sage

Chimera what's sexist, the reference to whore? Merriam Webster has one definition of whore as "a venal or unscrupulous person". Venal means "capable of being bought or obtained for money or other valuable consideration". Belinda is a whore.

Surely even the Lib's on this page can come to some agreement on the lack of Belinda's qualities for leader. Partisanship aside, she's: A. an idiot; and B. an idiot. Notwithstanding the nonsense of her crossing the house out of some glorified sense of country, how can anyone justify her receiving a cabinet post? To people how actually buy into this bullshit, there's a simple response. If she had left the Tories out of sense other then personal ambition she could have simply sat as an independent. Instead she bleets like a sheep about Harper getting too close to sovereigntists, and gets a cabinet position out of it. Pathetic. And as for any Canadian who yips about stupid Americans voting in people like Jesse Ventura and Arnie, take a look in the mirror. We're no different as can be seen from Belinda.

Unfortunately I agree with Drea. I understand what Argus is saying, but I don't think its that commonplace for there to be a concerted effort on the part of minorities to hijack the electoral process. Calm me naive, but I would assume for lots of immigrants that they don't have such an open democratic process in their homeland so they tend to actually take this seriously, unlike alot of those Canadian born.

Exactly Hicksey. I think there is a difference though with abortion. Harper has to address SSM because he made it an issue, the CPC did not make abortion an issue whatsoever. I know what you're getting at though in trying to get out in front of all this hidden agenda nonsense. You know what I was just thinking. The last election the hidden agenda of Harper was health care. I don't think I've heard this once in the last 2 weeks. Funny how Lib's pick and choose these things and the East laps it up.

I'm not sure, but if you asked those who refuse to vote for the Tories due to their social conservatism I think they would refer to the candidate in the last election from Northern BC who went off at the mouth about the notwithstanding clause and SSM. We do this every election.

Leaving SSM alone is not a good idea because it feeds the ability of the liberals to raise the hidden agenda nonsense. If Harper does not raise the issue I guarantee the Lib's end the next campaign with an attack saying the only reason SSM legislation was not amended was because Harper had a minority, with the implicaiton being that if he had a majority SSM would be removed from the definition marriage. Best case scenario SSM is introduced early on in the new parliament and resoundly defeated in a free vote. The worst thing that could happen is it actually passed, then all hell would break loose with Supreme Court references on amended legislation,etc.

I stand corrected, I suppose you can't have a potential rival in that public a role.

Firing McKenna just because he's a Liberal would be stupid. We have some right wing people on this thread (myself included) who think he's done a good job and it's this kind of partisanship that Harper has vowed to get rid of. I also fail to see how McKenna represents the old liberal dynasty. I don't believe he even served in Parliament and its the federal liberals that need to be dealt with.

Scriblett you're right, the liberal use of the term "zealot" is not appropriate. As a Tory supporter though I have difficulty with candidates whose primary qualification to represent our interests is a belief in one religion or another. There are certain persons (mostly Tories, though not exclusively) whose judgments are made primarily on religious considerations. These are the people that concern me. I believe Norman's point was that when someone is running on the basis of their anti-abortion and anti-SSM views as their main reason they should be elected, it scares people and I agree. Thankfully these people have generally been kept in check.

So for serious contenders we generally agree on: Manley Ignatieff McKenna What about Copps? Would she crawl out from under a rock for this one?

I agree with Argus, and would also mention that the NDP is not going to want to go to the polls either in the next little while given their surprising strength in this Parliament.

Is Belinda Stronach that significant of an individual that she can seriously contest the Liberal nomination. I'm actually in agreement with Norman on this one, that there may have been a lack of urgency to the Tory leadership convention, and this is what lead to perhaps "sub-par" participation in terms of candidates. By saying this however, implicitly Belinda wasn't even a serious Tory leadership candidate. Given her record of late I simply don't see how anyone could think she is a serious contender. This is especially true when it was the Liberals questioning Harper's experience in this past campaign. My bets are on Ignatieff and Manley. God help us if we have to listen to that dipshit Tobin in a campaign.

The fundamental error in your reasoning Norman is that you surmise the Liberals and NDP will never vote for a measure the Tories are proposing, and thus they have to rely on the Bloc. I don't think the Lib's and NDP will be as obstructive as you suggest. Especially the Lib's, now without a leader they will need 6-8 months just to get their house in order and won't be looking at going to the polls right away. Also the opposition has to give some deference to the wishes of the Canadian electorate. I would think the child care policy and GST cut would be issues the opposition might bend on. Others like Kyoto will be dead for the Tories. I actually think now is the perfect time for Harper to reintroduce SSM. On a fee vote, it would likely not pass, the issue would hopefully die, and you take alot of ammunition away from the Lib's the next time around.

Norman, you think Harper's stance on mari-jane was the reason he didn't resonate with BC voters? That's rubbish. I agree with you on the religious zealot thing though. One thing you neglect to point out though is that while the Tories seat count went down, their popular vote was up something like 5 points in BC. As for losing the Cadman seat, it should be put into perspective that they lost it to an NDP'er named Priddy who was a family friend of Cadman and endorsed by Cadman's widow.

Norman I think you're bing a little naive. Who can't be bought? The entire Atlantic region has a significant portion of its GDP coming from the federal government.

Originally I was against SSM. However having just been married, if anyone wants the nightmare of organizing a wedding, by all means have at it.

Black Dog what specific state benefit is there to being married that is denied to common-law spouses?

One of the best solutions to all this might simply be to repeal the whole F'ing thing. Since the introduction of common-law property rights, etc. there really is no significant difference between being married and living common-law anyway. The whole concept is perhaps a little outdated. Like a previous post had mentioned, it may be preferable to leave it up to people to define their relationship, as opposed to the government.

An interesting provision, though I believe the Governor General would actually play some role in all this. I am just guessing, but I would think if the G. G. didn't feel the use of the provision was appropriate in the circumstances she could dissolve Parliament on her own. Actually kind of a scary suggestion, considering the role we generally have the GG play.

Eureka, what point was it exactly that you were trying to make? Somebody trying to "seize" power? You make the ascension of conservative policies to be the equivalent of the apocalypse. I hope you're speaking in hyperbole. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the sun will rise tomorrow. It may just be a little brighter for those of us in the 21st century.

I suppose you're right Cybercoma. A fantastic way to ensure that the St. Lawrence corridor maintains its status as the country's despot.

Actually the law does sort of interfere with the religious rights of Canadians. Remember the B.C. Knights of Colombus who refused to marry the lesbians in their hall? Well the couple took them to the B.C. Human Rights tribunal. The tribunal essentially said that the K of C had the right to deny access, yet awarded something like $2,500 to the couple anyway. Not exactly the resounding vote of confidence the churches were assured they would have on this subject.

Eureka, you start by observing the lack of vision in this campaign, and the only thing you can add to the debate is to say that Harper's evil? Where's Martin's vision? Does Paul Martin plan anything past the next 5 minute interval?

I actually would like to take back me previous post. The question could more properly be asked, "What element of the Liberal camapign did not lead to the Liberal's demise?" Honestly, when I got thinking about things some more, their whole campaign was just crazy. Did anyone see Martin's comments questioning Harper on his lack of international travel? I believe the comment was something (and I am not quoting) like "Stephen Harper has admitted to not travelling outside of North America. How can someone with such limited experience be the Prime Minister." The problem was that Harper had travelled out of North America 3 times in the last 9 months, all of them with Martin! My point in including this comment in this thread is that Martin really has no credibility at all and this perhaps more then anything led to his downfall. Lastly, we may be a little premature in implying that the Liberals are defeated. If there's anythng I've learned in the past its not to underestimate the stupidity and gullability of the Canadian electorate.

There is a very simple answer to all of this. Why not have marriage being only the recognition of a relationship by a church. Everyone else (homos and heteros alike) who want their relationship recognized by the state have civil unions. As for the proponents who yak about government having to uphold "family structure", what's next, banning common-law relationships? Last I looked you don't have be married to have a child, regardless your sexuality.