dnsfurlan

I think Stevey is still my horse. Regarding two of your options, Lord and Charest, they are both in the first year of their new provincial mandates. Simply leaving in order to try to become leader of a new federal party is highly problematic for both of them, isn't it? Actually, now that I think about it, that reality might be one reason Harper made the merger move in the first place. He knows many other possible contenders are out of the running. And I still don't think Mike Harris is the dream candidate so many on the Right seem to think he is. For some reason, I would rather see Harper square off against Martin than Harris. I think he may be better suited for the task.

I don't think Harper ever said those things. What he did say, and then immediately back away from, was that Atlantic Canada has developed an attitude of dependency on other parts of Canada. Whatever you think of those comments, wouldn't everyone agree that that region of Canada would be better off if it did could emerge from being one of the have-not regions of the country? The current status-quo can't be seen as satisfactory, can it? People in the region surely must want that. Other Canadians want to see that too. Harper perhaps could have been more diplomatic about it. But the response to it wasn't very dimplomatic either. As for the issue of who should be leader of any new conservative party, the only reason I might be inclined to endorse Harper is because I don't think anyone else is nearly as ready for the job. And, I don't think he carries the kind of religious conservative image that Manning and Day both seemed to have. At least in the media, he is seen as a "non-scary" guy. He speaks fluent french. He has an excellent grasp of all the national issues. He has been preparing for the next election for the past two years. In other words, I don't think anyone else is as qualified for the job as he is at this particular point in time. I don't think Mike Harris is well-suited for the job. His act became tired in Ontario. Its one of the reasons he left Office. Would he have traction in other parts of the country? He doesn't speak french. And I'm not sure how ready he is to be a national leader. Does he know all of the issues? Does he have a vision for Canada beyond the taking of conservative positions on all the issues? The only other obvious candidate is Bernard Lord. But I have my doubts about him too. Sure, he would certainly come acrosss as a moderate. But is that enough? The fact that he let that young punk liberal demagogue the issue of insurance rates in the last provincial elections was not a terrific display of political acumen on Lord's part. Are there other obvious contenders for the job? I'm not so sure. Of course, with a new party representing a big-tent conservative movment once again, who knows who could come out of the woodwork. One note: the success rate of party leaders who have put their own leadership on the line has been zero. Joe Clark, Preston Manning, and Stockwell Day all lost their bids to re-affirm their place as leader of their movements. So, I wonder what that says about Stephen Harper's chances at the new job. Which raises the question of why he suggested the merger in the first place. I think there are many questions that remain unanswered. Sometimes, things aren't always what they appear to be.

You bet. I don't want to make this personal. But the electoral ambitions of the person in question have already been established. I only brought it up because I couldn't believe just how weak and even insulting the arguments were coming from someone seeking a position of political respect in their community.

Bernard Lord supports Tory/Alliance talks This is an interesting development. It wasn't all that long ago that Lord was making the Alliance sound as though it were the next coming of the party with the swaztikas. This is yet another development which raises questions about what is really going on here. It seems the political momentum for this is VERY STRONG! Something is up. In fact, I'm not sure which way is up or down anymore.

Actually, I think the poll question raises an issue that has been thrown around over the last twenty-four hours: is merger going to make a difference? I think it is. However, the practical challenges are so huge, and the Martin machine so poised, that you have to wonder if an elaborate merger process will have the benefit so many of us hope for. Well, I guess one thing a new leadership race would do is give the new venture a lot of media attention. But didn't we already have that with the formation of the Canadian Alliance and the emergence of Stockwell Day as its leader? Would conservatives once again fall into the trap of a high profile election run-up which might be lacking in the kind of substance needed to mount an effective campaign strategy? Which, again, is why I wonder if this isn't anything but a squeeze play being made on Mackay. Maybe PC backroom boys have written the guy off and want to make some accomodation where Harper becomes the new face of a big-tent conservative movement in this country.

I would have to disagree with this assertion. Because of the very small amount of time involved in putting in place a credible political entity to challenge an already established juggernaut, there is plenty that can go wrong. Its one reason why I think we would just be better off endorsing Harper as leader, changing the name of the Alliance to the Conservative party, and have everyone rally around this new conservative party. I know it wouldn't make a lot of PCs happy, but if Mulroney and the boys would endorse such a party it would save us all a lot of hassle. Disgruntled PCers wouldn't have much power left anyway. As absurd as this idea is, logistically it could work out much better. Actually, now that I think of it, maybe thats whats happening anyway with these talks. What do you mean? Gugsy, how in the world can you actually believe something like this? I don't want to go into all the details, but how can you watch either the CBC or CTV and not see how liberal they are in their coverage? They are CLASSICALY liberal in the way they deliver news coverage. I bet you there is not a principled conservative amongst the whole bunch of them. I am flabbergasted at your observation. Speechless. Dumbfounded. I still can't believe it...

Pellaken, You are obviously not capable of putting together well-reasoned and well-supported arguments. This isn't the first time you've come on these boards, have made a slanderous-like statement against people you disagree, and then supported it with one-line answers and extremely weak logic. What does it say about the strength of your positions when you don't seriously defend them? Instead of slinging mudd at your adversaries, you should learn how to debate with them. Because debate is certainly not what you do on these boards. How in the world did you become a candidate for office? Is PEI that small a region of this country? 18 year olds who can't carry themselves in a debate. Can't PEI do better?

How silly is that answer? Are you capable of a serious discussion of issues? And you're running as a candidate for elected office? WHO IN THE WORLD IS USING GOVERNMENT TO ADVANCE A SOCIAL CAUSE THEY WERE NOT ELECTED TO IMPLEMENT? WHO IS USING THE COURTS TO SOCIALLY ENGINEER SOCIETY? All the Alliance wants is to for elected officials to decide this issue on behalf of the Canadian people? HOW IN THE WORLD IS THAT SOCIAL ENGINEERING? This stuff is laughable. I mean, come on, get serious, will 'ya?

This is just outright nonsense. I'd really like to hear some justification for that statment. Otherwise, it is simply misinformed and uneducated. And who are the ones trying to force their values on everyone else? Isn't it the Left that is always trying to use Big Government to force their social agenda on others? Give me a break on some of this stuff. :angry:

If I'm not mistaken, he made the comments at around 4pm this afternoon, right after a caucus meeting. Which, if true, is his most recent stance on the matter. Maybe we've hit upon a different set of press releases that chose to emphasize a different part of what Mackay chose to say. You know how the media likes to jump on these things. In fact, I think I am now guilty of doing the same thing. Maybe I need to sit back a bit in order to get a better sense of what is really happening. This is all happening so much faster than I anticipated. I didn't think such talks would happen. Maybe I need to take a deep breath. Time is short. Its not that short.

Take a look at the post I made in the other forum. Mackay seems to be pulling another Joe Clark here. Maybe nothing really has changed. There seems to be so much immediate momentum sparked and all he wants to do is to sit on this for an extended period of time. What is he waiting for?

UPDATE: It seems Mackay remains skeptical: 'No shotgun wedding,' says Tory leader as leaks stall Tory-Alliance talks Actually, I've got a problem with the stance Mackay is taking here. He seems to be upset with some of the pressure that is coming from the Alliance with this. But what in the world is he waiting for? Harper came to him with this in August and he still seems like he wants to sit on it. Is Mackay pulling a Joe Clark here? Sure looks like it!

Well, Gugsy, I definitely see some hope here. The only thing that concerns me is the time factor. How in the world do you get a new party together by next spring that will have a coherent strategy and message to deploy against the Federales? If you think about it, with such a huge project, there is more that can go wrong than right. All it would take is some setback along the way and we would be right where we started, perhaps with even more animosity on either side. Maybe the momentum for this is so strong that the obstacles can be overcome. Maybe backroom supporters are so desirous of this that the machinery will be in place for a good-will coordinated effort. I never thought such talk of merger would materialize. What has really surprised me is that Harper has led the way on this, and that Mulroney and the boys have been putting the screws to Mackay to get something done here. There is still such a long way to go, which raises the possibility of another scenario. Maybe Mackay backs off and then becomes a pariah within PC circles. This paves the way for a gravitation towards Harper and the Alliance election machine that is already in place. If Mulroney and company endorse Harper, as Michael Bliss already has, then that would leave the recalcitrant Mackay with nothing to go forward with except that cursed deal with Orchard he made to secure his leadership. The only problem with this is that it may turn off many PCs. However, if this would miraculosuly materialize, what would the left-out PC's do? The right would be left with one legit contender and all the support it would need to mount a serious challenge to the Liberals. I really do hate bringing that possibility up because a)it is whacked b)its not a very smooth transition. The only reason I do is because of the time factor. Frankly, I just don't see how a new party can be well launched before spring. But the thought of having some kind of united entity going after the Liberals does raise hope, doesn't it? Can you imagine one party giving the Liberals a general run for their money? No more sniping. No more insecurity about being the only real alternative. There would only be one real alternative that could expose all the flaws of the Liberals while also offering a principled alternative acceptable to all Canadians. Is it too good to be true? Given all the hell we've been through in the past, you can't blame a guy for carrying lingering doubts. Lets hope something works out here and that conservatism has a chance again in this great country. Cheers.

Actually, I think you really have to wonder what's going on here. Apparently, according to Canada.com it was Stephen Harper who made the move and Peter Mackay was told to talk seriously or risk being the next "Kim Campbell". It looks like a lot of power brokers, including Mulroney, want to see this thing happen. And Mackay seems to be boxed into a corner here. Because, if he's the one that backs away, then many might just leave him to rot for the next election. So, either something does happen and there is merger. Or, something doesn't happen and Mackay is left with the titile of Spoiler with even further eroded support. My only question is why Harper has pursued this. You can even get a sense of some of the aversion in the posts in this forum from some Canadian Alliance members. One guess is that he thinks he's in the best position to win the leadership of the new party, especailly because most of its members might be CA. And, if you think about it, who else is there? I think Harper would beat Mackay. Bernard Lord is probably our of the question. And, anyone else probably would be hard pressed to get up to speed in such a short amount of time, including Mike Harris, who I doubt has what it takes to be a federal leader anyway. Has Harper pulled a fast one here? Or is this the end of the line for both Harper and Mackay? Or, if Mackay rejects the idea, is it the end of the line for Mackay only? All thoughts to consider.

You equated our action regarding terrorism with killing babies. You equated us with the evil terrorists by stating, brilliantly, that there are no good guys in this. I'd really like to know how framing the issue in these terms doesn't help terrorists market their claims of moral righteousness to the rest of the world. I have no problem taking our side against the terrorists. You spend most of your time equating what we do with what they do. "Killing babies" and "No Good Guys" is a virtual surrender to their language. Why not just send them a cheque while you're at it. I heard they could use the money. There is a war going on out there. And you're more concerned with our flaws than with their flaws. If I'm thick in that regard, then I'll wear that title with pride. In trying to be on the right side of the issue, I don't apologize for taking a stand that demands SOME moral clarity. Without it, you get the kind of mixed message rationalizations people of your views are so proud of. And, I do so even conceding the points you are making, which I ultimately don't do. You can debate our role in spreading justice or a lack of it in this world. But I certainly stop when someone claims we kill babies and are the bad guys too. I think what Canada, America, and the rest of the free world stand for is much more than the reduction of our actions to be equated with that of the terrorists. And, as long as I hear this crap about us killing babies and being the bad guys, I'll remain as thick as I can about it without apology. For that matter, where do you get off calling me thick? What is this rhetoric about "killing babies" and "we're the bad guys too" but a pure example of spewing hatred towards societies that have done more to provide human happiness to people than the terrorists would in a million years? Tell me how that isn't thick! Reducing our actions to "killing babies". Razor-thin logic it ain't.

If you do a search on Google News you'll find that news outlets from around the world are picking up the story on the gay marriage debate here in Canada. For example, theyr'e all convering the motion the Alliance introduced in the House today. I think its a bit unfortunate that we're taking a lead on this particular issue. But, hey, its something. It should serve as an idea of just how important this issue here is, since it does have international consequences. Do we really want to be known as the country that lost the institution of marriage to the one-party rule Liberals, the courts, and the gay-rights activists? Why don't we just leave it for Holland and Sweden to do it. Don't we have a bit more common sense than that? This battle is an important one. If Canadians are going to take a stand on something I guess this is all we have for now. Lets make it the right choice. Lets have the people of Canada decide what marriage is supposed to be, instead of the liberal advocates who have side-stepped democracy on this one.

This isn't happening now? Who has their head stuck in the sand? This is supposed to be an intelligent assessment? Does any of this, even if you accept its validity, justify anything the terrorists do? You seem to think they have every reason to be doing what they're doing. Is it so hard to denounce everything about the terrorists without denouncing some aspect of America and the West. Because, even with all the flaws, I'll take America over the terrorists any day of the week. To me, you seem to be confused on this point. Doesn't Bush, or any American, have the right to laud the virtues of freedom, especially since America is probably the biggest reason why it as prevailed in the world today. Your "loathing" of Bush's use of this term, as well as your belief that we are all the bad guys I think justifies my reading that you resent America. We can go on about this forever. My simple point is that people like you equate our actions with those of the terrorists. And, to the extent you do that is the extent to which you show how willing you are to rationalize the actions of those whose SOLE PURPOSE is to kill as many of us as they can. Again, we ain't perfect. But America is helping to rebuild Iraq. America has made this world a better place. Can you really say the same thing about the terrorists? And, if you can't, then why spend so much energy defending them? Wouldn't the things you really believe in be better served without allying your principles with such pure evil? I just don't see why you use the cause of the terrorists to buttress the causes you believe are right. If America and its policies are flawed, that's one thing. If you have to justify the terrorism while you're at it, then that's quite another.

Since I'm the only one here who seems to be providing any evidence of my claims, I'm going to try to continue that trend. I found this on the front page of www.canada.com advertising a story Kevin Newman is working on for this evening's news: I have a question about this piece: is it another flimsy Bash America news story? And Izzy is supposed to be this right-wing opinon monger. Whatever.

I think that says as much about your position as anything else. You seem to think we are just like the terrorists.Why don't you go over there and fight for them, if there cause is so just? Your infatuation with the cause of terrorism is intriguing indeed. If I'm wrong here, then maybe you could spell out some of your solutions to terrorism, instead of hating everything the United States and Bush stand for. Me? I don't have any problem declaring my hatred of the terrorists and everything they stand for. I'm surprised you do. You? Well, again, you think we kill babies. Brilliant!

Craig, Give me a break here. Was Mike Harris a liberal? Would a liberal ever pose more tax cuts, or school vouchers, or oppose same-sex marriage, or support Bush on the war in Iraq? Wasn't the Harris government one of the most conservative in recent Canadian history? And, even though Eves has his flip-flops, surely you would have to concede that he is more conservative than McGuinty, and that the Ontario PC party is more conservative than anyone else. Didn't Flaherty come second in the leadership race? I really don't understand where your characterizations of the Ontario PCs come from. I'm conservative. And, for the most part, I'm not adverse to what they have to offer. And I certainly think its better than anything McGuinty has to offer - by a country mile! And, unlike the federal PCs, the Ontario version has certainly maintained a conservative posture in their policies. Mike Harris was no Joe Clark. Ernie Eves is no Jean Chretien. Many Ontario PCs were even member of the Canadian Alliance! And, isn't this forum supposed to be about the media? I thought that was one topic all conservatives could unite around.

I'm gonna pull a Rush Limbaugh here and say, "See, I told you so!" In today's Toronto Sun, Lorrie Goldstein provides us with this little nugget of analysis, which simply reiterates my exact sentiments in the above post. (Poll vaulters ) Hey, when you're right, you're right, I guess. What else is there to say?

Littlefinger, I find your example to be a curious one. First, liberals complaining about the National Post in the past or Fox News today is an exception that proves the rule, and not the rule. Citing one example in a sea of other media examples is pretty lame. Second, your quote actually confirms my hypothesis, because I do think that even the National Post coverage has been skewed. It refers to Eves committing suicide. But why are they focusing merely on Eves? Aren't all the parties in danger of some kind of suicide if the have a poor showing? The fact that they have been recieving complaints about their coverage, and that they admit a one-sided tone to it, should tell you something about the validity of what I am trying to say here. And I don't make these claims lightly. I just don't like the idea that 1) an institution so critical of others in society doesn't seem to abide by its own standards. And that doesn't only apply to coverage of conservatives. It applies all the way around. Its just that conservatives end up under fire more often. And I fear its because of ideology. 2) in a democracy, don't you think the people should decide what they want to focus on, instead of having the media decide for them? So many on the Left scream about Fox's motto, "We Report, You Decide". Yet these same critics fail to realize that so many watch Fox because the other mainstream media aren't allowing their audience to decide. Do you really think Eves' campaign has been that bad so far? And can you tell me what about it has been so bad? What I smell is a media just dying for some change in the province of Ontario. Let me give you another example on the other side. Jean Chretien and his departure. As far as I'm concerned, his winning a third straight election the last time around gives him the right to leave whenever he wants. Yet so much of the coverage and so many of the pundits seem to be demanding he leave? Why? Are the people of Canada demanding this? If they are, I'm not hearing them? If only they would save some of this criticism of a Liberal for an election campaign. Then we might be talking "Fair and Balanced".

When I made the original post I asked that rebuttals be made on the evidence and not on perception. I have provided evidence. You may think its a biased sample, I'll put forth the claim that it is only a small sample of a larger trend, as I also already mentioned. Your response is typical. You generalize on the nature of the media and shrug off any claims of bias. Let me ask you something. Why is is that you never hear liberals complain about media bias? Is it because liberal ideology lacks bias. Come on. Give me a break. Just do a search on Google News Canada on the Ontario election and take a look at the coverage, especially during the first phase of the campaign. It clearly had Eves on the defensive based primarily on the media's interpretation of the importance of certain evens in relation to others. The media machine is liberal because of the personalities journalism attracts and because a) the largest media center, Toronto, is liberal b)most of the media in Ontario is a branch of Canada-wide networks. For example, Jennifer Mossup, former TV News Anchor in Hamilton, is now running for an Ontario seat as a Liberal. Gee, that's a shocker. She sais she hates seeing what has happened to the province as a result of Tory Rule over the last 8 years. And she read us the news for those eight years. No bias there? And, again, I cited specific examples of bias. You haven't provided any - just a lazy pontification on the nature of perspective: as if I am too dumb to acknowledge such an obvious factor in my own analysis. Facts vs. Easy Explanations. I'll take the facts any day.

Well, I'm not the only one who buys into the theory that the media has been consistently attacking Eves' Conservatives. The Eves campaign team itself is warning its own candidates over the phenomenon: Memo to Tory candidates warns that media is 'aligned against' Conservatives Is it the case that Liberal parties need the media on their side in order to win elections? It sure looks that way. Whatever happened to democracy?

This is just silly. We go after the terrorists and the dictators, not the children. Such a statement is wreckless and unintelligent. Its one thing to be against violence. Its quite another to make plainly stupid comments. Like, thats what we're doing, killing friends and family on a daily basis. If you're going to argue the issue, try to do it like an adult. It might help your side instead of completely discrediting it.Furthermore, there is even evidence that people in the so-called Muslim world are happy that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are gone. From the way you frame your arguments, it seems you aren't happy to see them gone. Aren't you against terrorists? Don't you think that we're the good guys? Don't you think we have the right to go after the terrorists? Don't you think its a good thing that evil dictators are toppled? Don't you think freedom is at stake now in Iraq? No. You think we kill children. Wow, you are brilliant!