Michael Hardner

Television advertising doesn't really appeal to the intellect. It's more impressionistic - that's why it works. We already know this. It's not party policy. Free votes are. That's the question. And unless the local candidates tell us what their stances are, we don't know for sure. The larger issue - charter rights - are probably of importance to enough people. That's why the Liberals are taking this tack, I think. I don't think that health care is a particularly weak issues for the Liberals anyway. The Conservatives are probably more vulnerable. Politics is all about deciding what issues are most important in the public mind. That's the battle that's before us. There's no way to practically tell how intelligent or honest a local candidate is, especially if they're a new face. And the local candidate's stand on party policy is a moot point - they'll follow the party line. I just think since free votes are already CPC policy, any CPC candidate has an obligation to be forthright about their views on social issues. People do care.

Martin will try to portray the CPC tax cuts as irresponsible. He will try to get Harper to explain what he will cut, and when Harper floats above the question, he will try to highlight the hidden economic agenda. Martin will also focus on the social issues/free vote thing. In French, Martin will try to scare Quebecers into voting for him by pointing out that Harper will cut jobs in Quebec - government jobs, jobs in subsidized industries etc. Uh... I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen Martin in a debate and I don't think I have. I can't see Martin coming off as looking confident in such a scenario.

To the point of the thread: Please continue to tell me what your local CPC candidates have specifically posted on their websites about what they will/won't support in free votes.

I found another CPC site of a candidate that had canvassed his constituents to guage how he would vote on a certain social issue, and stated it. Good for him. But it seems to be more common for a CPC candidate's website to talk about accountability, or even (incredibly) free votes, then to not indicate what they're planning to do with their free vote. I'll say. But he has also stated that he will allow free votes on CPC party non-policy. As such, his candidates should be expressing their views or someone might think that they have a hidden agenda or something ! Of course they will. And Harper too will "made plain that social issues will not be a priority for his government ", which is to his advantage.

A quick scan of 10 random CPC sites finds that only ONE candidate stated his personal views on social issues. Nine did not: Barry Cline St. Paul's Carol Skelton Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar Victor Chan Vancouver South John Koury Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca Jesse Johl Vancouver-Kingsway (believes in accountability) David MacKenzie Oxford County Mike Wallace Burlington George Drazenovic Burnaby-Douglas (free votes a top priority) Guy Lauzon Stormont, Dundas, & South Glengarry Hats off to the one CPC candidate in 10 who states his views: Garry Breitkreuz Yorkton - Melville "dedication to issues such as the tradtional defination of marriage" "defunding of abortions"

Mike Wallace CPC Burlington -> nothing stated

David MacKenzie CPC Oxford County -> nothing stated

Jesse Johl CPC Vancouver-Kingsway -> believes in accountability... views on social issues not stated

John Koury CPC Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca -> nothing stated

Garry Breitkreuz CPC Yorkton - Melville -> "dedication to issues such as the tradtional defination of marriage" "defunding of abortions"

With the prospect of a CPC government becoming more real with each passing day, we are told that a CPC government itself will not be introducing legislation on abortion, same-sex marraige etc. However, a CPC government will allow free votes on any issue not covered in party policy. It's therefore very important for voters to be informed on how the local candidates stand on certain issues (I'll call them social issues here) that might be put to a free vote. It's even more important, in fact it should be a requirement, that any CPC candidate express their views on social issues, since under CPC policy, they might be voting on these in the next session of parliament. I checked my local candidate's website. He mentions the fact that a CPC government will allow free votes several times, but he doesn't offer his own views on any of the controversial issues that he will ostensibly be voting on. MapleLeafWeb members - check your local candidate's website and tell us whether your CPC candidate says anything about social issues. St. Paul's CPC candidate Barry Cline -> nothing stated.

Seeing as how there might be free votes in the future, it's important for voters to find out how their local CPC candidates stand on the issues. My local conservative candidate is touting the fact that the CPC will be introducing more votes, yet he doesn't anywhere on his website indicate how he stands on issues that may come up for free vote... Sounds like an idea for a new thread...

Perhaps, but the poll numbers were there. It's hard to predict the future, as we all now know. Agreed.

Indeed. I have changed my position on at least three major issues thanks to forum discussions with those on the other side.

I stand corrected. But, really, t'was ever so. Those in power do not let go of what's important to them, and Harper will be no different in this regard.

As far as I can see "media bias" is subordinate to the prevailing winds of the day; if everyone thinks Martin is desperate, then he is desperate. Harper has done a magificent job, politically, so far. All that remains is for him to remain above the fray in the debates and he will be the next PM.

Well, people say stupid things when they're young and radical . Should they be held accountable for these statements ? Sure... Stockwell Day, Stephen Harper included.

I agree that Harper's view of federalism would do much to give Quebec (and all the provinces) the power it wants, and might help to keep it in Canada. But as much as people get upset about this kind of thing, I believe that a good economy staves off all of these questions indefinitely.

The more you post on these types of boards, the more you learn to respect other points of view. And I think this was what the founding fathers of modern democracy (Americans) intended when they set off on their bold experiment. As long as people post with the best intentions, their opinions are welcome with me.

I think that the law should provide some kind of protection against organized hate, because it's usually planned in more of a rational way unlike other crimes of passion and it puts specific people at risk. Some kind of extra penalty might be appropriate to discourage that kind of thing. But, I don't really agree with the specific hate laws that we currently have on the books...

The slide will only happen when the will of the people coincides with the will of the man who holds the power. Harper would have sent troops to Iraq against the will of the Canadian people. So what of that ?

Yes, things could get quite nasty. The Bloc, Libs and NDP might even gang up on the CPC ! After all, it's in all of their interests to make Conservatives the bogeymen in the blue suits. Not sure if it's good for the country, though. And I'm pretty sure it's bad for the democratic process. But then again, Harper's too smug and unflappable for his own good right now. He needs to be flapped a bit, and that might be fun to see.

Are you against constitutions in general, or just the content of ours ? Something tells me it's the latter. If our constitution didn't guarantee gay rights (as the justices have interpreted it, anyway), maybe you'd like it more. Not that scary, really. The same thing happens in the US, except the judges are conservative.

Hjalmar: We know that you support 90% tax rates (see earlier post in this thread) so your support for Layton is noted. But the idea of "peace through strength" can only happen if one has "strength". Unless Portugal gets pesky on us again, it's doubtful that these things will ever be an issue for Canada.

The advantage is being able to pass... let's say... unpalatable... legislation without having to take responsibility for it beforehand. This is what the other side calls "the hidden agenda". So Harper can say truthfully that his government will not pass abortion legislation in the first term, but he can also decide in the backrooms what his MPs will or will not be allowed to do, and he knows what is likely to pass, what is likely to fail, and what falls in between.