sage

What could someone possibly come up with for a pro-Liberal argument this campaign? I mean they ran the worst campaign this country has seen in decades. And you're surprised that editors were more favourable of the Tories? Have you read MacLean's lately? Its an obviously more liberal friendly publication than say the National Post, and yet the vast majority of articles on the election concerned the poor performance of the Liberals. I would suggest that the pro-Tory commentary transcends particular publications, at least in this election. Before the #'s mean anything they have to be crossreferenced with something. What did these papers do last election? What did the Globe and Mail do this election?

This debate really boils down to any situation where you have a public entity competing in the private marketplace. I watched an interview on the CBC with Asper (Izzy, Iggy, Ziggy, Zaggy, can't remember the goofy first name), anyway the Canadian media baron and he had an interesting twist to the whole thing. His comment was that he actually supported a role for the public entity, his difficulty was that it should not be competing in the private marketplace for advertising dollars. If the fundamental reasoning behind the existance of the CBC is to provide Canadians with programming they cannot find elsewhere, why is it sticking its nose in sectors where there is obviously sufficient private enterprise to deliver certina programming to Canadians. A simple example: CBC Newsworld. Why the hell does the CBC need newsworld? The answer is not because Canadians are starved for news coverage, the answer is because the CBC wants to put its version of the news before Canadians. The twists its role from that of simply discharging its civic duty, but rather to an intruder in the Canadian media market.

How ironic that on the same thread reference is made to crime and parenting and no-one puts the two together? I actually think a national daycare plan is the worst thing this country can do. Put more children in the control of people other then their parents so that these parents can work and make more money. Then act dumbfounded when the entire generation of these kids raised by someone else has no sense of responsibility or accountability for their actions, no sense of family. All so people are free to work, to make more money, to consume. And to think this program is the left's notion. Honestly you people sometimes can't see the forest for the trees.

Ironically the people complaining about Alberta's right-wing politics are lefty's, hanging out in the debt ridden East. Note to the Rest of Canada: Keep spending money you don't have on health care, education, unions and civil servants, welfare programs, pensions; sooner or later your children will pay for it. It's not that I'm against social spending in general, but you have to be able to afford these programs in the first place.

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. I unfortunately agree. A co-worker referred to Tobin as a "political tiger" and I agree. He generally avoids the misfortune that brings other politicians to their knees. Again however, should Tobin ever actually attain power we would have a Chretienesque dictatorship to contend with yet again.

Hedy Fry as a serious leadership contender? You know the end will have come if this were to ever materialize. There's about as much chance as her being leader of the Liberal Party as Noam Chmosky receiving the republican presidential nomination.

apollo19, I blame it on Liberal activist judges. Thoss who, for whatever reason, decide to take the law into their own hands and champion these iconoclastic measures which violate and drastically reform Canadian society. Not good. Liberal activist judges can be blamed for certain things; screwing up charter rights, extending aboriginal rights beyond that contemplated in the treaties (depending on your view), removing responsibility from the individual through tort law, but the criminal mess in the cities is not their doing. To begin with, minimum sentences are set out in the criminal code, and are not imposed by the judiciary. Secondly much of sentencing is based on precedent. i.e. there is an established rule that if, for e.g., this is your second impaired driving charge in a short time frame, this is your sentence. Of course the judiciary has some discretion but it certainly is not as much as people are lead to believe. Of course there are exceptions to every rule but to lay the rise in criminal activity at the feet of the judiciary is patently ridiculous.

What a sad race when Brian Tobin is one of the few names everyone seems to agree to be a contender. Of all the commentators one had to watch during the election, Tobin was continually the one who contributes the least to public discourse. No matter the question, tow the party line. No matter the issue, everyone else is wrong. What a refreshing site when on election night you had Hugh Segal, Ed Broadbent, John Manley speaking frankly about one another's party's and positions. Sad when the only people who can be honest are one's not vying for election. If Tobin does win the Liberals will have themselves another Martin. One who wants to be prime minister, though only for the sake of being prime minister.

I can't see the bulk of the Liberal party supporting someone who is not "established" by any measure. Even Ignatieff brings credibility through his tenure at the JFK School of Government in Harvard. I don't see Dryden having any popularity outside of Toronto. I would consider myself a very politically engaged guy, and the only thing I knew about Dryden before searching his name on google was that he was a goalie. Not sure if that's the name recognition the party will be looking for.

For anyone from Ontario, what is Bob Rae's popularity like there?

This is definitely a big hit for the Lib's to take. When all the people one would expect to run for leader are fleeing the ship (or refusing to board in the first place), its a sure sign that the Liberals haven't hit bottom yet. Ignatieff: Tough for someone to be away for several decades and say he has his finger on the pulse of the nation. Also no leadership experience whatsoever. Stronach and Brison: Shoop is dead on. Difficult (if not impossible) (if not comical) to run for leader of 2 different party's. Rae: Interesting thought. I don't think his NDP ties are fatal. Its worked (regrettably) for Ujal Dosanjh. Tobin: Sadly a good politician, but lacks the vision for Canada that anyone who aspires for this job must bring. (case in point Martin's failure). I think only McKenna and Manley had the potential to even start revitalizing the party. When these heavyweights are pulling out, they must smell defeat in the next federal election, most notably in Quebec where the Tories will be even stronger next election.

To support the Palestinian people through in recognition of Hamas in one respect and yet not support the politics is a complete contradiction. You are either supporting a holy war on Israel or not, there is no middle ground. If the Palestinian people want to be represented by a party dedicated to the annhilation of the jewish state, then they should be prepared to suffer the consequences of supporting a militaristic regime. Cut off all aid, cut off all ties. Hamas is not government, it is a terrorist cell. On another note can somone please explain to me how the Palestinian state is organized? Palestine is not a country per se. Is this not an internal governance problem with Israel (albeit created by the outside world)?

One problem with the current setup is it doesn't take into account any lobbying fees these MP's get after they are punted.

2 I believe...the Liberal leadership campaign was in 1990, Martin got elected in 1988. Still better (though marginally) then Stronach's zero days as a sitting member before she ran for the leadership of the tories.

I'm all for the pension. Perhaps someday we'll actually get the best and the brightest in Parliament. It is a little hard to swallow at times though given some of the dummies that get elected. As for the Reform party pension stuff earlier on the thread, the fact was that they were crowing about excessive pensions, so the Lib's passed legislation making it mandatory, but you could opt out. This effectively made the Reform MP's the only people not receiving a pension. Numerous Reform MP's ate their words and did not opt out (i.e. accepted their pension). Other's took the high road. For what its worth, Harper isn't a member of the pension plan.

IMO Stronach and Martin are no different in terms of the amount of labour they invested in their political careers. The only difference may be that Martin had to spend a few more years in the House before he was a serious leadership candidate (then again he did run against Chretien, and I do not know exactly how many years he had under his belt in the late '80's).

Chimera, you and the rest of the lib's use this whore comment for whatever prupose you want. Categorize all Conservstive as sexist if you want. Its all bullshit. None of you "politically correct" dipshits were "disgusted" when Liberals were calling Deborah Grey a pig in the house of commons. Just keep using a double standard whenever it suits you. The hypocrisy of the liberal mindset never ceases to amaze me.

How sensitive are all you people? Nobody said she was a slut, nobody is even talking about sex. The fact remains she totalling prostituted herself by setting aside her morals and political beliefs for personal gain. It is perfectly fine to use colourful language on the subject. You can take it to mean whatever you want. If people find it offensive so be it. The fact remains the use of the phrasing "whoring" is completely proper in the context that people are using it.

Diplomtic immunity would be a great asset for Ralph's imbibing.

In order to ascend politically one must ultimately have at least some personal view as to what their public policy would look like. It seems to me Ms. Stronach's views depend on which powerful friend is leading her through the corridor of power at that given moment. I had previously noted the lack of a grand vision for Canada in the leaders in this election. God help us if this priveleged uninspired twit were to lead in a campaign.

Has anyone noticed that the "front runners" in this campaign are all people born with a silver spoon in their mouth, cut from the same privileged cloth as Martin. I just read up on Ignatieff, I mean the man is actually from a Russian aristocratic family. Not that this implies he could never be in government, but where is someone who actually understands what a normal life is like?

The one question I have is who decides which people actually become the representatives? The party leaders?

Everyone knows Ralph will be ascend to heaven to take his rightful place beside God following his resignation.

Who would have thought such an organization even existed. Astounding really. Members of this outfit take themselves seriously?

To be frank I think the G&M provides a relatively objective view of the news. During the campaign they were pointing out gaffes all the leaders committed, and didn't seem to be biased to anyone in particular. I think there was an editorial near the end of the campaign supporting Harper, but the editorial aside I thought they did a fairly good job. Far better then the CBC, which even in its results coverage was pro-Liberal. Did anyone notice that for every consticuency that the CBC was reporting on they had a big picture of the Liberal candidate and smaller pictures for every other party?