dnsfurlan

In an article in the G&M, Alliance pins hopes on new ads, logowe get the same kind of illogic and steriotypical thinking that just isn't supported by the facts. Here is what an Ipsos-Reid pollster said about the Alliance: Where do I start with this?First, they were talking about Ontario, where tax-cuts and the Iraq War are supposed to be bad issues for the Alliance. I've got some news for them. Ontario has been cutting taxes for the last decade. And both Mike Harris and Ernie Eves have voiced strong support for America in the War on Terror and the Iraq War. So, how in the world can they say that the Alliance has it wrong on the issues in Ontario if those same policies have been supported in Ontario quite strongly? Some of this stuff is just mind-boggling. These people refuse to look at the facts with even a modicum of common sense. Second, they use Ontario as the example yet generalize the analysis to include all of Canada. They can't even maintain consistent logic within the same paragraph. Now, I'm not gonna sit here and insist that the Alliance is an easy alternative for many Canadian voters. I know they're not. But so much of what is said about their chance is premised on flawed logic. And you hear it over and over and over agian by the same people in the media and in the polls. That is why I do think the chances for the Alliance are much better than is commonly portrayed by these same people because, as I have shown, so much of their reasoning is flawed. The greatest barrier to the Alliance has been brand-name. The same people in Ontario who vote for Harris don't vote Alliance because they haven't established enough credibility with voters here. That's the challenge for Stevey Harper. I hope he's up to it. Something tells me he is. Let's not forget, polls mean nothing now - and he knows that. So did Harris. So does Eves.

I'n not exactly sure where all this merger business is coming from. This next election is what both the PCs and the Alliance should be looking forward to. Its their last chance to prove their worth to Canadian voters. The fact that some are talking about it I think comes from two factors: 1)PCers who know they go into the next election with a long shot at significant improvement, despite Gugsy's assertions otherwise. 2)CAers who are losing their nerve and don't like the idea of another Liberal majority. I don't think any merger is going to take place before the next election that will change Liberal fortunes. There is just not enough time. Co-operation with candidates might be possible, but I wouldn't even be surprised if that doesnt' happen. More likely is some kind of truce, since party doners have lost all patience with the sniping thats gone of for the last few years. And that can only help the Alliance, since much of the venom directed towards it has come from the PC's. I really do think - and I know I'm gonna hear it from Gugsy - that the PC Party is in a lot of trouble. All signs point in that direction - even the polls. Like I have said, even 20% is not gonna gain them more seats, in all likelihood. They have a very inexperienced leader who has an extraordinary amount of work to do to get the party in any kind of shape for another election. And I think Harper is ready for whatever might come his way. Frankly, this is one Alliance supporter who thinks we go into the next election in very decent shape. The party is as organized as its ever been. It has a clear message which I think Canadians are open to in a well expressed election campaign. The party has money. The leader speaks very good french. We go in without high expectations - always a plus for any party. I think Harper has a plan. And the base will be there- which will mean official party status next time around. Whatever happens, the Alliance is in pretty good shape right now - and things can only get better. And if the PC's aren't up to the job, there will only be one party on the Right and all this unity discusion will be pointless. As Alliance supporters, I don't think we should squander everything the party has worked for in some rash hope that a magical unity party can do the job for the next election. We've got something. It'll take us through this next electoral season. There is no reason to panic. Let the PC's do it. I really do think they have much more reason for concern. Its one of the reasons some of them are bringing up merger. And, guess what? The leadership spokesman has already said no. Its not gonna happen. The Right is too fractured still for unity. This forum is an example of it. The next election will settle a lot. I think the Alliance goes into it with nothing to lose. We have the ideas. We have the organization. Merger is too late. Lets just ride the horse we have. The worst that can happen is that real merger will wait until after the next election. The best that can happen is that the values and principles of the Alliance will establish themselves with a strong showing. There is more upside than down. I don't see the reason for all the long faces. And, any way you look at it, things will play themselves out on the Right. Lets do it with a stong Alliance effort!

You just love throwing whatever numbers you feel like at any given moment, don't you?Sticking to the facts might help you to convince others of the merits of the PCs.

Great, another genius PCer. That's all we need on these boards: another Tory with the gift of persuasion.Only kidding. Good to have you around (if only to keep proving the PC way as the wrong way - Again, kidding). Cheers.

Neal, You're exactly right. The worst attacks on the Alliance have come from the PCs, not the Libs. And this has been a huge barrier to cooperation. Instead of addressing grievances, they stubbornly hold on to the belief that they have done nothing wrong, and that fellow conservatives in the Alliance are the worst thing for Canada since Diefenbaker dumped all that wheat into the Ocean.

O.K. at least you're putting in some effort for a change. Online polling is generally accurate? Where in the world does that come from?Furthermore, the polls aren't as consistent as you state. And since when does 12% mark a decline for the Alliance. It wasn't all that long ago that people were writing off the party entirely. And 12% for the Alliance still means more seats for the Alliance than 20% does for the PCs. That is simply the reality of the electoral landscape in this country. When will people start acknowledging that in their analysis of the prospects of the parties? 2. Just because a party takes positions on an issue that deviates somewhat from opinion polls doesn't mean they are in jeapardy of losing electoral support. Polls on issues are volatile and subject to change. The same people who accuse the Alliance of being stubborn on policy are the first ones to accuse it of flip-flopping when they change. Remember the whole flat-tax issue in the last election? Since when are mid-term opinion polls an example of losing support? You yourself cited the importance of votes in winning elections. If opinon polls are all that mattered, Dalton Mcguinty would be the clear favourite for RE-ELECTION in the Ontario campaign. The number 8-11% is misleading. You should know better. And if mid-term polls are not powerful, why do you use them to justify the magical opinions you share with us so often.And you doubt the Alliance is going to magically pick up the 30%. Isn't that what they have been doing for most of their entire existence? They hover at about 13%. Then vault upwards when the it really matters. Hope can only take you so far. Reason has to take you the rest of the way.

If you agree it's a stupid question, then how does it highlight your point? As usual, your logic often leaves much to be desired.Further proof of this: Tell me how any of this actually makes any sense. Don't you think you should at least try to provide well constructed arguments in support of your beliefs, instead of a string of rambling sentences and assertions?Oh, I forgot. You're a federal PC. That's all they've been giving us for the last decade. Who better exemplified this fact than Joe Clark. And, from the looks of it so far, Mackay makes Joe Clark look like Winston Churchill. I guess you're just a product of your party, where vision and common sense were abandoned long before it took Joe Clark 2 years to decide to run for a seat in Parliament.

Actually, Greg, its quite common for the Globe to pose a poll question they must know is leading and that might evoke a strong response from online readers. As someone who works in the medium, you know that such polls are often meant more for attracting clicks on the site than for any valid opinion assessment. What amazes me is that Gugsy would actually cite it in support of the arguments he's been making all this time. What does that say about his arguments? I am surprised as you are, however, how left the Globe has come in recent years. As an example, and in support of the forum topic I created recently, they just published a whole spat of columns critical of Eves and praiseworthy of McGuinty. Its almost like they are in competition with the Toronto Star to attract as many Left-leaning readers as they can. Its no wonder Canadians have become so passively Left on so many important issues. Look at what so many of them are reading!

As usual, Gugsy, the arguments you provide for the merits of the PC Party of Canada are about as sound and persuasive as the poll you just cited from the G&M. If this is the best you've got, and the best the PCs have to hope for, then I'd start bracing for the day when tears are all you'll have after the collapse of your once mighty and proud party. Hope doesn't win elections. Ideas and organization do. That's what your party needs, not some genius internet poll.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. You see, Gugsy tends to be one of those Rose-Coloured glasses types that seems to think the rebirth of the PC party is around every next corner. Let's get serious.The fact of the matter is that the PC party has not offered a vision for Canada for a generation. Its one of the reasons its been diminished to fifth party status in the House of Commons, a fact very often forgotten by federal Tories. The Alliance has shaped the debate in federal politics for the last decade. Harper has the party rarin' to go for the next election. The PC's are still worried about two things: paying the next hydro bill, and dotting the i's and crossing the t's on that deal Mackay signed with No-Trade Orchard. Why do you think Senator Tcachuk has offered a Hail-Mary offer to merge the two parties? He knows the PCs have no chance by themselves. Get Real. Get with the Alliance. A Real Alternative.

I read a bit about this in the G&M. Frankly, I don't see it happening. There is virtually no chance of a merger before the next election. You just can't put together a new party with a newly minted leader in such a short period of time. Co-operation on candidates is possible, but even that would take a considerable amount of time and negotiation. Furthermore, this sounds a bit like an act of desperation on the part of the PC's. Tckachuk might see the growth potential for the Tories as being minimal in the next election and wants to savage whats left of a party barely breathing. Harper has been advocating for cooperation on candidates since he became leader of the opposition. I'm not exactly sure where he has wanted to go with this. Either he thinks it will be of benefit to the Alliance, or he knows its a deal the PCs will never accept. Either way, I think Harper has been trying to position himself in such a way that the next election will solidify the Alliance's position on the Right in federal politics. Whatever you may think about the general merits of the two parties on the Right, both leaders were chosen to do whatever is in the interests of their respective parties. This is the job they were chosen for, not some idealistic notion of what a unified Right is supposed to lool like. And my guess is that Harper is taking a shot at forming the government-in-waiting in the upcoming election. He's been stalling on all this other stuff since he became leader. As for this do-or-die scenario that Neal is painting, I don't buy it. One-party rule is not a good thing. One more election confirming it won't be the end of the world. If thats when the Right unites then thats when perhaps a more formidable challenge will be mounted against the Liberals. Canada may have turned the wrong way after Mulroney, it hasn't commited suicide. Even some people on the Left bemoan the state of federal politics. Things can only get better. We conservatives are supposed to be optimistic anyway, right? Even without a united Right in the next election, a lot will be settled once its over. Either one of the CA or PCs loses it altogether, which would mean that the Right would coalesce around the party still standing, or they both remain relatively intact, which would mean that the real process of uniting the Right would finally get under way. Just my opinion.

I have been observing the media during the Ontario election campaign so far. I know I may be biased. But if I am then I would appreciate rebuttals based on the evidence and not on perception. I can't help but think that the media is pulling for McGuinty. I guess he needs all the help he can get. First, there was the general line that McGuinty was in better shape this time around because of media training. This was spin perpetuated by the media within the first few days of the campaign. Why not let the people decide if his image is right? Then, there was the line that Eves was on the attack and McGuinty was taking the high road. This, again, is nonsense, since Mcguinty has been spending most of his time telling us what a wasteland Ontario has become under the Tories. Then, there was that story on Global, which I mentioned in another post, that all but assumed that Tory policies wreacked havock on social programs in the province, even though this was not a central part of the reporter's story. Then there was Bourqe Newswatch posting a picture Eves with a cigar in his hand and dollar bills floating all over the place, in reference to the fact that Eves couldn't cite the exact cost estimate of his election platform. If I had to take a guess, I wouldn't be surprised if the picture came from a guy named Kinsella. Then, there is the Toronto Star, whose front page headline was that the Tories were starting to run attack ads. They also threw in the sub-title editorializing on how Eves is being hypocritical in running the ads. Then, there is a current CP newswire story that feels the most important development in the recent release of attack ads is the Liberal assertion that Eves was using the blackout for political purposes. Nevermind that most Ontarians believe leadership is the most important issue in the campaign, and the Tories have been attacking McGuinty on that front. Then, there was the strory on Global News this morning that believed a bunch of anarchist students using violence at Guelph university overshadowed whatever it was that Eves had to say at the event. And there are many more examples of this. Is it really the case that the media in this province is trying to shed a more positive light on the McGuinty liberals? Do they really not have confidence in Ontario voters to make the decision on the facts themselves, instead of a certain version of the facts?

I didn't realize we were all here to serve at the personal whim of Mr. Chater. There were plenty of posts made on the topic on a previous forum. I suggest you look it up and do some reading. Why should we have to start the debate again just because you want to hear the arguments all over again for your personal convenience? How old are you?

I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Chater is up to. This isn't the first time he's come on and posted a general comment without any context. It almost seems like he hasn't yet reached adolescence.

Mr Farrius, I respectfully submit that you are the one who is ignorant. You provide absolutely no justificiation for a sweeping generalization that most of America belongs to the lower-class. Indeed, your comments could even be interpreted as being racist, since blacks represent a disproportionate segment of the lower-class. Is it actually your contention that blacks are more ignorant than Canadians? Ignorance and hate don't make for very effective advocacy. I prefer to debate the issues, not untangle mysterious assertions and contradicting logic.

I obviously don't share your lack of confidence in Ernie. Unlike what happens with Liberal parties, if conservatives don't do enough of what they say, especially regarding tax cuts, they will lose support from their own party. It happened to George Bush Sr. It happened to Brian Mulroney. Acuallly, I don't see where your perception of Eves comes from. He may not be a clear-cut conservative, but I certainly don't think you can compare him to a knee-jerk liberal, or to the other two leaders.

Mr. Farrius, I absolutely don't understand your logic. Is your answer to perceived hate speech spewing some of your own variety in return? Calling Americans ignorant and stupid I think is plain hateful. You still haven't defended yourself. Didn't you also tell us to get the hell out of our own country? Its easy for those in glass houses to throw stones, I guess.

Dalton McGuinty is showing his true colors as a classic liberal politician. Here are his recommendations for education in Ontario Ontario Liberals to make college and university education available to all: - Freeze tuition - Provide Tuition waivers for our neediest students - Improve financial assistance for all students - Create 50,000 new spaces in our colleges and universities - Increase graduate scholarships by 50 percent Its one thing to make such grandiose promises, its quite another to deliver the goods. The clear trend in post-secondary education is away from public funding because, guess what, it just cost too darned much. Now along comes Mcguinty promising that the government is going to pay for all of these promises. How much you wanna bet that, by the odd chance that he actually becomes premier, that none of the above will ever get implemented. Again, its classical liberalism. Scrapping the GST. Cancelling Free Trade. Preserving universal health care. We've hear it all before. They promise the world to everyone but then change their minds when they realize they have to start paying for some of this stuff without raising the taxes on everyone. Oh, I forgot, for a long time they actually did raise taxes on everyone - until, of course, people started to realize that things actually cost money in a free society.

What Canadian conservatives are you talking about that hate our country? Just because we don't like what's happened to it doesn't mean we still don't love it. And who is fawning over the U.S.? You can admire certain things about another country, even envy it, without fawning over it, can't you? And don't tell me to get the hell out! Tell me how this isn't hate speech?On the one hand you claim conservativse fawn over Americans, yet here you are displaying the kind of hatred toward America that is common on the Left in this country. Since it is the Left that is always preaching to the rest of us about nuance, let me try to explain a bit of nuance to you. You can love your country and criticize it. But unlike the Left, especially in the States, that wants to apologize for the success of their country, conservatives want to see their country be as strong and healthy as possible. People on the Left seem to love their countries when they are weak and obliging to dictators. Conservatives still love their country even with all of the problems.

Unfortunately, I think Canada has become virtually irrelevant on the international scene. The Americans think we're a joke. The Europeans ignore us even when we repeat their sentiments of American resentment. It wasn't always this way. Canada used to matter. Now, the burning issue of the day is Gay Marriage. At the end of World War II, we had the fifth largest army in the world, and one of the most dynamic economies in the West. Now? We leave jeeps at the side of the road in Afghanistan and sustain our economy by selling cheap goods in Canadian dollars to a country we like trashing every chance we get. How did it get like this?

Howar Hampton seems to think that the solution to every perceived problem in society is to nationalize it, or to have the government run it completely. When you go buy groceries for the family, do you need to go to a store run by the government? For that matter, the majority of goods and services offered to citizens in a free society comes from the private sector. We don't expect the government to provide everything for us. Nor should we. I've got some news for Howard Hampton: a government-run society doesn't work - it was called the USSR. Look it up. I think one of the reasons Howard Hampton's style of socialist advocacy doesn't work is because its nothing new. Nationalized programs and even societies have been tried and they inevitably lead to bankruptcy, lethargy, and inefficiency. Will there be a time when the Left actually comes up with something new and innovative? The depression happened 70 years ago. Get over it! P.S. I don't think Mike Harris is the answer to uniting the Right. The next election will determine the landscape of the Right on the federal scene. In my opinion, a strong showing by either one of the Alliance of PCs will mean that that party will make their own mark on that configuration. Otherwise, a status quo I think will mean that a uniting movement will sweep the Right, wherein all kinds of candidates might feel it the right time to enter the fray. Right now, both the CA and PCs leave too many doubts for many conservatives to rally around either one. A more united movement I think will be like attracting flies to honey - everyone will try moving in on it. I just think Mike Harris has too many drawbacks for the federal scene. I don't see him as being a federal type of guy.

There are two issue that have popped recently with regard to the way campaigns are run in this country. One is campaign financing. The other is campaign speech. In both cases, rules have or are being put into place which diminish the freedom citizens and groups have to support their preffered political party. Their justification is that they create a fair environment in which campaigns can be run. I wonder. I think in both cases the government is being used as an arbiter of what is fair and unfair, instead of allowing citizens to decide for themselves. Regarding campaing finance, parties now have to meet certain requirements in order to get financing from the government. But why? Shouldn't the people of this country decide who they want to support financially with their own money? As long as the financing is reported, where's the problem? With the public financing rules now being implemented, governments decide how parties are financed, not the people. Furthermore, the same people arguing for these rules say nothing about regulating what the media can and should say during election campaigns. Doesn't this very fact shift power towards the media when it comes to advocating for political parties? Which brings me to regulating campaign speech. And there are two aspect to this. First, there is the limiting of third party speech which Stephen Harper fought against before becoming leader of the Alliance. The argument for these kinds of rules is that it would take away power from people with money. But since when was it a crime in a free country for people to have money and use it in ways they see fit? Why prevent people from speaking out during elections? Second, rules about when and how parties can advertise during a campaign. Indeed, I think this is one of the silliest rules one could imagine. Here in Ontario, the parties are not allowed to run ads for the first week or so. Meanwhile, no one is preventing the geniuses at the Toronto Star or any of the other media outlets from venting their own opinions and analysis of the campaign as it unravels itself. I just don't know what it is about freedom that people don't like. Or, for that matter, what it is about money that they don't like. I also don't understand the apparrent hypocricy. If rules are good for everyone else, why aren't they good for the media as well? In free countries shouldn't people be free to decide who and how they want to support political parties, and shouldn't they also be allowed to make their voices heard if they so wish? Preventing this seems like another attempt at punishing succesful people by having the government take control of the rules and the process. Is this really freedom?

Craig, Iwouldn't go that far in portraying Eves as a liberal. I see some conservatism in him. And I think many Tories do too. Its one of the reasons they are solidly behind him, despite his "moderation". George W. Bush coined the term, "Compassionate Conservartive", and I wouldn't exactly call him a liberal. I know government spending has gone up under his watch. It still doesn't disqualify him as a conservative. Joe Clark, on the other hand, is not a conservative. I think we would both agree on that one.

Here is another one that you might want to put into the "Did they actually say that?" category: Conrad Winn, president of Compas Inc., in talking about his latest poll on the Ontario election said this (Eves closes gap with McGuinty): Since when have the Tories ever loved Eves? Sure, they like him better than Mcguinty or Hampton, but that doesn't mean they are crazy about him. Many conservatives, including some who post on these boards, prefer Harris or even Flaherty to a guy who has been putting the Common Sense Revolution in the filing cabinet instead of reaffirming its place in Ontario History. Sometimes I just don't know where they get this stuff. Anyhow, the latest poll results might confirm my previous assessment that Mr. Mcguinty is Ontario's version of Al Gore. He has four years to prepare for this election and he somehow manages to squander a double-digit lead in the polls within a matter days. And some of the stuff I read in the press is laughable. A columnist in the Star wrote that Mcguinty has been taking the high road so far. REALLY. He calls Eves a used car salesman and sais that the Tories want to pit certain Ontarians against others. And this is supposed to be the taking of the high road? If McGuinty feels he needs to REALLY start going on the negative I think it might truly seal his fate as a runner-up. The challenge for the guy is to look like he can lead, not like he can continue to complain about everything, which he seems to always be doing as leader of the Liberals.

Of course I'm Canadian. Proud of it too!