Kiraly

I have also heard that the average lifespan of a homosexual is considerably shorter than a heterosexual. However, if that is their lifestyle choice, so be it. I'm not too concerned if they pass on earlier than other segments of the population.

Harper will lock up the leadership of the party immediately following a televised leadership debate. I don't think Clement and Stronach have much of a chance against him in a verbal joust.

With respect to vote splitting, it is my undertsanding that the leadership will be decided by preferential ballot. Vote splitting will not as big an issue as it would using other methods.

New boy? Are you referring to Paul Martin as a new boy?

Easy to say, but besides Harper and those that have already ruled themselves out of running for the leadership, who is qualified to lead this party? Jim Prentice? Not a helluva lot of experience. I'm not sure he wouldn't be eatin alive in a federal election campaign. Tony Clement? Not very well known outside of Ontario, but that could change with a little money for promotion. Does he speak French? Does Prentice? The list is terribly short. The Conservatives go into the next election with very little time to prep and a green leader, the outcome may not be pretty.

I don't think so. Any remnant would affect the Liberals more than it would a Conservative party. I would guess that an overwhelming majority of people that would support a new "progressive" party would vote Liberal in the absence of such a party.

Anyone want to extoll the virtues of Bobby Rae.

I'm not entirely sure how the delegate process worked within the PCPC, but I don't believe the fact that Orchard had 25% of the delegates necessarily means he has the support of 25% of the membership. I thought Orchard's support came from weak PC areas in the west where you could recruit smaller numbers of members and secure a higher proportion of delegates. Can anyone clarify?

Between Harper and Harris, I would hope that Harper would prevail. Intellectually, Harper is far and away the best leader. I think an election campaign would be a great vehicle for him and the party to demonstrate this. Not many people have really heard him speak or read his speeches. The election campaign should change this. I think Paul Martin will come up short when he has to discuss policy face to face with Harper. Harris doesn't instill a lot of hope in me that he is up to the challenge. Some people may find Harris more personable at this time, but if he cannot handle the inevitable liberal/media onslaught than it doesn't really matter, does it?

Stephen Harper said this?

Just curious... ...what would you have had Harper do? Point 4 of the proposal negates the Alliance advantage of MPs in parliament by creating a governing body that has an equal number of representatives from both sides. Point 6 of the proposal negates the progressives clear disadvantage of its large debt as the new party would assume it. Seems like Harper gave up a lot already. What did Mackay offer?

Kinda looks like the boy scout Frasier (from the show Frasier) hired to renegotiate his contract. I hope for the sake of Ontarions that is where the similarity ends.

But there is another option.... ...somewhere up the middle. This process should have started a couple of years ago by agreeing to a non-aggression pact. The by-election in Ontario should have never been fought the way it had. Agreement should have been made to use their individual resources to attack the liberals and refrain from attacking each other. After awhile joint meetings could have been held to seek and develop common strategies in order to defeat the liberals. A coalition could have been created where both parties exist, but act cooperatively to their benefit. A number of methods could have then been used to avoid the vote splitting. I.e. Joint candidates in riding where a non conservative member sits, allocation of ridings based on some other type of criteria - region, membership numbers, etc... With six months to go, the risk of "looking silly once again" is far too great.

I doubt the liberals are shaking at all. Actually, they are probably enjoying this. Harper saying things are coming to a head and MacKay saying that they are not leaves the impression that these two parties are far from becoming a cohesive unit. I'm getting the impression that many members of the progressive camp are less than enthusiastic about merging the two parties. If the Alliance and the progressives were to somehow come together before the next election, the liberal campaign machine would be able to pick this new entity apart. Six months is simply not enough time to amalgamate the two parties, develop a single party platform, and prepare for what looks like an April election. The liberals are too savvy politically to be at all concerned with this.

Hmmmm..... ...I wonder... ...will the progressives admit they were full of crap for demonizing the Alliance? Seems like a remarkable about-face.

What do you mean? I was questioning whether this person seriously ran for office. With arguments like those presented today, I'd think that he/she would not last long in a political debate with other candidates.

You are not pickin' up what I'm puttin' down, are you? The bias is in the what and the how of what they are reporting Of all the things to report regarding the merger, the CBC opts to quote David Orchard. The first thing the reader hears about a potential merger is that it doomed to fail. This is a bias in what they are reporting. Not much of what is said deals with the potential merger. I haven't found any other articles about the subject. Although, I did see three of their political analyists on television also say that this could not possibly succeed. Secondly, the gay couple was not permitted to enter the U.S. without completing the forms required by U.S. Customs. They were asked to fill out the forms... ....they refused. They were not barred, they chose not to comply with the laws of the country. Again the reader reads the headline, and thinks that the U.S. didn't permit them into the country because they were a gay couple. This is misleading. Still don't see a problem? Are you kidding about Mulroney? I don't remember ever hearing of a right-wing bias when Mulroney was in power. I do remember the daily reporting of the Airbus scandal. I remember the relentless accusations of kickbacks, misappropriation of parliamentary budgets, government contracts and other favours to corporate supporters of the party, and a large number of patronage appointments. Much of this of course was very true, which is why I turned my attention to the then flegling Reform party. The media were so effective that the progressive went from government to two seats. However, what I've written above can also be attributed to the current federal liberal government. Their is no outcry. The left wing media spends more time criticising the official opposition or the American government then they do Chretien or Martin. If the media had used the same venomous zeal in attacking the liberals I doubt Cretien would have been prime minister for over ten years. ..but then they would be attacking their own.

Gugsy... ...I will not stop saying it because it could not be more true. The CBC is most definitely biased against more conservative elements. Just scan some of their headlines in the last few days. For instance, there is talk of a possible merger with the progressives and the Alliance. CBC headline: "Unite the Right Talks a Waste of Time". During the last election campaign, the CBC aired a half hour program dedicated to ridiculing Stockwell Day and his beliefs. The guest on this show concluded that someone who believed in such things would not be a wise choice to run the country. I don't remember seeing the leaders of the other parties having their belief systems analyzed on national television. Another example of shoddy Canadian reporting occurred yesterday. A gay couple was denied entry into the U.S. for refusing to fill out the proper paperwork as required by U.S. Customs. CBC Headline: Canadian gay couple barred from U.S. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/18/gay_customs030918 These are just a few of the many examples of left wing bias in our media. I am quite surprised that you would actually deny that it exists. Even among my liberal friends, they acknowledge at the very least that much of the media and the CBC in particular is sympathetic to the liberal ideology.

Understand this, Littlefinger. If you're not afraid now, you will be if the parties merge (and unfortunately, that's a big if.) I can see it right now. The party will immediately skyrocket in the polls to something we have not seen by any party but the Liberals in the past 10 years. Bay Street will send them hordes of money, they will have pre-election TV ads, fresh from a leadership race, excellent candidates in every riding, everything. The momentum would be there, Canadians would be excited about getting rid of the Liberals. There is nothing that can go wrong with this merger. If the two-parties merge, they will get the votes. And that will lead to a Conservative government, or at the very least, a Liberal minority. You are forgetting about one not-so-little thing... ...the media. The conservative message will first be filitered through the CBC, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, etc.. Even if a merger does come to fruition, it will be a serious uphill battle for any conservative party to form government against this foe. Liberals/socialists know they can afford to be smug as they control the important mediums of information. Although, they don't control the internet, Joe Lunchbox does not surf the net for political insight.

You're not serious are you?

It all depends on what your view of marriage is? Many people, myself included, view the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, husband and wife. No one supporting the traditional definition of marriage is denying a homosexual the right to enter into marriage with someone of the opposite sex. Thus, they have the same right as a heterosexual. They choose not to exercise this right. The Government has already passed legislation giving equal rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples. As far as I know, rules governing taxes, pensions, and welfare benefits apply to all common-law relationships, regardless of sexual orientation. So I don't accept your assertion that their human rights are being denied.

Springer... ...do we know yet if there were any Alliance abstentions? As far as I know, four progressives voted against the motion, but I don't know if any more abstained/didn't show up. I also believe that maybe three NDP-ers didn't vote. I guess we will know for sure in the next few days. This all has the makings for an interesting election campaign next spring, eh?

No he is not. He is a strong supporter of Jean Chretien.

The National Post may have been a right leaning news source at one time. That time ended when Asper took over and when people like Ken Whyte, David Frum, and Paul Wells left.

Not many people would deny that a liberal bias exists in the media. Seems that some of us have forgotten the last federal election campaign. http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp Although the link discusses Amercian politics, it applies to Canada as well, if not more so.