Which is it PC Party? Also, among the more brilliant proposals made by the PC 'emmissaries', as outlined in their report to Peter Mackay: - The right to own property. Gee, with these sticky issues out of the way, how in the world did the talks ever bog down?

In the meantime, Stephen Harper has been spending much of his time getting ready for the next election. While many seem obsessed with mid-term polls that mean almost nothing, Harper has been doing things such as: My Paul Martin's title has changed -- but has anything else? The campaign hasn't even begun yet. Once it does, then lets see what happens.

Who was getting excited? Most people seemed to look upon the thing as yet another round of fruitless talks. I question the start of these merger talks in the first place. The idea of forming a brand new party, with Mike Harris as its leader, within 6 months was always a dubious proposition. Creating a party in 6 months is unrealistic. The possibility of political climate change is not. Instead of adding to the expectation of a Martin sweep, everyone should be fighting it, regardless of what party they're in.

Mackay was playing the same game Joe Clark always played. Talk and talk and talk and never get anything done. The Alliance has better things to do, like get ready for the next election and provide a conservative alternative Canadians can sink their teeth into. Its clear that a whole bunch of PCs don't want anything to do with the Alliance.

Yeah, and the sky is going to fall too.

Tell that to Mackay.From my standpoint, I'm fine with Harper leading the Alliance into the next election. I wouldn't be so confident with Mackay at the helm, though. Again, merger was always a precarious proposition and a lot to ask for at this stage of the game. I think Harper has handled himself well through this. He wanted to see where merger talks would lead. Mackay keeps dragging it along. So, lets stop the charade and see who can oppose Paul Martin the best. My bet is on Stevey.

Neal, are things really as catastrophic as you make them out to be? First, Paul Martin is Paul Martin. And it doesn't matter if there is one party on the Right or five parties on the Right, his juggenaut will play out as it will. I'm not sure what any entity on the Right could do about it. And this idea that a conservative party could be formed within six months, install Mike Harris as its leader, and pose some kind of considerable threat to Martin has some serious flaws in it. Any way you look at it, the Right looks silly in the process. In some ways I would rather see Harper continue his work. He's brought a professionalism to the Alliance we have not seen. He's organized. He's got the ideas. And he hasn't even begun campaigning, except out in the Atlantic. And if Layton is so strong, a proposition over which I have some doubts, then wouldn't Martin also be vulnerable from any attack on the Left? Besides, the dynamics of an election campaign, and its run-up, are the real tests of party and leadership. Some people think Layton is up to the challenge. I don't. Furthermore, there will always be a Right in Canada. Harris will be there after the election. The fact the Martin is moving his party Right is another example of this. I just don't see any reason for panic of gloom. We have the ideas. We have some time. We have a cool customer as leader of the Alliance. We have exaggerated expectations of Martin. We have Mackay as PC honcho. Things could be worse. And things can only get better. Remember, Harris came out of nowhere to win in Ontario. Bernard Lord did the same thing in NB. Lots can happen before the next election. Lets not kill ourselves before we get there.

Gugsy, they can't talk forever. We all know about the very real possibility of a spring election. These discussions have already been going on for three months. Harper wants some solid proposals on the table, and all Mackay has is a paper with some "values" listed and a declaration that his emmissaries were negotiating in "good faith". Harper comes up with the goods. Mackay keeps talking. Its the same old, same old. Looks like Mackay learned well from his mentor Joe Clark. Although merger would have some advantages, I still think Harper can pull his own in an upcoming election. Mackay doesn't seem like he's in the same leage as Harper. And I don't care what the poll numbers are, rigged or otherwise. Going into the next election with Peter Mackay as your leader isn't the most inspiring thought, now, is it?

An intersting dynamic has been set up by Stephen Harper. This is how he has framed his version of events: the Tories have not come up with specifics. This is why talks have stalled. For them to continue, Mackay or his team have to put something down in writing. On the PC side, Loyola Hearn has said that they have something in writing and that Harper's interference has caused problems. Funny. Hearn could have simply gotten a hold of a fax machine and sent his proposals over to Harper's office. Furthermore, Harper's criticism of the PCs in this has been specific. Hearn's accusations of Harper's interference are easy to make and not very substantive. So, Mackay tomorrow will hold his own press conference to explain his position. If he doesn't come up with his own piece of paper, then he'll have some fancy explaining to do - not a first for him. Also, notice that it takes him almost 24 hours longer to prepare an explanation for the media. Harper came out already and fully explained his position to the press. Mackay seems to need to get his story straight before doing the same. Lets hope its a good one. You gotta like Harper's position here. He's saying to Mackay: show me something or shut the f**k up. Lets see if he has anything to show.

This is the guy that is set to become the Premier of Canada's largest province. Nevermind that the media hasn't asked him any tough questions. They seem to want change. They seem to want Liberal change. And no amount of soft coverage is going to stop them from getting their guy into office. Shouldn't someone have raised some concerns over this guy's ability to run the province of Ontario? Don't Ontarians deserve something more than a media consultant makeover and a press who hasn't held him to any serious scrutiny? Stockwell Day gets roasted. Ernie Eves gets toasted. Even Mike Harris is getting scrutinized as federal leader. But Dalton McGuinty? Hey. He's sais he's going to provide change. And that's supposed to be enough. Go figure.

A clarification. I think Harper's stance is that a deal was all but done. Then, the PCs backed away from it witout any counter-proposals. So, if you believe Harper, the PCs got some second thoughts and were not putting anything firm on the table to resolve their reservations about merger. And, if you take a look at whats been happening with the PC caucus, and the lack of unanimity, there may be some merit to Haprer's claims. The PCs got cold feet, started to delay, and then wanted to blame Harper for walking away. Hearn's accusations that Harper was meddling in the talks seems insincere. Gee, a leader of a party wanting to make sure the talks were proceeding in a way he saw fit. Blasphemy that is, I tell 'ya. My guess is that if Mackay can somehow deal with the uneasiness that is clearly visible within his own ranks, then he will come with a firm counter-proposal. However, that better come pretty soon. Recent trends suggest that might be asking for too much.

The talks have collapsed. There will be no meeting today. And any future discussion will be lead by Harper on the Alliance side, only if he gets some firm proposals from the PCs. Here is where they stand. Harper and the CA team accuse the PC's of not putting forth any firm counter-proposals of their own. Hearn accuses Harper of meddling in the negotiations and not allowing the negotiators to do their work. If past history and patterns tell us anything, its that the PCs are the ones who have always dragged their feet on this. Any merger has to move swiftly, and all the PCs seem to want to do is continue talks. At the same time, I'm mot sure how sincere Harper has been either. He virtually promised a deal on Friday, saying they were real close, only to find out later they were never really close. So, his promise was false, especially given his assertion that the PCs never made any firm counter-proposals. If they never made any firm counter-proposals than how was he so sure that they were so close to a deal? Is anyone else getting tired of all this?

Springer, I know where you're coming from and I often feel the same way myself. But confronting the established dialogue in this country can be tiring. Take the Ontario election, for example. In the TV debate, Howard Hampton spent an hour and a half yelling down his opponents about the merits of public Hydro and health care and he was widely praised as having won the debates. If he had given that kind of performance in Texas he would have been laughed off the stage and dismissed as a screaming Communist wannabee. My point is that the nature of public dialogue in this country, even after eight years of Mike Harris in Ontario, is such that people still don't seem to question the notion of government being able to solve all the problems encountered by society. There's only so much protest and counter-arguing a person can do in the face of this. Canadians have become very comfortable with the idea of Big Government which is supposed to take care of them. Ignoring this fact can result in what happened to Stockwell Day a couple of years back. Now, this is in no way a suggestion for surrender. Quite the contrary. I think conservatives need to be dilligent and always hopeful that their message is the right one and will be heard in the course of time. But pretending that statism hasn't settled into the the normal outlook of most Canadians I think is naive. It takes time to change the accepted discourse in this country. You still hear conservatives referred to as far-right in this country. Heck, even conservatives allow this kind of abuse in the language. Hating to bring the States into this, Rush Limbaugh said that when he first started doing his radio thing back in the mid-eighties, criticizing liberal policies and mocking their leaders, people honestly thought he was going to be thrown in jail for his anti-establishment speech. And here in Canada the media seems to be getting more liberal, not less. I think someone like Harper is well cognizant of all this. What this means in terms of an electoral strategy is yet to be seen. He's even got Ralph Klein shooting his mouth of saying Mike Harris would be a much better leader. One thing is for certain. He still hasn't done anything to put a dent into the Martin Liberal machine. Something's got to give before you can expect conservatives to be a bit more hopeful. My hope is that Harper has something up his sleave. Or that he paves the way for something else on the Right. But nothing so far has changed the course of public dialogue in this country. And that can be discouraging, to say the least.

I also get the sense that the two sides are not working on the same page. Not everything is adding up here. Either both sides are being disingenuous, or some forces behind the scenes are driving the process. And if there is no deal, then the Right is made to look silly once again. As for a new entity, I'm not sure if the Right has anything to lose here. Cohesion will be a challenge. But its better than 1) vote-splitting 2) a seperation of the seats they already can get on their own. ie) 80 seats is better than 60+20. And either party on their own would have a challenge too. I thought Harper was in a position to mount such a challenge. But he's seeing something different I'm defninitely not privy to. But I have never been completely convinced of the merits of these merger talks. It almost seems like there is a race to show the donators who is the most sincere in uniting the rights, since that's what the donators really want. Mackay and Harper can't both be right about the progress of talks. So there is definitely some jockeying going on. And some deal is supposed to come from all of this? I hope this is not another case of the Canadian Right looking silly.

I think the die-hard Red Tories would be perfectly happy with an NDP official opposition. Red Tories are happy any time conservatism recieves a blow. I think one of the beliefs of Red Tories is one-party rule. They basically allowed the Liberals to rule for most of the twentieth century, they admittedly mimmick most of Liberal policy, and have been the greatest obstacle to forming a united front against the federal Liberals. For a people who consider themselves to be so "tolerant" they have no tolerance with people who actually hold differing views from them. I also think Red Tories are just Liberals who don't know how to get and hold power. I hate saying this stuff. But just listen to some of the comments being made by these guys reacting to talks of merger with the CA. They treat CAs as though they are some kind of second-class citizens in this country. Tolerance means more than having everyone agree exactly with what you think. Lets try to be a bit more open-minded about all this.

There are all kinds of reports floating around. Harper is suggesting a deal is imminent. Mackay and other Tories seem much more cautious. What exactly is going on in the negotiations is anybody's guess right now. It looks like Haprer is putting on the pressure to get a deal done. He knows there isn't much time and that any delay by the Tories will be seen as the deal-buster. I think he's calling the Tories on their sincerity to get something done. As usual. They say they want something then they take forever to come up with something concrete. This process has already taken three months. Harper wants action, if any, now. Its sensible. Lets see how agreable the Tories really are.

Its hard to get a read on what in the world is really going on with these talks. Harper has been extremely positive for the past week. Mackay has been anywhere from resistant to more concilliatory, depending on the day and hour. And reports on what is actually happening around the negotiating table have been conflicting. One report claimed Mazinkowski grabbed Reid's tie (I think it was Reid). Another said that the Tory negotiators have not come to the table with firm proposals of their own. Another claimed that the CA team was a bunch of bush-leagers. It really is hard to get a sense of where all of this going. However, having said that, something does seem to be pushing this process forward. The media claims that its a realization by both parties of their helplessness against a Martin juggernaut. I'm not so sure about that. Listening to some Tories you would think that only they alone are still capable of forming a credible alternative to the Liberals. Maybe something behind the scenes is driving all of this. Mackay seems to be along for the ride. Harper may be trying to look as though he were in control of the dynamics. Maybe some day soon we'll get a better idea of whats really going on behind the scenes. Harper sais he wants a deal by the end of the day. Lets see what actually happens. It should tell us a thing or two about who's been telling the truth in all of this.

Come on. Thats not much of an answer. If anything, becoming a member would stengthen the party against any incursion by the Alliance. Why is the PC Party in such a weakened state? And doesn't this fact detract from your claims of being a legitimate alternative? Again, polls fluctuate. Enduring allegiances do not.

It was for most of the twentieth century. Many of its institutions still are. The media being one very obvious example. The State department being another. There are many more examples of its liberalism, but Canadians just want to see it as some kind of cowboy jungle. Its not. Statism flourished there as well as here. Lets not kid ourselves here.

You still didn't address the question I raised. Polls can change easily. Membership usually doesn't. Why aren't there more PC members? I think its a legitimate question that you PCers should be able to answer, shouldn't you?

Really. Why don't you hear the word "scary" every time Canadian liberals mimmick American liberalism? And isn't that argument a bit simplistic. Its CAer at want to see a strong Canada. Its the CAers who aren't afraid of displaying their Canadian patriotism. Again, one of your main answers to these issue is demonization: scary, far-right, etc. Aren't you capable of more than simple name-calling and fear-mongering?

Here's another small point, and its directed to all you PC guys: If the PC Party is such a clear and moderate alternative for Canadians, why is its membership so much smaller then that of the CA. You would think that a party that was so much more representative of the way Canadians think would attract many more members to its flock. But it hasn't happened. Why? And doesn't this fact seriously detract from your arguments that the PC Party is a truly national alternative? How can that be if so few people consider themselves members of your party?

The argument I was trying to make there is that Canada is not so adverse to conservatism as you would make it to be. I pointed out that Canadians have voted in principally conservative governments, which refutes the argument that they only vote for so-called 'moderate' options. Just because they also vote another way doesn't exclude the fact that they have and still do vote in conservatives. Actually, your argument doesn't dismiss mine one bit. You seem to be saying that because there are 'moderate' governments in Canada that Canada is 'moderate'. What I am saying is that because conservative governments do get elected here it simply proves the point that Canadians can and do vote conservative. In other words, Canadians are much more open-minded than the people who continually claim that only 'moderate' parties get elected. Principalled parties do get elected. Denying they do is denying the reality of the Canadian people. The fact that Canadians don't always vote Conservative is not an argument that they won't and that they haven't. I think Canadians are much more open-minded politically than you and others give them credit for. I thought they were pretty close on the issue of Gay Marriage, which is where I think most Canadians seem to be. As for the other stuff, I think many people in the PC Party would be in favor of some of the positions the CA has taken on those issues. But members within parties don't have to agree on everything. Liberals certainly don't agree with each other on everything. Gay marriage is a good example of that. For a party which claims to be big-tent, Tories seem awfully reluctant to include those with whom they have some disagreement within their own ranks. Furthermore, there is a party which seems to take the stands you are in favor of. Its called the Liberal Party of Canada. It always amazes me how in this country so much of the debate about an opposition seems to be about how similar to the Liberals a party can be. I think conservatism is right. And I think it can be sold to the Canadian people. I have already proven it has been provincially. They said the same thing about conservatism in the States. They kept saying that Republicans needed to be moderate in order to get the support of the people. Then along came someone named Ronald Reagan and the validity and strength of conservative policies were proven effective in the pages of history. Canadian conservatism doesn't have to be like Reagan's. But some of the basic principles I think Canada is in desperate need of. Just like when Jimmy Carter was making America look weak in the eyes of the rest of the world, I think Jean Chretien has done the same here in Canada. Its time for something principally different.