dnsfurlan

Maybe things don't look so good after all? According to this story, Tory-Alliance merger talks head in opposite directions according to leaders the version presented by the Alliance, which is loosley based on on the thirteen points story, is not accurate. This story even suggests that there has developed some amount of tension in the negotiating sessions. Frankly, its hard to make out exactly whats going on with all of this. There seems to be a whole lot of jockeying going on on a number of fronts, perhaps even including the media. Harper and the Alliance are giving the appearance that the talks are going extremely well. Mackay is suggesting that some of Harpers remarks are plain false. And its really hard to get a read of what is actually going on inside the negotiating room. Does anybody really know what in the world is going on here?

If these reports are true, then I don't see how you can't somehow create a leadership convention where the spirit of the two parties can somehow be preserved. Maybe you can have delegates where the weighting of votes isn't nearly as Orwellian as what is happening at the Liberal convention. Surely there can be some system that can send delegates based on some democratic form of selection. The problem with delegates is that the rules set up for their selection can be arbitrary. But something like this can't possibly act as a deal-breaker. Did the Ontario PCs have a convention with delegates?

Here you go: Progress reported on Alliance-Tory merger talks However, I am reading some other clips on Google News Canada that the reports on the talks are wildly conflicting. Some say good. Some say not so good. I also heard about the thirteen points on the Bourque message boards. And the PCers over there don't seem to like it much - at least a good portion of them. Lets hope they don't speak for the silent majority that seems to be pushing this to fruition.

Well, Ryan may not have a PC Party to go to anymore.Word is that of the fourteen points Harper has put on the table, thirteen have been agreed upon by both sides. The only remaining issue is the selection process of a new leader. The Alliance prefers one member, one vote. The PCs prefer a delegate system. But I don't think this looks like a deal-breaker. What does is further PC intransigence. For a party that sees itself as so tolerant it doesn't seem to be very open to people who have other ideas of what conservatism means for this country. Again, lets hope the ideologues don't allow their narrow-mindedness to sabatoge genuine efforts at building a movement to oppose the Liberals.

Isn't that a form of demonization? The suggestion that the Alliance holds positions that re unacceptable to most Canadians? Because they are unacceptable to you does not mean they are unacceptable to others.Indeed, this is an argument you hear quite frequently from the Left and from Red Tories. They always claim to speak on behalf of all Canadians. Yet I thought we lived in free societies where people are not glued to one way of thinking on all the issues. Lets not forget, the Canadian Alliance was not that far from a breakthrough in the last election, and they ran a bad campaign. Three provinces - Ontario, BC, and Alberta - have elected principally conservative governments to office. And even the structure of Confederation is conservative itself, delegating much of government responsibility to provincial jurisdictions. Remember, a smaller Central Government is a fundamentally conservative idea. And perhaps no country in the world is as decentralized as Canada. Sounds pretty conservative to me. Freedom and Responsibility. This includes low taxes, limited government, strong defence, and rejects statism and the notion that government is supposed to take care of everybody. It means fostering a dynamic society, instead of one that believes a roll-back of over-bearing government means human suffering ,which is what you hear so often in the debate in this country, which I think has become far too statist in its outlook. People think that if there is something wrong then somehow a big government program is supposed to fix it. Insurance rates are up? Hey, lets just nationalize the whole thing? Unemployment is up? Hey, lets just give people employment checks instead of real economic opportunity.I think conservatism is about building people up, not about government reliance. And I think history shows that the farther left governments go the more stagnant societies become. Can you provide some examples of this? I always hear this from Red Tories and Liberals but I never get specifics. Just what social policies are you talking about?

Craig, Is it your contention that all Constitutions protected by Supreme Courts are dangerous? Or just the Canadian Charter?

I'm curious. How can someone with such a firm grasp of the issues and parties never been involved in politics before? You seem to have done an awful amount of research without having any political motivation or orientation. Its uncommon to have someone so well-versed yet so undecided. What's your real name, Plato? Rene Descartes? Jean-Jaques Roussea? Your purity would make all the great philosophers very proud, I would imagine.

That's brilliant, man! You must be one of those stand-up comedians who want to have their say on issues of political importance. Way to go. Can I come to one of your shows some time? I love to watch genius in action. I mean, Reagan, shiny... how did you come up with such wit? You must work at it very hard to have become such a pro. Keep up the good work, buddy!

I think Ryan already has a pretty good idea of the issues and parties. I'm surprised he would need our help.

My problem is more with the conducts of the Supreme Courts, both here and in the US. Constitutions are supposed to spell out the values that democracies want to preserve. So, judges are supposed to be there to protect the values specified in the Charter/Constitution. But then you have these activist judges who write-in their own interpretations of what those values are, which undermines the very writing of the Charter/Constitution itself. Why write a document if its not going to be preserved by the judges who are supposed to preserve it? Courts should uphold the values of a democracy, not change them to fit their own views and possible agendas. Is there any way of resolving such a state of affairs?

Toronto Sun editor Lorrie Goldstein has written a piece which echoes almost exactly what I have been talking about in this specific forum: the media bandwagon for Dalton McGuinty: Taking on the conventional wisdom Among some of the astute observations are: I wonder if Mr. Goldstein has been reading the posts on these boards. Or, perhaps accurate observations can be made by any "Right" thinking individual! Anyhow, when you're right, you're right, right? Which also raises the question: why do Liberals need the media to win elections? I thought this was democracy, where the people are supposed to decide for themselves?

Where does this demonization of CAers as social conservatives come from? I'm a CAer, and I don't consider myself to be a 'social conservative', just someone who thinks that principled conservatism actually works, and that Tories in the past have not done enough to distinguish themselves from Liberals. I think the two parties should think about merger because there is a lot more common ground between the members than you think. If there is a place for conservatism in your outlook, then there is some common ground right there. And, if you are willing to acknowledge that the Canadian Alliance isn't only about "social conservatism" then there is even more common ground there. Even Stephen Harper has said that he thinks many social issues should be decided by individuals and not by a political party. Abortion is an example of this. Part of the problem is that members of the two parties have been talking at one another instead of with one another. If PCers can acknowledge the merits of principled conservatism, and if CAers can put aside the "my way or the highway" kind of attitude some of its members espouse, then there is a possibility for a united party that can provide an actually principled alternative to the Liberals. But, quite frankly, the intransigence has come mostly from the Tories. For a party the considers itself to be Big-Tent and tolerant, it sure hasn't been very open to the many gestures made in the past by Reform/CA to come to some sort of accomodation. I think many Tories suffer from the delusion that they have never done anything wrong. I think its one reason why the party is so politically isolated on the Canadian electoral landscape. CAers are from from perfect, of course. But the Tories have never wanted to talk about anything except about being the party of John A Macdonald, being progressive, being the only true national alternative, agreeing with Liberals that the CA is the next coming of the Bubonic Plauge... A genuine dialogue seems to have emergerd between the two parties. What is so remarkable about this is that I think the Tories have abandoned such a possibility ever since the Reform/Alliance became a prominent player in Canadian politics. The fact that they are finally willing to talk might mean that some kind of understanding could be forged. Its awfully ambitious. But I don't see why it should be immediately dismissed. One more thing. The liberal party certainly has its share of extremists. Why do you think this gay marriage issue is being forced upon the Canadian people? Similarly, shouldn't a right-of-centre party accomodate some people who you view as being extreme? As far as I can see, a party consisting solely of Red Tories is as isolated as one consisting solely of "social conservatives". National parties need to be Big-Tent in nature. The liberals do it. I think conservatives can do it as well.

Then why do you talk like it is, using words like "progressive" to define what Tories stand for? If there is no place for conservatism in your outlook, then how are you not a liberal/socialist? And you still haven't addressed the issue of how your Red Toryism is any different from Liberalism. What makes you different from a Liberal? What planet are you living on? Oh yeah, the one where the PCs have been dreaming for the past ten years. This is the same kind of stuck-in-the-sand, mindless sloganeering that has been coming from the PC party in recent memory.Lets hope that we can overcome the resistance of these ideologues and actually create a principled alternative to the Liberals, instead of this same-old "me-too progressive, anti-conservative" attitute that the Joe Clark types have been feeding us for so long.

How is this policy stance any different from that of the Liberal Party of Canada? You may think Canada is a haven for socialism, I don't think it is. And I think this is such a huge reason why so many conservatives ran away from the PC party in droves. If you are so enamoured with 'progressive' policies then why not just go over to the Liberals? Well, many of you would in a hearbeat, wouldn't you? Which raises the question of why you even want to have the word "conservative" in your party name. And your attitude typifies the psychology of a large segment of the PC Party. Red Toryism or Death, or the Liberal Party. It doesn't seem like you have any problem with any of those three alternatives. Also, have you ever thought that merger might actually save the PC party? To preserve your particular outlook, it might not bold well if you lose official party status the next time around. Then again, so many of you Red Tories have tolerance only for those who share your "progressive" agenda for the country.

Why are you so against merger?

That's quite a list. How often do leaders like that come around? And would you put Flaherty on that list? For that matter, would you put Arnold on that list?

I think what's more troubling are some of the hate speech laws in this country, especially this latest bill (C-250?) which involves homosexuality. If my interpretation of the bill is correct, you can be charged with hate speech by simply speaking against homosexuality without reference to religion. So, if someone says or writes, "I think homosexuality is wrong and bad for people", would they be slapped with a hate crime violation? Doesn't such a bill violate the whole notion of freedom of speech where instead of outlawing speech you don't like you fight it with speech you do like? Isn't this country going down the wrong path when it tries to protect justice by infringing upon speech? This is not justice but a kind of tyrrany of the politically correct, isn't it?

Christina Blizzard has written a terrific article on some of the serious flaws in the McGuinty election platform Dalton's road to power turns rocky . However, if you were to read and listen to the coverage on the guy, you would think he's the next coming of Sir Wilfred Laurier. The media is continuing to sell this guy as our next premier. The problem with so much of this coverage, however, is that there really hasn't been anything there. He stands in front of partisan audiences, they cheer him on, and the media makes him out to be the obvious choice for next premier. And Blizzard doesn't even addrees the issue of leadership temperament. Which raises another serious flaw in the way some media types think about politics. Every time someones leadership ability is questioned by the opposing party this is described as a "personal" attack. How can this be? Indeed, temperament and judgement can be evem more important than specific policies. It would be personal if you attacked someone's personal life, which Howard Hampton came awfully close to doing on Eves right before the election call. But leadership credentials are fair game, aren't they? Now, I think so much of the media agenda has been allowed to brew because Eves has allowed it to happen. His attacks on McGuinty have not been specific enough. The contrast between the two leadership styles has not been made this time around by the Tories. Eves needs to get it into gear before this thing really might start unravelling on him. But I think and would hope that the media would start getting it into gear too. We have a guy in McGuinty who might well be elected the next premier in the largest province in this country and they haven't grilled him in the way necessary to determine if he has the right stuff. The Toronto Star probably won't stop acting as the Dalton McGuinty party newspaper. Lets see if someone else decides to take Christina Blizzard's lead. That goes for Ernie too! :angry:

What's your definition of a true conservative?

Plus, I'm not so sure Ernie is out of this one yet. I've been watching the two candidates closely. And I really do think that what you see in the polls, to the extent you can believe in them, is the result of a very easy ride Mcguinty has has so far in the campaign. Eves has recieved all the criticism from the media. They have even gone so far as to do Mcguinty's work for him by focusing so much on the "negative" advertising being run by the Tories. Just think about that for a second. A primary issue for the media has been a criticism of the ads that he's been running. Why in the world don't they just let viewers decide about the ads themselves, instead of making them a campaign issue in and of themselves? McGuinty has been giving softball answers to softball questions from the media so far in the campaign. He's been wearing the same clothes throughout. His answers are scripted, as is his delivery. The guy doesn't have a natural personality that lends itself to politics. I even think the guy's in over his head. He is awkward, much like Al Gore was, and is ripe for a grilling from someone in the upcoming debate. Eves, on the other had - despite your misgivings to the contrary - can and does exude an aura of confidence and leadership. He knows what he's talking about. He knows how to deliver a political message. He is comfortable in his own skin. He has proven political experience. People can have confidence in his ability as a communicator and a leader. I really don't think the same can be said of Al Gore, I mean Dalton McGuinty. If the issue can come back to the personality of leadership, and if Eves can continue to poke holes at McGuinty's spin, I can still see them pulling this one out. And then the province might be saved from liberalism. I know Eves has waffled. I still think he has managerial ability. Which is much more than I can say for Gore, I mean McGuinty.

I wouldn't be quite so sure about that.Lets not forget. Mackenzie served a term as the lead peacekeeper during a very messy situation in Bosnia. He is seen by some as having taken sides in a confrontation in which ethnic groups here had some interest. That's bound to leave some people bitter. And they're not necessarily liberals. Besides, he's a political neophyte.

How can you be so sure that Flaherty is the guy? And how can you be so sure that McGuinty won't use goverment as all Liberals do in order to further consolidate power? Isn't such political calculation what got Hitler into power? If you get too cute, you might never get what you precisely want!

So, you would rather see Mcguinty win than Eves? How does that help anything? At least with Eves, conservatives would still have influence on government, wouldn't they? If Mcguinty wins, which seems to be what you want, then Liberals get to place their mark on the province. Last time we got lucky because of Peterson's lack of judgement. But how can a Liberal goverment be better than a conservatvie one in this province?

I just wanted to comment on one more item: Think about that for a moment.Even if you accept those numbers, PC-19%, CA-13%, which I don't, the key to any election is making those numbers move up when it matters most. And the question you have to ask yourselves is what party will be in a better position to make those numbers move when it counts. We all know that a successful election campaign takes an awful lot of effort and strategy long before the writ is dropped. This has to be taken into consideration when looking at any of the current numbers. As Rick Anderson has pointed out, the history of almost every election involves some kind of movement not predicted by the polls. This has been shown time and time again. And what parties can capitalize on such dynamic electoral factors? I think that is something to be asked when looking at that 19% figure. And wouldn't that figure look much more promising if, for example, you had Bernard Lord or Mike Harris as your leader with two years of experience already at the healm of the party? The challenge for Mackay, by most analyses, is the monumental task of getting himself and the party in shape in time for the next election. Surprisingly, I have even heard some media 'pundits' predict only two or three seets for the Tories in the next election. I think thats a bit silly. But their analyses is probably based on the political realities facing the PCs in a spring election. Of course, there are challenges for all the parties - even the Liberals, lets not forget. But 19% doesn't mean much unless its backed up with some hard political capital. Does Mackay have it?

Wouldn't he still be better than Howdy Doody/Al Gore wannabee?Wasn't Ernie the finance minister during the Harris years? That has to say something about his conservative credentials, doesn't it? And lord help this province if the Libs win. Mcguinty simply has not been taken to task by the media as Eves has. The guy has been programmed to wear the same clothes every day, give the same answers to the same questions, and put on the same face when uttering the same slogans over and over and over again. If you think Ernie lacks a moral compass. McGuinty makes him look like Churchill. Aren't the PCs still the better choice? Why competely discard them when the altermative would be even worse? Why throw the baby out with the bath water? It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives needlessly shoot themselves in the foot. I still think you can support Eves without abandoning principle. And, if you're right about him being a bad premier, we'll at least have another liberal to kick around other than Al Gore, I mean Dalton McGuinty.