normanchateau

The GST was denounced by numerous economists including fiscally conservative economists like Herb Grubel of the Fraser Institute. Why do you suppose Dr. Herb Grubel (Economics PhD), the Finance critic under Preston Manning, was so quick to denounce it?

Funny how sharkman suddenly appears and switches topics to the GST after shoop strategically disappears after implying I lied. Coincidence?

The similarities in the postings of Sharkman and Shoop are astonishing. No doubt it's mere coincidence that neither post at the same time.

Right! What do pollsters using scientific methods know? Even though everyone of them predicts a Harper loss, your conversation with your Italian friend is a far more accurate predictor.

Weren't you going to give me a number for all these "religious zealots" that are "surrounding" the Tories? And a definition of just what you think a religious zealot is? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read the valleyspeptic.com article about religious zealots to get a better idea of the type of person being described. And according to the Campaign Life Coalition, there are 53 CPC MPs who share their negative positions on abortion, stem cell research and same sex marriage.

I think Ralph Klein's comments were probably the biggest blow. Some CPC supporters will at least rationalize Campbell and Clark's comments as disaffection because of Harper's and MacKay's pointless destruction of the PCs and inability to captre the votes of former PC supporters. But Klein is Premier of perhaps the only province where most people opposed C-38 and don't view Harper as controlled by the religious right. And Klein, for all his Ottawa bashing, never suggested putting a firewall around Alberta as Harper did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who's bigdude? When did he get banned? Did he get banned for pointing out that half of all CPC MPs are religious conservatives even though only 20% of Canadians are religious conservatives? Do you think those figures aren't accurate? Those figures appeared in the Vancouver Sun, a newspaper which supported Harper in 2004. Why does CPC have candidates like Darrel Reid running in a suburb of liberal Vancouver? Why do CPC supporters get upset about being portrayed as religious conservatives? Other than the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, no other Canadian political party is so dominated by religious conservatives.

It's not just me who thinks Harper was a mistake. So did Klein, Campbell and Clark. Now let me ask you some questions. Do you think Harper was a mistake? After Harper lost the 2004 election, should CPC have had a leadership convention in early 2005 and picked a fresh leader for the next election?

You correctly listed the Strategic Counsel poll of December 1 st and I correctly cited the Ipsos-Reid poll of December 1st. If I provide the link, will you apologize for implying that I lied? :angry:

The Ipsos-Reid results for December 1, 2005 are now out and they show an increase in Liberal support and a decrease in both CPC and BQ support since the last Ipsos-Reid survey. As of yesterday, the poll results are: Liberals 36 CPC 28 NDP 19 BQ 12 Perhaps the thought of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is enough to make even a BQ supporter vote Liberal. Paul Martin had the bad luck of inheriting and being punished for a scandal created by his nemesis Jean Chretien but at least he had the incredible good luck of running against an Official Opposition whose leader is Stephen Harper. Harper's numbers indicate that he hasn't captured even the former Progressive Conservative supporters. If former PCs won't vote for him, it's even less likely that Liberal, NDP or BQ supporters would. Harper's only hope at this point is that all the undecideds will suddenly decide (1) to vote and (2) to vote for a social conservative. That's about as reasonable an outcome as planning for your retirement by buying lottery tickets.

I went to the link and what the analysts are saying is that it's good that Harper blurted out now that he'd revisit the same sex issue rather than waited until closer to the election to blurt out this nonsense. That's incredibly good news? The election is in January. Most Canadians can remember what was said two months ago, some even longer. In any event, according to the link Harper's plan was not to bring up the issue at all but wait until someone else did. Not exactly a brilliant strategy unless he'd really lucked out and no one had brought it up. Having a reporter determine how his campaign unfolds does not bode well for planning skills as a future Prime Minister. It's kind of consistent with how he dealt with Grewal, i.e., did absolutely nothing while Grewal twisted in the wind except hoped that Grewal would resign one day.

This summer the Vancouver Sun published an article in which it was estimated that half of all CPC MPs are "religious conservatives". This compares with approximately 20% of all Canadians who fit the "religious conservative" label, according to Ipsos-Reid. Lifesite, an anti-abortion website published this story then quoted former President of Focus on the Family and anti-abortionist Darrel Reid, the Richmond, British Columbia, CPC candidate in the 2006 federal election. Reid hopes to defeat the Liberal MP in Richmond but his capture of the CPC nomination resulted in the resignation of social moderates in the Richmond CPC constituency association. Ironically, Lifesite quotes Reid, an anti-abortionist who also opposes stem cell research even if it will save lives, as condemning the media for describing religious conservatives as "prolife fanatics and religious fundamentalists." With CPC moving even further to the right in socially liberal British Columbia with candidates like Reid, BC CPC MPs will fall like dominoes. Here's the Lifesite link: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072804.html

Oh really? Then why did Harper and his party vote against C-250? And why has he promised to revisit C-38? And why does the party have a huge number of religious zealots, anti-abortionists and Focus on the Family types running in this election? See: http://www.valleysceptic.com/conservatives...by_zealots.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seing as how your link doesn't work, could you provide us with exactly how many "religious zealots" are in the Conservative party? Also, what constitutes a religious zealot? Someone who goes to church? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not sure what happened to the link. The portion of the link I typed was conservatives_hijacked_by_zealots but when it appeared on mapleleafweb it became conservatives...by zealots

True. Nor does one wrong make a right. CPC will need to replace their wrong leader with someone who's right for the right. And the right leader of the right will need to be more centre than right.

Actually, Joe Clark went much further than Kim Campbell. He didn't just say that Harper would lose because of his social conservatism. He stated that he reluctantly supported Paul Martin over Stephen Harper to lead the country because "I do think it would be dangerous to have a leader with the kind of mentality Mr. Harper has." Clark said this just before the 2004 election: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/26/canada/clark040426 So while Kim Campbell and Ralph Klein claim to support Stephen Harper but fear he'll lose because of his social conservatism, Joe Clark actually preferred Paul Martin, in part because of Harper's social conservatism. It's true that Campbell and Clark are disaffected former PC MPs...not to mention Prime Ministers. But they do represent a wing of conservatism that CPC will need to capture if they are ever hope to form government. In last year's election, Harper captured only 29.6% of the vote, far less than Reform and the PCs captured together in the past. In yesterday's Ipsos Reid poll, December 1, 2005, Harper was down to 28%. CPC supporters need to face reality rather than attack Campbell, Clark and Klein. If Harper can't even capture the vote of former PC supporters, how can he expect to capture the Liberal, NDP or BQ vote? I'm not saying this to slam either CPC or CPC supporters but only their choice of leader. It was a mistake in my opinion, and it's time to move on and cleanse CPC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Happy to oblige: http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/

Uh, Norman, did Harper say that on this board? No. Here's where he was reported to have said it: http://www.politicswatch.com/election-nov24-2005.htm

Kim Campbell stated today in an interview at the London school of Economics that she believes that Stephen Harper's social conservatism will result in him losing the election. Must say I never thought that I'd find myself agreeing with both Kim Campbell and Ralph Klein. The Liberals have not been this unpopular in a long time and with the right leader, CPC would be forming government in 2006. But they blew it in picking Harper as their leader. I suspect their next leader won't be a social conservative.

One of Preston Manning's strengths is that his economic policies were well thought out and gradually developed. He had a problem with people like Harper. That's why he made Herb Grubel the Finance critic rather than Stephen Harper. Harper is always flipflopping on issues particularly if it will get him more votes. Health care is a perfect example. He even acknowledged that he changed his position on health care for this very reason. See the following: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050430091919834

One of Preston Manning's strengths is that his economic policies were well thought out and gradually developed. He had a problem with people like Harper. That's why he made Herb Grubel the Finance critic rather than Stephen Harper. Harper is always flipflopping on issues particularly if it will get him more votes. Health care is a perfect example. He even acknowledged that he changed his position on health care for this very reason. See the following: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050430091919834

Then you or Harper or CPC should be campaigning against hate crime legislation. Harper's problem, among many, is that he has no problem with hate crime legislation per se. He's in favour of hate crime legislation where disability, gender, ethnicity, race or religion is concerned but not where gays and lesbians are concerned. He'd have more credibility if he opposed all hate crimes legislation rather than ONLY legislation as it applies to gays and lesbians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Speaking of respect and common decency, who said the following? The Liberal party has "been found guilty of breaking every conceivable law in the province of Quebec with the help of organized crime..." Does that statement show respect and common decency? Is the statement true? If the statement is not true, what does it say about the person who uttered it? Calling it hyperbole does not, of course, make the statement true.

Are you saying that calling a politician a liar when he says something false violates the rules of the board but calling a politician corrupt or criminal when he has done nothing corrupt or criminal does not violate the rules of the board?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why is it relevant that the media have moved on? The media are far too kind to Harper and have failed to remind Canadians that Harper is even more socially conservative than many of his supporters. CPC is doomed in the next election given that 70% of Canadians prefer parties to the left of Harper's and Harper has positioned himself such that he seems even more conservative than much of his own party.

When did the Conservatives say that they have no interest in cutting personal or business taxes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Conservatives have said they'll reduce the GST. If they also plan to cut personal or business taxes, they've not said so. This is why numerous economists have come out today against Harper's plan to cut the GST rather than corporate and personal taxes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They have said in the past that they would. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you're saying we should look at Harper's former utterances rather than his current utterances to know where he now stands? Does this hold for his views on putting a firewall around Alberta? Does this hold for his former views on health care? Does this hold for his views on Atlantic Canadians?