maldon_road

Imagine youse guys with a Parliamentary system? Bush getting up every day in Question Period to justify his actions and being subject to non-confidence votes leading to elections. Tony Blair went though all that.

Meaning the Liberals? You are probably right. The Libs will fight tooth and nail to not have to expose Dion to an election campaign. At times Dion is unintelligible in English. Imagine him against Harper in a debate.

The Libs have in Dion a nice, pleasant, intelligent fellow who is a disaster as a leader and, no matter how you slice it, that won't change. There is no way they will let the government fall; they need some breathing space to figure how to minimize the damage of having a non-leader. I expect they will adopt the "PQ maneuver" and not show up to vote as the PQ did during the vote on the Quebec budget. This will translate into some very poisonous situations in Committees.

In fact it was almost warfare. And I don't things will be any different come the week after next.

The bulk of the money, according to news reports, is to be directed to assisting addicts. So what will the the Libs and New Dems argue? That we should spend it all on this and nothing at all going after drug dealers?

How do you ram through legislation in a minority Parliament? If the legislation is as "un-Canadian" as you suggest won't the Opposition have an obligation to defeat it? If Harper threatens an election that will be a test for the other parties' testes.

I thought nurses and doctors already boycotted executions?

Ya gotta love it. Decision making time for the Libs. They stand on "principle" (such as they have in the Liberal Party) and force an election which they can only lose or hold their nose, allow the Speech from the Throne to pass, and look like fools.

Greens have religion. That's why they advertise the brand. Won't translate into any seats though.

Stop it? Since when do we stop refugees?

Tory won't win the Ontario election and Dion won't win the next federal election.

And neither is it Canada's job to stop Canadian marijuana from getting into the US or the US's job to stop American guns coming into Canada.

Here too if you make a speech "that is not Muslim friendly" you will be accused of being intolerant.

It has always been my belief that for the big mass in the middle, there is compromise; but the debate is being led by the extremists.

Should 6% guarantee you a seat? That's what the Greens are polling in Ontario right now and they will get nada seats.

Democrats Seriously Court Evangelicals ...For the Democrats, it's a change in tactics as well—an audacious, if not quixotic, effort to win over a constituency that has been solidly Republican for a quarter century. Dean and other Democratic strategists hope to take advantage of deepening discontent with the GOP among some evangelicals. As a movement, conservative Christians have yet to get fired up about any of the leading Republican presidential candidates. There was a brief wave of enthusiasm for Fred Thompson, but that may be ebbing. One of the nation's most influential evangelicals, James Dobson, wrote a scathing e-mail about Thompson, obtained by the Associated Press last week, in which he objected to the candidate's opposition to a constitutional marriage amendment and said Thompson had "no passion, no zeal." Meanwhile, Mitt Romney suffers among some evangelicals because of bias against his Mormon faith. Front runner Rudy Giuliani leaves conservative Christians particularly cold. "If the Republicans are foolish enough to nominate the pro-choice Giuliani, that will give the Democratic Party license to hunt for evangelical votes," says Land, who has been contacted by both the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns. "I don't know how successful they'll be, but at least they'll have that license." No one expects miracles, of course. Conservative Christians started shifting to the Republicans as the "party of values" in 1979, when Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority. They were the most important bloc of voters in George W. Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004. But the movement is not as cohesive as it once was. Many younger evangelicals are worried about issues beyond the traditional struggles over abortion, school prayer and gay marriage. They're becoming vocal about the environment, AIDS, poverty and genocide—a newer set of "values" that Democrats are more comfortable addressing... For now, the Democrats' best target may be Hispanics, the fastest-growing subset of evangelicals. They voted strongly in support of Bush in 2004, but many are now angered by the GOP's handling of immigration. "All of a sudden we're a security problem? We're the drug dealers who are destroying the nation?" says Luis Cortés, president of the Esperanza USA network of 10,000 evangelical churches.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920353/site/newsweek/

I would vote for another system if it entailed voting for candidates not parties. Such as STV. I hope it fails and Ontario can come up with a better alternative.

Pro-family group quits gay marriage fight Wants better breaks for child-rearers The head of a national pro-family organization says it's time to ditch the fight against gay marriage and push instead for tax breaks and other incentives to make marriage and child rearing more attractive options. Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, said yesterday he has become less concerned about same-sex marriage since census figures released earlier this month demonstrated how rare gay marriage is. The census, which counted same-sex marriages for the first time, reported 7,465 such unions, accounting for about 0.1 per cent of the 6.1 million married couples in Canada. Quist said the "incredibly low" number of same-sex marriages, combined with a lack of "political will" to restore the traditional definition of marriage, has persuaded him to move on. A possible federal election in the coming months will not change the picture, he predicted.... . . . ...But Quist said the institute is more concerned about the increasing popularity of common-law relationships in Canada, and that it would rather spend its time and resources encouraging measures to strengthen the institutions of marriage and family. He said a first priority should be to change the tax rules so only married couples - not those living common law - are allowed to split their incomes, thereby reducing their tax hit. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...ca-c86a2b4bfa37

The only chance that the Greens have of winning a seat is if and when we introduce PR at the federal level.

No problem with that of course. But we can't have all registered parties involved in a debate. There are far too many of them. I think it's fair that only those that have been able to elect MPs should be involved. Even though global warming is the hottest issue around May seemed to have disappeared from sight. Don't see the Greens doing anything in an election.

For the same reason if I was setting up a group to meet with Layton it would be in English. To maximize communication. We need to tell him something and it will be easier in French. As for his not considering "it important to talk in Canada's (majority) language" the voters will eventually judge him on that.

I don't think this "compromise" is going to do the trick. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014907.stm

Harper should bring in the Speech from the Throne that properly reflects his views - a debate and vote on Afghanistan "in due course" and his support for the "alternative" approach to the global warming. This will inflame the opposition. But I bet the Libs still won't force an election over it; they are in too much turmoil.

I'm setting up a meeting with Dion for a group I deal with. I suggested to the Lib I am dealing with that it might be better if the meeting was in French. The guy was all over me arguing that "there is nothing wrong" with Dion's English. If they really believe that that might explain why the Liberals are in the pickle they are.

Not just the Tories. The opposition was stalling too.