tml12

Liam, I didn't mean to say that Cindy Sheehan was the official spokeswoman for the average American liberal. However, she was an inspiration to many American liberals and I don't think this is a wise tactical move by her. By going to Caracas and saying she is behind Chavez, etc., she is playing into the neo-con Republican's hands...that is not me either, being a moderate. I just think she should chose her company more wisely, because if your average American moderate is deciding who to vote for and they know Chavez is anti-American and they see Sheehan, a symbol of the American left, with him, it gives credence to American conservatives who say the "left hates America" and things like that, which I know are untrue.

Well said Sage!

The problem with universiality is that it believes everyone should be treated equally, regardless of their situation. Imagine a 19 year-old single mom with three kids who is working and going to school. She is going to need a lot of government assistance. Imagine a married 28-year old husband and wife with one child. They are going to need much less government assistance. The point is that, the CPC is the better plan because it allows parents to spend the money as they see fit, when they see fit, and treats each case on a more individual basis.

I actually think the Liberals had more to gain from losing than winning this election and I think the liberal MSM recognized this. As long as Martin was around, the old Chretien/Martin wounds would still be strong. A Liberal loss meant no more Martin and the chance for the Liberal Party to go back to its historical status as the most united party in Canada. This result doesn't hurt Canada's left, it just sidelines their agenda for awhile. This is why, with the spotlight on Harper now, he needs to act "prime-ministerial" and do the best he can to shore up his support in urban areas.

Hmmm, you said "After this election I'm a little tired of BS. Can we not all just be honest for a little while?" And my talking about you saying "Telling people to *cut the BS*" was a false accusation? Tinfoilhat wearer heal thy self. Yes, shoop is a proud soldier in the fight against evil. And the last I checked the person who most needs to be reminded to cut the BS is Paul Martin. Paul who?

That hurts crazymf... ...it is not my fault I live in the province with the highest debt, the least efficient government (provincially), and on an island that continuously elects Liberal and Bloc (left-wing) MPs. And unfortunately I can't drive to Alberta to shop without sales tax like BC residents do. It could be worse. You could have Flip-Flop McFly and his merry band of NitWits running your province. The man who promised not to raise taxes hasn't found a new tax he didn't like yet. And when he thinks it may not be politically correct to tax something he merely downloads it to the municipalities. For sure I think Dalton McGuinty is scum. I didn't pay much attention to him until the Shriner's Hospital incident when he denied he allowed the Ontario Health Ministry to fund a video claiming Montreal wasn't a safe city because of its "supposedly" toxic waste yards... :angry:

That hurts crazymf... ...it is not my fault I live in the province with the highest debt, the least efficient government (provincially), and on an island that continuously elects Liberal and Bloc (left-wing) MPs. And unfortunately I can't drive to Alberta to shop without sales tax like BC residents do.

Come on Shoop, I haven't seen you this angry since maplysyrup/mockingbird/scaruscof called you "sloopy bully" fifteen times in four different posts.

How? "I was unable to find the appropriate balance then, and I wouldn't be able to find it now," McKenna said of his attempts to balance home and public life. -From canoe.ca

Leafless, Better not remind the lefties about the 1969 White Paper...

He is predicting them true because he believes they are, as do I. Gerry, how is this baiting?

I watched the press conference...and didn't hear that myself. I didn't realize shoop spoke for multiple people here! When he said "supposed reasons", I understood that to mean the reasons given by the ambassador. I have been since corrected by shoop and understand it's only his own opinions. And yours also, you say. It was my mistake. Certainly I understand what debate is for, and am happy to engage with good faith. I don't take things at "face value" always. I'm very critical. I heard the guy explain why he wasn't interested in the job and he struck me as very honest and his reasons as quite understandable. Maybe you can help me with something though....when shoop said "supposed reasons", the word "supposed" implies he's questioning anothers reasons...not that they are reasons he procured and believes. Why would he use the word "supposed" if they are the reasons he believes? Wouldn't he present then as the reasons he believes...rather than "supposed" ones? Gerryhatrick, I don't profess to speak for anyone. But the point of the thread is to discuss the ulterior motives of why McKenna didn't seek the leadership. Usually, both politicians on the right and left, have different reasons for making decisions. And sometimes, they do not want to admit their reasons. Shoop's original post was to discuss "supposed" reasons. I believe Shoop, and I can say for sure myself, define "supposed" as dictionary.com does, as "Presumed to be true or real without conclusive evidence." Neither Shoop nor I nor anyone else on this board profess that we know the *real* reasons behind McKenna's decision. But as someone who lives in Quebec, I believe the Quebec factor, the Liberal struggles in this province, and the fact McKenna doesn't speak much French, could play a role in his decision. Of course, those are things we presume to be true. McKenna would probably never admit that. So if we could get that straight, I am sure we can debate the issues clearly again...

About as good as Paul Martin's popularity in Quebec. Rae is done.

Ah. So when you said "supposed reasons" you were talking about your own take on it. I watched the guy on TV and believe what he said. He didn't want the job because of the expectation of success and thus the 10 year commitment. He was largely expected to have the job if he wanted it, correct? And quite within the realm of reason to expect the Liberals to win the next election. So...he had to ask himself if he wanted that kind of committment. How did you come up with the "looking for balance in his life" supposed reason? That's a bizarre one! Shoop mentioned the "looking for balance in his life." I didn't hear that, but to be honest I didn't read the article on why he decided to step out of the race. Shoop is an honest guy so I take his word for it... And yes, as for "supposed reasons" that would mean our take on it...that is what the debate is for. If you choose to take whatever he said at face value, that is certainly your right too.

I'm terrified...by the fact that he may not have a six-figure salary...

I agree Shoop. CBC is just tryint to stir up trouble...they give Chretien and Martin all the privacy in the world...can't we ask as CPC supporters ask the same of Prime Minister Harper?

"supposed reasons". Guess so, since those aren't the reasons he gave. After this election I'm a little tired of BS. Can we not all just be honest for a little while? We're having a debate here gerry about the underlying reasons of why he may have stepped out of the race. Of course if you'd like to take his word for it, your more than welcome to...

I don't know what is funnier, that, or the left-leaning members here comparing Liberal corruption with Mulrooney corruption. I thought the Liberals werent't corrupt and so much better than Mulrooney?

As a moderate conservative, I often find common ground with some people on the left. I felt bad for Cindy Sheehan and even, at one point, thought maybe she should have a meeting with Bush. But now this... Does the American left really want to be associated with Chavez? This could be political gold for the Republicans, as Chavez is openly and proudly anti-American. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060124/en_af...al_060124235441

Got your back there Shoop,

McKenna's announcement increased Hedy's chances five fold. She's now 1000 to 1 instead of 5000. Poor Hedy, she still doesn't realize that thousands in Vancouver Centre held their noses to vote for her over her light fingered opponent. It's the holding of the noses part she can't come to grips with. I'm surprised posters on this thread discount Brian Tobin's leadership possibilities. An extreme partisan, yes, a Chretienite, yes, but tenacious, well informed and with a national profile. I would guess he is the new favorite. Tobin has no profile in the West. Then again, when did the Liberals ever care about the west? Allan Rock is their best chance at winning an election in the next 6-8 years. I still back August (maybe it's because we're Montrealers) and put Stephane Dion in. Sure he'd get shut out of Alberta with his far-left policies on the environment and the failed Kyoto accord but he'd have a chance with the far left in BC and I am sure he'd be popular in the East. The only problem is if Harper fails the soft nationalists will go back to the Bloc after Dion's stance on Kyoto and his extreme federalist (read: Clarity Act) views.

Nah...the way Theodore is playing? I play it safe and put Dryden in goal...

Geoffrey, "Hey your Montreal didn't help, get out there and doorknock! Very true, whatever happened to hard time? Theres some minimum security place in BC that has a golf course. I've been tempted to commit crimes so I can live in my little chateau on the golf course, have great meals prepared for me, and go golfing all day. Really, there is alot of incentive in this country to commit crimes." Especially if you are on welfare. Can you imagine? You can rob a bank and kill the guard and go to jail and have all your porn and sex toys paid for. And even play golf... :angry: Sadly for you, in this country that crime would only probably get you six weeks in jail... I say bring back capital punishment...a majority of Canadians, so says the left-wing Globe and Mail, support it...

The only thing that they will be able to prove is some individuals in the party broke the rules. Attempting to sue the Liberal party itself would likely go no where. Well it should just be like the Hell's Angels. I'm sure not every one of them is a drug dealer, just as I'm sure that the Liberals aren't all con artists. However, that doesn't change that the Hell's Angels are a criminal organization, why aren't the Liberals viewed the same way. Chretien, undoubtetly the worst PM in Canadian history, bares, according to Judge Gomery, the ultimate responsibility for the scandal. I'd say we lock him up. That alone is worth about a couple of million to me...

Sue 'em... :angry: