RT_1984

Lost in Manitoba: "Harper will not ever be the Prime Minister of Canada. Leader of the Opposition is all he will ever achieve in this this lifetime." - Wow, what a bold statement. If Harper is so mediocre, then how did he ever become entrusted with Canada's second largest political party in the first place. Or how did he lead the NCC constantly dealing with the media. I guess they chose him because there was nobody else around and he was just so mediocre and drab. What an absolute bunch of BS. Look at George W. Bush - became President of the US. Not exactly the most articulate and charismatic person on the face of the earth now is he. And no one cares about such things as good ol superficial America. I hope the doubters and underestimators are proven wrong.

Springer is absolutely right. I am so sick to DEATH of people saying we need a fresh face with no baggage. Harper has little baggage on the baggage scale from 1-10. Sure a comment here or there, but nothing more than anyone else (although lefties would nothing better than to convince people otherwise). He's billingual,a policy expert, has both a pc and alliance background. And seems to be the only one that can possibly distinguish the new party from the Paul Martin Liberals. We will not win on tax cuts alone. Social conservatism to a degree will have to be used. Face it, its one of the main reasons for the success of Reform in the first place. Manning knew the right degree to use as does Harper. Unfortunately, Stockwell Day didn't and it damaged our chances. Now under a new banner we'll have shed the alliance name. Perceptions are everything. People keep saying (and i'm seriously sick of this) that we need a party in the center. That's where Martin is. Why invent the wheel. Has Canadian politics been reduced to partisan bigotry. Besides, the center is only what the public decides it is. Most of the public are not ideological like we on this forum are. Do any of these idiot lefties really believe that people gave Mike Harris, two consecutive majority governments because they thought he was a right-wing, extremist, thug, chainsaw mike etc. Or Ralph Klein 3 terms. Give me a damn break. That's just the leftwing trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, and unfortunately people on this forum are willing to condescend and play their game. I for one, will not. What we want is a distinct, two party system like the dems and the republicans in the US. Harper is the only one to do this. Others either lack the skills, qualifications, or vision. No, he isn't Pierre Trudeau. Neither is Martin. But he could be Mackenzie King. Extremely patient and increasingly shrewd. Give the man some credit for the past two years after the Day debacle. No, he didn't manage to convince the rest of Canada to drop the PC's and adopt the Alliance, but that's only because of the visionless partisanship of the East, which will be remedied by the new party merger. Traditional Tory ridings in Atlantic Canada will remain tory any. These people don't care who the leader is (except for Mulroney of course but he was a special case), these people supported a washed up party of Joe Clark for God's sake. And PC organizers have the balls, to whine about Harper. Completely unqualified, absolute hollow partisanship which I would like nothing better than to see destroyed in this merger controversy.

I was wondering what everyone thought of the new defense minister David Pratt. Pratt has been a vocal critic of past defense policy and was actually a proponent of Canadian participation in the Iraq war. The National Post was quite positive about his appointment. Given Martin's recent funding increasing for the military while all other areas are frozen, what does this say for our new PM. Given recently that Martin is giving tax cuts, while freezing spending and canceling Chretien legacy projects, how will the new Conservative Party distinguish itself from the Liberals. Especially with someone like Bernard Lord.

Moderate Centrist: I never liked that name anyway. Too meek. But anyway, I think people are reacting emotionally and irrationally when they advocate torture as well. Just like much of the irrational anti-americanism which is vomited up by morons who would do anything but give an ounce of credit to the stewards of global capitalism. No, they're not perfect. But no country is. And if you want to see arrogance, go to Europe. Germany has often been regarded as arrogant and they're people also. Ever read anything on the tour de France and what Lance had to do when he first raced there? Italians are the best in the world but can't even win a damn championship because of their egos in a team situation. And I'm not even going to go into the history of European foreign policy. So if the people want to praise the EU and China for what they are definitely not then go ahead. But you'd better burn your history books too. Bottom line: if it wasn't for the US in WW2, we might be speaking German by now. If it wasn't for them in the Cold War we might be speaking Russian. And you and others can go on with all the anti-American crap you want, but its really just eurocentric jealousy, and it makes me sick. All countries have greedy people. Move on. Because we all know that when it comes down to a choice between Bush and Hussein, or the Republicans and the People's Republic, we're gonna choose the Red white and blue. And if anything happens to Canada, we won't be screaming to France for help. Now I know what you're gonna say. I just commented on the death penalty. But this is the underlying theme to so many conversations on this board. Global capitalism, vs. welfare liberalism, social democracy, and socialism. Its all the same. Bottom line: the countries with the highest standard of living and those with the least regulated economies and the same is seen provincially within Canada: Alberta, Ontario, BC with Newfoundland and PEI at the bottom. Long live global capitalism. I hope it swallows this whole country and world as it seems to be doing through globalization. And you know what? There's not a damn thing Naomi Klein can do about it.

The more competitive this race is, the better. Most of Lord's credentials are fueled by the media. Anyone Tory holding office is not different than a central Canadian Liberals. Look at the economics of the place. You don't get elected unless you're a champion of welfare, EI, Equalization etc. And Lord is no different. He may have made a few incremental changes but would do no more for Canada than Paul Martin. We must remember that people in the Maratimes generally vote for mostly partisan reasons. More so than the rest of the country. Lord has been a Tory since he was a boy. Big deal. Harper is a real conservative: fiscally. And he will be better able to balance the party rather than alienate either half. In the end, this is supposed to be all about ideas. NOt about just winning.

I think Saddam should be hung. The world is better off without him. He doesn't deserve 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep in. He deserves justice and the Iraqis deserve restitution. For those who will no doubt condemn me for injecting my right-wing socially conservative and relativist morals into justice then they should look in the mirror first. These same people never ever hesitate to inject their relativist morals into the economic matters of a market economy. What a bunch of blind hypocrits. The bottom line is that restitution is a part of society and it always will be. Humans are moral beings and we will always have morals. I don't think Saddam should be rehabilitated and nor do I think Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, Paul Bernardo, & company should either. I believe there is such a thing as true evil. It is clear, naked, intentional, prejudice and very specific. Sociologists will always come up with new theories to serve their politics (which they promote quite blatantly despite claiming to be unbias and objective). Let justice be done. There's nothing wrong with that.

I was wondering what people think should be done with Hussein after the debriefing. Some of the main options include: Iraqis trial under Iraqis law, US trial or international tribunal. And also, what sentence would you give him?

Anderson must fall in the next election. For the good of the country.

Harper doesn't have any significant baggage compared to MacKay. Prentice isn't qualified and could be the next Mulroney for all we know. He's never held office and is a good businessman. That sounds eerily familiar. He's also not as billingual as Harper. Harper is a fresh face. He's been leader for less than two years is only in his mid-forties, fluently billingual, has the support of most former Harris organisers, and will "accommodate" social conservatives. I am not a social conservative but I'm not stupid enough to think that the success of Reform and its core support and founding didn't have a strong element of that. almost 70% of Canadians are in favor of some restriction on abortion, while recently a new poll shows 71% of Canadians are against legalizing same-sex marriage while 1/3 would support using the nothwithstanding clause. Harper will also cream everyone in the debate with his expertise and broad knowledge. He will pick the best of social conservatism to attract Canadians and leave the rest with Mr. Day. That's what he's up to and its working. Given the statistics above, its absolutely insane that a major political party wouldn't take at least some advantage of that kind of atmosphere. Again, the CBC and lefty Canadian media doesn't have a monopoly on Canadian opinion. Look how far CA has come in ten years with our dismal press coverage. The unite Right, will give us more come election time and they will be forced to reckon with us. As Harper as previously said that if this party is all about tax cuts then it runs the risk of being indistinguishable from the Paul Martin Liberals in the next election. One thing is for sure: I really can't wait for the party when it does eventually take power, to privatize that entire bloody CBC. It has never reflected Canada and it never will. To think I pay for shows I don't watch like "Undercurrents" and "Made in Canada" gives me the creeps. Imagine the amount of government funded NGO's and outside political organizations and left-wing causes that would be systematically cut off from the purse strings if an concise Harper government got in which truly had broad intentions. In conclusion, Prentice, MacKay & company, are revisionist incrementalists. Harper is a revolutionary and would be the next Thatcher. Since I am not a partisan bigot, I would seriously consider joining the Liberals or an NGO if Prentice or another directionless leader were elected.

Harper is not a fanatic. Prentice is no different than a liberal. Tax cuts won't cut it against Martin. Period. We aren't going to win many city ridings anyway so lets win as many rural ones as we can. This doesn't be theocracy but Harper would be the right mix. Prentice says there will be a place for socons but he has never elaborated. Furthermore, a prominent Calgarian who never went Reform/Alliance after 1993 should be viewed with scepticism. (except for Brian Pallister of course)

It's a shame that Brison defected since he could have joined Keith Martin, Rahim Jaffer and other social moderates in the party. Brison had a lot of great ideas about how to stem wasteful regional subisidies in Atlantic Canada which was a refreshing change for that area of the country. Unfortunately as Mark Milke predicted, he will now have to learn to "bleat like the rest of the lambs" in the antidemocratic, elitist Liberal party. I usually deplore heedless partisanship, but in this case it will punish Brison when he gets kicked out. He probably took the risk in exchange for a junior cabinet position in time for Martin's cabinet announcement on Friday. I always disliked Brison's contradictory, conditional and hypocritical approach to the merger. His stance was that he would never serve under a party led by a former CA MP (since he knows MacKay is toast in a leadership and Prentice is unknown that amounts to saying: "choose me as leader or I'm leaving the party.") I think that you should be either helping to construct this new merged party or get out where you belong. We have our differences but we should settle them in private. MacKay and Prentice know this. He was also very unhelpful during the Larry Spencer debacle (he was more critical than the Liberals and Paul Martin) rather than trying to diffuse the situation in a more concilatory tone like MacKay and Prentice. In the end, I think this is a purification process where the political realignment is the key, in the face of a cynical public who can't see any significance differene between the parties (and would go with Martin because he's a good brandname). Brison and lefties like Clark never ever belonged and were only members because of blatant, substanceless partisanship which is the true source of cyncism for Canadian politics which must be reduced. Reducing partisanship was one of the main themes of reform and now we are coming full circle. The PC's are now realizing that the reform market fundamentalism echoed by the Thatcher/Reagan Revolution in the future for conservativism, and now preach it in every successful provincial government. Now we need a federal party that does the same. Mulroney Keynesians and Stanfield/Diefenbaker organic conservatism (social democracy) is already taken and is not our goal. Long live the Alliance. Harper is the one option for true change in a revolutionary way rather than watered back incrementalist self-proclaimed conservatives. Because in the end, I simply cannot find any compelling reasons to campaign for the CPC in the next election touting anyone like Prentice or MacKay is being significantly different and better than Paul Martin.

An interesting CTV poll done today: If you were to vote today, which party would you pick: Liberals 28 % Canadian Alliance 7 % Progressive Conservatives 6 % Conservative Party of Canada 48 % New Democratic Party 10 % Bloc Quebecois 1 %

I think that Harper will win (and I will be ardently supporting him). He'll be able to hold a coalition of fiscal and social conservatives and moderates together the best. He's also a real strategic thinker and will use each side to maximize electoral gain as opposed to his own personal beliefs and that of some MP's. Following his history as a Reform MP, and NCC President, I think he's also the most conservative of the lot and the one capable of distinguishing the party from the Paul Martin Liberals who (whether we agree with) are seen as fiscally conservative, careful and responsible). Therefore we must in addition to electoral reform and fiscal issues find a cautious but distinct way of setting ourselves apart. We will not win votes in impovershed rural ridings by promising tax cuts. Therefore, an emphasis on Harper-careful social conservatism is needed in these areas. One of the reasons why people complain about parties are they think they're all the same. Shouldn't this say something. I also predict that we'll get about 100 seats in the next election, form a stronger opposition with more resources, and support and have a great chance at forming government in 2008. But for confidence, and strategic purposes we should always be striving to win in the present.

If Williams creates public auto insurance then he is a fool (highly probably - since he only got one MHA from Labrador and didn't even give him a cabinet seat). They must severely limit claims and introduce no-fault insurance. If anyone has studied the N.L economy and the Atlantic Canadian government in general then it should be obvious that much less govt. intervention is needed, not more.

The riding of Victoria B.C. (the Orchardist stronghold in BC, voted every delegate in favor of the merger). Orchard's own sister lost her delegate nomination in Saskatchewan). The time has come.

SirRiff, Harper immediately fired Spencer from his portfolio and caucus. I don't think this will hurt the merger with a party who touts Elsie Wayne as a senior MP. Give me a break. And you're right: you haven't been following the merger. That's been quite clear from the offset of any of your comments and discussion.

Despite overall crime dropping in Canada, organized crime is booming in Canada. This crime is arguably the most serious since the criminal organizations have extensive resources, collaborative networks, and the capacity to bribe public officials. Accusations that the Canadian Alliance is unjustified in its concern on crime often leave out these facts. And despite what many liberal-thinking people may argue, restitution is still a very significant aspect of our justice system and the public demands it. People find that if criminals are punished then it provides a greater sense of closure for the victims and their families.

For all you unapologetic Liberals out there, take a look at this absolute dismissal of the West once again. Difference under Martin? Think again. Its the same old song. 333,000 Votes for Bert Brown is “Provincial Patronage”?? FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 20, 2003 Martin’s Western deputy dismisses Alberta Senate Election OTTAWA - It’s been five long years of waiting for Bert Brown, who was elected by Albertans in 1998 with nearly 333,000 votes to represent the province in the Senate. But Paul Martin’s Western Canadian talking head, Ralph Goodale, made it clear yesterday that Bert Brown will be waiting a lot longer with Martin at the helm. Goodale was asked yesterday if he expects Martin to appoint either Bert Brown or Ted Morton, the second-place finisher in 1998. It’s a good question, given that one Alberta Senate seat sits empty today, and another is opening in the New Year. Goodale’s response? “On the question of provincial versus federal appointments, I’m not sure the situation is dramatically improved by replacing federal patronage with provincial patronage.” Excuse us, Mr. Goodale, but Bert Brown’s 333,000 votes are not “provincial patronage”. Ted Morton’s 274,000 votes aren’t either. They are democratic mandates from the people. They are, in fact, bigger democratic mandates than your entire party received in Alberta in the 2000 election, when the Liberals garnered only 263,000 votes for all its candidates combined. Would Mr. Martin hesitate to appoint an elected Alberta Senator if that person had run under the Liberal banner? Would that democratic mandate be so cavalierly dismissed as “provincial patronage”? For decades, the Liberal Party has been dismissing real Senate reform as too complicated. It didn’t matter who the leader was - Trudeau, Turner, Chrétien - none were interested in making the Senate more representative of Canada’s regions, more effective, and most importantly, more democratic. It looks like Martin’s joining the club. -30-

No wars are always fought completely for the right reason. Oil was definitely a major motivating factor. But the war in Iraq is over. Move the F*ck on. What is occurring now is an attempt to reconstruct Iraq while below it is demonstrated that Canada has been an indirect participant. A war protest is fine, but what are these people protesting now? Reconstruction? The truth is that these people are more concerned with seeing Bush embarressed and his process of reconstruction a failure, than they are concerned for the well-being of Iraqis. They have now sunk to the level that they criticised the Americans for sinking to. The truth is what they dislike is global capitalism in general. Bush and the U.S. are their objects and symbols of fury. What they want is for socialism, social democracy and welfare liberalism to riegn the world. They have become their own enemy. Their motivations are economic and political. Canada could be next terror target, report says Canadian Press OTTAWA — Attacks like the bombing of the British consulate in Istanbul on Thursday could take place in Canada as terrorists target coalition partners in the war on Iraq, an RCMP intelligence report suggests. The newly released assessment of extremist threats warns that although Canada is not a member of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, terrorists might strike at participants with assets on Canadian soil - an obvious reference to embassies and consulates. The war in Iraq is "likely to result in retaliatory terrorist attacks against the coalition countries and their interests," the RCMP report says. "Coalition interests in Canada could (therefore) be at risk of attack." A copy of the April report, Strategic Assessment of the Nature and Extent of Criminal Extremism / Terrorism in Canada, was obtained Thursday by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. The document examines the terrorist organizations and other extremists that most preoccupied the Mounties in 2002, particularly Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, militant Muslim sect Jamaat ul Fuqra, and Lebanese group Hezbollah, which aims to destroy Israel and liberate all Palestinian territories. The report's disclosure follows the explosion of suicide truck bombs in Turkey that killed more than two dozen people at the British consulate and a London-based bank - attacks some were quick to blame on al-Qaida. Although there is a "great ideological divide" between al-Qaida and the now-deposed secular regime of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, "Islamic extremists apparently perceive the war in Iraq as part of the larger conflict between the West and the Muslim world," the RCMP says. "Iraq's support of the Palestinians could also provide the basis for anti-Western attacks by Islamic and secular Palestinian terrorists." The report also reiterates RCMP warnings that Canada's role in ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan and subsequent peacekeeping efforts could provoke a backlash from extremists. "The Taliban and its allied terrorist and guerrilla factions are regrouping and escalating (their) efforts against the new Afghani government and its foreign supporters." The Mounties note the "Canadian contribution to the peacekeeping force in Afghanistan can be expected to provoke violence against Canadians in Afghanistan, and possible attacks in Canada." The latest evidence of such retaliatory plots came this week with the discovery of rockets aimed at Canadian troops in Kabul. Moral blindness blights anti-Bush protesters By MARCUS GEE Friday, November 21, 2003 - Page A17 E-mail this Article Print this Article Advertisement The smoke was still rising from two bombing attacks in Istanbul yesterday when tens of thousands of anti-war protesters took to the streets of London. As dazed, bleeding Turks stumbled away from the wreckage, the protesters waved placards and chanted slogans about terrorism. But don't get them wrong. The protesters didn't come to denounce the killers of Istanbul. That's not the war they're worried about. No, they came to denounce the man whose country is leading the counterattack, the world's "number one terrorist," U.S. President George W. Bush. Have these people no shame? Have they lost all sense of right and wrong? Holding an anti-war march now is like protesting the fight against Nazism at the height of the Blitz. The world is at war, and the enemy is just as ruthless. In the past few weeks, we have seen attacks on synagogues in Turkey, expatriate families in Saudi Arabia, Italian police in Iraq -- even the International Red Cross in Iraq. Scores of innocent people have been killed and maimed: women and children, young and old, Muslims and Jews. No one knows who will be next. Yet, none of this seems to have made the slightest impression on the anti-war crowd. There were no mass marches against anti-Semitic violence when the synagogue bombs went off. No crowds gathered to condemn the murder of the poor Italians, who are in Iraq solely to help Iraqis put their country back together. Instead, the protesters direct their anger exclusively at the "imperialist," "colonialist," "militaristic" Americans and their British allies in the war on terrorism. "Blair, Bush: Butchers," said a typical placard at yesterday's march. This sort of thing has become so common since Sept. 11, 2001, that we have almost lost sight of how perverse it is. Whatever anyone may think of the United States, its war on Iraq, or its prison in Guantanamo Bay, to equate George Bush with the killers of Istanbul is to demonstrate the worst kind of moral blindness. You need to be blind not to see which side is the right one in this struggle. On one side, stand the United States and its fellow democracies, with all their faults. On the other, stands al-Qaeda, a fanatical terrorist movement that would deliver the Middle East to a medieval form of Islamic rule. It is a woman-hating movement that treats women as chattel. It is an anti-Semitic movement that would "cleanse" the region of Jews. It is a homophobic movement that considers homosexuality a capital crime. It is an anti-democratic movement that would rule through the word of the Koran and never hold a vote. In short, it is a movement that would wipe out everything London's protesters hold dear. Many feminists marched through London's streets yesterday. Their blindness is so deep that they marched against the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a movement that forbade women to work, and girls to go to school. Many environmentalists marched, too. Their blindness is so deep that they opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, a man who drained the fertile marshes of southern Iraq to drive out the Marsh Arabs, and who fouled the Persian Gulf with oil in the 1991 gulf war. Human-rights activists were out by the thousands yesterday. What do they have so say about the hundreds of mass graves uncovered in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion, each filled with the remains of Mr. Hussein's victims -- perhaps 300,000 of them in all? This is what they have to say: "Stop Bush." That was the vapid slogan of yesterday's march. Stop him from doing what? If the anti-war crowd had stopped Mr. Bush from going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the Taliban would still be in power and women would still be walled up in their homes. If the anti-war movement had stopped him from invading Iraq, the Hussein regime would still be in power and the mass graves would still be filling up with corpses. Mr. Bush didn't listen, thank goodness, and both the Taliban and the Hussein regime are gone as a result. So now, the protesters want to "Stop Bush" from occupying Iraq. We all know what the result of that would be. If the Americans leave Iraq now, while they are under attack and Iraqis are still preparing for self-rule, the bombers and the insurgents will claim a victory that would inspire terrorists the world over. Iraq itself would fall into chaos, causing misery for its people and endless trouble for its neighbours. Is this what the protesters want? Yesterday was Nov. 20, 2003. Remember it. On that day, terrorists in Istanbul killed at least 27 people and injured more than 400. On that same day, tens of thousands of cheerful protesters marched through the streets of London calling "Stop Bush." Have they no shame? [email protected] E-mail this Article Print this Article

An interesting article today in the Globe and Mail which strikes a blow to the anti-american emotionalism rampant in Canada and Europe. But Iraqis liked the war By MARGARET WENTE Thursday, November 20, 2003 - Page A23 E-mail this Article Print this Article Advertisement Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, isn't a big fan of George W. Bush. He once called President Bush the "greatest threat to life on this planet we've probably ever seen." That pretty well reflects the view of the 100,000 protesters expected to turn out on London's streets today. Glenda Jackson, the actress-turned-MP, endorses them, as does Kate Allen, the U.K. director of Amnesty International. "You don't win the hearts and minds of the doubters and the disaffected by riding roughshod over human rights," she declared. England's protesters (along with more Canadians than I can count) believe that the war and the occupation of Iraq are a violent attack upon its citizens. A letter published in The Globe and Mail this week referred to "the terrible suffering this war has inflicted on the Iraqi people." There's just one problem. Most Iraqis think the war was a good thing. A sizable majority of Baghdadis -- 62 per cent, according to a recent Gallup poll -- says the ouster of Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships. Two-thirds say they believe Iraq will be better off five years from now than it was under Saddam. Whenever I tell my friends about these polls, I get looks of amazed surprise. The impression they've gotten from the news is that most Iraqis hate the Americans and want them out now. And whenever I write about what Iraqis think, dozens of people write me to tell me I'm wrong -- the polls are lying, the results are distorted, and the frightened Iraqis will never tell foreigners what they really think. Actually, Iraqis are so eager to tell you what they think that it's hard to shut them up. When Gallup took its poll, its standard 15-minute interviews stretched to 70. The subjects insisted on inviting the pollsters home for glasses of sweet tea and a piece of their minds. There are plenty of demonstrators in Iraq, too. Only there, they're demonstrating against the terrorists. In Nasiriyah last week, hundreds of students took to the streets to protest the terrorist bombing of Italian soldiers and Iraqi civilians. They carried signs saying "No to terrorism. Yes to freedom and peace," and "This cowardly act will unify us." One man who wrote me said he doesn't give a damn what Iraqi people think; he hates Mr. Bush anyway. This, at least, is refreshingly honest. Here, protesters pretend to care about Iraqis, but really don't. That's because for them it's not about Iraq at all. It's about the warmonger Bush, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the lapdog of the imperialists, etc. I was amazed to discover how many Canadians share these reflexes. Now I'm just depressed. (Note to angry readers: Please don't write and tell me to go home. I am home.) Bad news in Iraq is good news to them, and vice versa. Tell them most Iraqis are profoundly glad Saddam's gone and they'll accuse you of being an apologist for Washington. You can't shake these fantasists with puny facts. But at least someone is trying. William Schultz, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, also has doubts about the London protesters, and thinks it's time for them to confront terror with the same zeal they muster up for Mr. Bush. "There's been a failure to give the necessary attention, analysis and strategizing to the effort to counter terrorism," he said in an interview with Salon. "This is a serious problem." In a new book (Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights), he makes the obvious but novel point that terrorists are human-rights violators, too. Rising global terrorism requires the left "to rethink some of our most basic assumptions." Maybe there are times when force is needed to protect human rights. Maybe, he ventures, there are even times when an occupation is justified to promote stability and peace. Not that I hold out hope this message will catch on. I recently had the dreary experience of sitting through an address by the head of Human Rights Watch at the Canadian Club. Naturally, he spent the entire time denouncing the Americans. The audience vigorously applauded. Why? Because the real subject of the speech was not human rights at all. It was how dreadful they are. We eat this stuff up, and never tire of it, because it pleasantly affirms our own superiority. "Today, anti-Americanism is the closest we come to a common ideology," write two Norwegian journalists in a new book, The Fear of America. They're talking about Europe, but it might as well be us. "Our prejudices against Americans are much greater than against both Muslims and Africans," they argue. "By speaking negatively about them, we elevate ourselves. It confirms that we are the opposite. Europeans have refinement, culture, and intellectual life. To think this way elevates our self-image." In London, the graffiti read: "No blood for oil!" Baghdad's read: "Down Saddam the infidel and long live Bush the believer! " But don't bother telling Glenda Jackson. She doesn't think it's relevant. [email protected] E-mail this Article

The Time for a United Conservative Party is Now Hon. Senator Consiglio Di Nino Hon. Senator J. Trevor Eyton Hon. Senator Pierre Claude Nolin Hon. Senator Brenda Robertson Hon. Senator Terry Stratton Wednesday, November 5, 2003 (Ottawa) - Over recent weeks, we have heard from a number of high profile opponents to the creation of a united Conservative Party. We respect the differing opinions within our Party but on this matter we must vigorously disagree. The time for a united Conservative Party is now. Some opponents have questioned the process for ratification. These criticisms should be laid to rest. Our management committee has instituted a system that ensures equality of ridings. One region with a strong membership base cannot control the vote. It is a fair and equitable way to build the new Conservative Party. The history of our Party is one of coalition building and honourable compromise. In a real sense that is what all successful political parties are. Today, our opponents in the Liberal Party are truly the most divided Party in the country. But they understand the fundamental importance of maintaining a strong, workable coalition. That is what Canadians expect of us as well. Canadians disapprove of the split in the Conservative movement. They believe it demonstrates a lack of the reasonableness, flexibility and willingness to compromise that they look for in their government. Our division has diminished the stature of our leaders on the Canadian stage. It has ensured that our policy ideas, no matter how worthy, do not receive serious consideration from either the voters or the media given their conviction that none of these ideas could ever become policy anyway - a circular, self fulfilling prophecy. It has been said that those expecting moderate policy in the new Conservative Party are "dreaming in Technicolor." This is absolutely mistaken. First, not all policies of the Canadian Alliance should be dismissed out of hand. There is much we can learn from each other. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it should be remembered that there is a natural movement in politics towards the median voter. This will happen in the Conservative Party. In fact, the movement from Reform party to Canadian Alliance to Conservative Party is indicative of the pull of the median voter. Large numbers of non-ideological, moderate Tories went to the Canadian Alliance after it's creation because of their hunger for a single conservative alternative and our apparent unwillingness to become involved in such a process. An examination of our party platforms in the last election shows clearly that far more unites the two parties than divides us. The agreement in principle reflects this. It is not full of empty platitudes, as has been suggested. It adopts principles very similar to our own - most taken almost verbatim from our own constitution. It offers Canadians a principled, pragmatic and moderate vision of our country. Once our membership rolls are rejuvenated by moderate conservatives across the country and undecided voters disappointed with the status quo, the moderating of more extreme positions will be a matter of simple math and political necessity. Finally, it has been suggested that this new Conservative Party will be unpalatable to Canadian voters. We do not accept this. The Conservative Party of Canada will showcase the very best of both parties. We believe Canadians will take an honest look at this new Conservative Party and offer their strong support. The agreement reunites the conservative family, it contains the best principles and elements of both parties, it will attract a larger number of qualified candidates for parliament, and in addition, simply coming together in this way demonstrates the type of principled maturity Canadians expect in those seeking to govern. However, even if we did accept that argument, the concern it raises is one of electoral success. If that is the concern, certainly the status quo is no answer. Those who believe electoral success will come to us eventually, through stubbornness and attrition, are those that wish to see a Canada with unaccountable one party rule for years to come. We strongly support the agreement in principle signed by Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper. We applaud both Peter and Stephen for their determination to do the right thing for Canada. We congratulate the emissaries of both parties the hard work that went in to making this happen. We believe that this agreement should be ratified. The time is right and the conditions are right. We urge all members of our Party to unanimously and vocally endorse the creation of the Conservative Party of Canada. Ultimately, the Conservative Party of Canada will be what we make it. There will be many opportunities to debate and discuss policy. We need to be there in numbers to take part in those discussions. Only through that process can we create a platform made up of the policies that will best improve the lives of all Canadians. We ask you to join us and the vast majority of our national caucus in this effort to create a stronger Party and a stronger Country. We are excited for the future. For further information: Senator Consiglio Di Nino 613-943-1454 Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin 613-943-1451 *********************************************** Le temps est venu d'unir le Parti conservateur L'hon. sénateur Consiglio Di Nino L'hon. sénateur J. Trevor Eyton L'hon. sénateur Pierre Claude Nolin L'hon. sénatrice Brenda Robertson L'hon. sénateur Terry Stratton Le mercredi, 5 novembre, 2003 (Ottawa) - Au cours des dernières semaines, plusieurs personnes bien connues ont manifesté leur opposition à l'égard de l'établissement d'un Parti conservateur unifié. Nous respectons la présence d'opinions divergentes au sein de notre Parti mais sur cette question, nous sommes tout à fait en désaccord. Le temps est venu d'unir le Parti conservateur. Certains opposants contestent la validité du processus de ratification. Or, rétablissons les faits. Notre Comité de gestion a institué un système qui assure la représentation égale des circonscriptions de manière qu'une région comptant beaucoup de membres ne peut déterminer l'issue du vote. C'est un mécanisme juste et équitable pour construire le nouveau Parti conservateur. L'histoire de notre Parti est marquée par la création de coalitions, sous le signe du compromis honorable. En fait, ce sont là les qualités de tous les grands partis politiques. Aujourd'hui, nos adversaires au Parti libéral représentent sans aucun doute le parti le plus divisé au pays. Mais les Libéraux connaissent l'importance fondamentale de préserver une coalition forte, efficace. Les Canadiens et les Canadiennes s'attendent à ce que nous puissions faire de même. Les citoyens canadiens désapprouvent la division dans la famille conservatrice. Ils y voient un éloignement par rapport au caractère raisonnable, à la flexibilité et à la volonté de compromis qu'ils recherchent chez leurs gouvernements. Notre division a diminué l'envergure de nos chefs sur la scène canadienne. À cause d'elle, nos propositions de politique, aussi brillantes soient-elles, n'obtiennent l'attention ni des électeurs ni des médias, les uns et les autres étant persuadés qu'aucune de nos propositions n'est susceptible de se concrétiser; un bel exemple de l'effet Pygmalion. D'aucuns ont déclaré que ceux qui espèrent du nouveau Parti conservateur des politiques modérées « rêvent en couleurs ». Rien n'est plus faux. Premièrement, il ne faut pas d'emblée écarter toutes les politiques de l'Alliance canadienne. Nos deux partis ont beaucoup à apprendre l'un de l'autre. Deuxièmement, et cet aspect est peut-être plus important, il faut se rappeler qu'il y a en politique un mouvement naturel vers le votant médian. Le Parti conservateur n'y échappera pas. En fait, le mouvement qui s'est produit à partir du Parti réformiste vers l'Alliance canadienne puis vers le Parti conservateur illustre bien la force du votant médian. De nombreux Conservateurs modérés, ordinaires, se sont joints à l'Alliance canadienne après sa création parce qu'ils recherchaient une solution de rechange conservatrice et que nous n'étions manifestement pas intéressés à participer à un tel projet. L'étude des programmes politiques que nous avons proposés au cours de la dernière élection démontre clairement que nous présentons davantage de points en commun que de points de désaccord. L'Entente de principe tient compte de tout cela. Elle n'est pas que platitude, comme l'ont prétendu certains. Elle s'appuie sur des principes très semblables aux nôtres, tirés presque mot pour mot de notre propre constitution. Elle offre aux Canadiens et aux Canadiennes une vision pour notre pays conforme à ces principes, pragmatique et modérée. Lorsque notre membership se sera enrichi des nouvelles adhésions des conservateurs modérés partout au Canada et des électeurs indécis qui sont déçus du statu quo, les positions les plus extrêmes subiront l'effet de la modération; c'est une question de simples calculs et de nécessité politique. Enfin, on a entendu dire que les électeurs canadiens accepteront difficilement le nouveau Parti conservateur. Nous ne sommes pas d'accord. Le Parti conservateur du Canada sera établi à partir de ce qu'il y a de mieux chez les deux partis. Nous croyons que les Canadiens et les Canadiennes seront honnêtes dans leur évaluation du nouveau Parti conservateur et lui accorderont leur ferme soutien. L'entente réunit la famille conservatrice. Elle contient les meilleurs principes et les meilleurs éléments des deux partis et attirera de nombreux candidats compétents pour se faire élire au Parlement. De plus, la réunion préconisée dans l'entente donne un exemple de la maturité souhaitée par les citoyens canadiens chez ceux qui se disent aptes à gouverner. Cependant, cet argument, même si nous l'acceptions, traduit la crainte de ne pouvoir remporter les élections. Or, si c'est la défaite électorale que certains craignent, ce n'est certainement pas le statu quo qui viendra régler quoi que ce soit. Ceux qui croient que nous finirons par marquer des gains électoraux, en raison de notre entêtement et à force de grignoter des appuis, sont ceux qui souhaitent qu'un seul parti règne en maître sur le Canada pendant des années, sans avoir de comptes à rendre à personne. Nous appuyons fortement l'Entente de principe signée par Peter MacKay et Stephen Harper. Nous félicitons Peter et Stephen pour leur détermination à faire ce qu'il faut pour le Canada. Nous félicitons également les émissaires des deux partis pour leur excellent travail. Nous croyons que la ratification de l'entente s'impose. Le moment et les conditions sont bien choisis. Nous exhortons tous les membres de notre Parti à appuyer unanimement et d'une voix forte l'établissement du Parti conservateur du Canada. En fin de compte, nous serons les artisans du Parti conservateur du Canada. Nous aurons maintes occasions de débattre et de discuter des politiques. Il nous faut être nombreux à prendre part à ces discussions. C'est la seule façon de nous donner une plate-forme contenant les politiques qui seront les plus susceptibles d'améliorer la vie de tous les Canadiens et les Canadiennes. Nous vous invitons à vous joindre à nous et à la grande majorité de notre Caucus national dans ce projet d'établissement d'un Parti plus fort et d'un Canada plus fort. Nous sommes enthousiastes devant l'avenir. Renseignements : Sénateur Consiglio Di Nino 613-943-1454 Sénateur Pierre-Claude Nolin 613-943-1451

I think we should try to get as many credible candidates in this race as possible for it to be competitive to the benefits of Canadians. Jim Prentice, Scott Brison, Peter MacKay, Ken Dryden, Tony Clement etc. And then I think in March we should elect Stephen Harper for obvious reasons that has been illustrated in this speech, performance in parliament, bringing the alliance back from the brink without alienating anyone, and helping to bring about this merger. Norman Spector of the Times Colonist today in an article met Harper again during a Victoria Remembrance Day event, said "he knows he at least as brighter or brighter than Martin and definitely quicker on his feet." It's significant to note that this was the Times Colonist. GO HARPER GO

Never take freedom for granted. Support a strong Canadian Military.

The "I am Conservative" Event Building on the momentum of our last successful event, you are cordially invited to Victoria's second PC/CA Meet and Greet! When: Thursday, November 13, 2003 at 5:30pm Where: Canoe Club, 450 Swift Street (near Chinatown, Fisgard at Store) What: Free appetizers! Cash bar! Tired of being just a "small-c" conservative? With your help, Canada will soon have a "capital-c" Conservative government! Come be a party to the Party at a party! This event will show that Greater Victoria and British Columbia are firmly in favour of the merger! The last event packed the trendy Swan's Hotel Penthouse! Over 60 people attended, and money was raised for the new party! Even the local media loved it! Please invite all Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative members, friends, colleagues, neighbours and anyone else who is enthusiastic about the new Conservative Party of Canada! Please RSVP to [email protected] or 250-598-8826 -- we need to make sure the venue has an idea of how many people to expect. See you there!

I hate the NDP. They're a bunch of spineless, anti-american, anti-capitalist, anti-justice, and llets admit it: when it comes down to it: Anti-GDP peaceniks. I was sickened by Bill Blakie's response to the Block MP's (I'm not a Canadian but Canadian enough to collect salary and pension stance) which was that they should be able to call themselves what they want. What a shameful lack of pride in one's nation. That's the kind of philosopy that says: Abuse me. Infact, I almost hate them as much as the Liberals. Crackerjack probably won't even get his seat if he's going against the guy who brought the Stones and ACDC to Toronto.