Progressive Tory

From a national perspective someone like Peter MacKay might make sense. However, we have to remember that there is still a very strong Social Conservative base to the Party. I don't see them electing a leader who does not share their views - the very reason they got into politics in the first place. Jim Prentice is a little more moderate, but not bilingual which would hut him in Quebec; although, they've all but lost that province anyway. You're right about the Harris group though. having lived under that gov't in Ontario, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I was shocked that so many ended up not only in Harper's gov't, but his cabinet! They should have just told the RCMP to remain on standby, and bring extra cuffs. I think a Conservative leadership convention could be very interesting.

Certainly not a compliment to his MPs if this is where the bar is set; considering his actions of late.

I think you're right. And like I said before, he's bringing a lot of good people down with him. He gambled and lost; now it's time to move on.

I don't think the gov't needs to get into producing it, just regulating it; as you say with the same laws that are curently in place for alcohol and tobacco. At least that way there is a certain amount of inspection, and you've removed the criminal element. You can make beer and wine at home, but can't sell it. You should be able to grow a bit at home for your own use, again so long as you don't sell it. Same laws. The tax revenues would be enormous. It just makes so much sense. De-criminalize, legalize and cash in.

I don't quite understand the logic. I support the Reformers in the West and respect that they are representing their constituents. I even support in principle the outlined vision of Canada drafted by Preston Manning and Stephen Harper. The fact is that Canada represents a lot of different cultures, and provincial autonomy is not a radical idea. We shouldn't expect French culture to be forced on the rest of Canada anymore than we should expect any other. I just worry that a loose federation could fall apart, so cling to a united Canada. However, what some people in the West don't understand, is that all of your elected MPs will still be your elected MPs in a Coalition. A new leader for the Conservative Party will still lead the Conservative Party. I rather doubt they would select an "anti-religious, pro-gay, social liberal that is from Quebec or Ontario". However, if they want a chance at being the governing Party, they'll have to select a leader that can not only keep the two factions of the Party together, but appeal to a broader base of Canadians. There are very few, if any, anti-religous MPs in all the Parties. Tolerance for homo-sexuality doesn't mean you're a cheerleader and social issues like pro-life, often cross party lines. We've become too partisan.

When Harper was leader of the opposition he allowed free votes. However, once elected everything changed. Ask Bill Casey. His constituents didn't approve of the budget because of a broken promise, he voted against it and is now an independant.

That's a little over simplified. Bill C-250 "... that amended the Criminal Code of Canada to add penalties for publicly inciting hatred against or encouraging the genocide of people on the basis of sexual orientation and added a defence for the expression of good-faith opinions based on religious texts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250

I don't think Ignatieff will vote against the budget. I think there will be a lot of back and forth. Harper is now saying the deficit will hit 64 billion. That's a little unsettling. Ignatieff's requests are only: 1. We need a legitimate accounting. 2. There are no broad base tax cuts that will extend the deficit once the recession is over. 3. The biggest part of the deficit spending is on infastructure. (As per poll of Canadians who don't want tax cuts but spending on infastructure to create jobs) Ignatieff says that when the budget is presented, he will take his time and review it one page at a time; going over every detail with his economic team. No tricks or games will be allowed. I hope that Flaherty has learned his lesson. However, the spirit of non-Confidence will remain and I give the gov't maybe six months. Remember, that in 2004, despite the fact that Harper's Coalition did not get a chance to take over, he was still promoting it six months later as an alternative to an election. (as per link in my signature) The budget may be the first issue but not the last.

Exactly. When someone mentioned James Moore, I looked him up. "Moore was the Secretary of State for Official Languages" Ignatieff is fluent in Russian and French, but Moore must also be fluent in a few. He's young. Well educated. However, do you think this would hurt his chances with the Party? "Moore is known for having liberal views on social issues that sometimes put him in conflict with other members of his party. He was one of the few libertarians in the mostly socially conservative Canadian Alliance. In 2004, he voted in favour of same-sex marriage after conducting a riding-wide poll of constituents (54% supported the issue). The issue has proven controversial within his own riding..." He did at least ask his constituents first.

Uncompromising religious views aside, I don't like the man at all. During the 2006 election campaign he appeared on TVOntario with Steve Pakin. Pakin asked him if Harper's pro-Iraq war position would hurt him, and instead of answering the question, he adamantly stated that Stephen Harper NEVER thought that Canada should go to Iraq. Mr. Pakin knew he was lying so rephrased the question, twice. Still the same answer. He could see that Day was about to blow so moved on. The moment wasn't lost and the latest taped speech confirms that Day was lying. In fact: "In March 2003 Day and Harper co-wrote a letter to The Wall Street Journal in which they condemned the Canadian government's unwillingness to participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq." Much of that letter was from the plaguerized Howard speech. The same things that caused the Alliance to break away under Chuch Srahl and Deborah Grey, still stand. Stockwell Day is a man of little integrity. Hiring private investigators, bribing MPs for ridings...the man is a crook (and a freak)

And let's not forget: Alliance misused free mail, Tories say By CAMPBELL CLARK Friday, May 17, 2002 "Tory House Leader Peter MacKay charged that the letter was an abuse of the privilege that allows MPs to send mail related to their parliamentary functions for free. He said he and others on the Tory membership list in his Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough riding received "franked" letters. "This is purely political," Mr. MacKay said."Not only is it inappropriate, it's against the franking privilege rules. Harper is a former member of Parliament. He should know that's not allowed."Mr. MacKay said the letter was signed by Mr. Harper and sent out without even a cover letter from Mr. Reynolds before the new Alliance Leader was returned to Parliament in a by-election this week.But Mr. Reynolds insisted the letter, which suggested that Tory Leader Joe Clark had misled his members about Mr. Harper's offer of a parliamentary coalition, fell within the rules, and the Tories' accusation is wrong. http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4g5obh...t=clnk&cd=6

I never voted for Chretien. I admire him now as a statesman and loved when he strongarmed the pie thrower. Very funny. The trouble with Michael Ignatieff is that he's not used to using rhetoric, but instead speaks clearly. We're not used to that. A politician who actually thinks we're smart enough to know what he's saying, without waiting for the media to spin it. Refreshing. According to his own Party, Harper's job is on the line right now because of Stephen Harper. He's blamed it on everyone else, but the fact remains, he caused this and unfortunately will take many down with him. His future with the Conservative Party is tenuous at best. He knows it. I'd like to see the NDP choose a new leader soon too. Pat Martin would be my choice there.

He may be making a huge mistake, because stalling investigations into Cadman and the "In and Out", amoung other things, won't make them go away. They could all rear their heads at once - like maybe during the next election campaign. He should address them if he's got nothing to hide.

I wish you would make up your mind. One day it's led by the Bloc....Layton founded it as a desperate attempt at getting a cabinet post...now Dion is the founder. He was going to step down in May anyway. He declined a position in the shadow cabinet because he needs a break. It's a personal decision. Leave him alone.

I mentioned Conrad Black because if you follow the career of Stephen Harper, Conrad Black's name comes up along the entire path. The meeting that he attended as a guest of Connie's was Bilderberg, before he became Prime Minister: "What is Stephen Harper, Leader of the Official Opposition and the Alliance Party of Canada doing at a super-secret elite meeting of the Western world’s central bankers, defense experts, press barons, royalty, prime ministers, international financiers, , industrialists and government officials?...Some Canadians in attendance included Conrad Black, Mark Steyn (National Post)" Again from the "Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper" written by Christian Journalist and friend Lloyd MacKay" in the chapter "Hidden Agenda", he discusses the 'grooming of Stephen Harper' and the infamous 'Calgary School'. The issue was "How do we fool the world into thinking we're moving to the left when we're not" (Ted Byfield. 2004 Alberta Report from the Calgary School) As a friend and fellow Evangelist, Mackey would hardly make this up. Besides it's in Byfield's report.

Bob Rae will be excellent in Foreign Affairs.

I never really thought of James Moore. I'll have to read up a bit about him. John Baird's homosexuality may not be as much a problem as his advocacy for same-sex marriage. In Ontario he was instrumental in getting it passed and even berated any opposition to the bill within his own Party. (Quite vocally) Peter MacKay would have a problem with the Social Conservatives. When I mentioned Harper's chair throwing incident, as per Lloyd Mackey's book, it was because the Reformers wanted to pass a motion against Mackay. Not sure why, but obviously no love lost. He is also a pal of Grant Devine, and I doubt they want that dragged up again. They dodged that bullet once with Tom Lukiwski. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0011027 The French would be tough for Prentice. He could learn it but like you say, would be no better than Dion's English. I'm still perusing the list. Rhona Ambrose is very bright, but not sure if she has leadership qualities. Not yet anyway.

That would definitely be taking the 'High' road. I don't know if I could ever be enticed to vote Conservative again. They have a handful of Red Tories, but too few for my liking.

Again, not a 'he'. I was discussing Adrienne Clarkson. You did know that she was no longer the GG? The sitting GG is not allowed to discuss what happens between her and the Prime Minister, so all we can do is speculate.

It's every bit my business. I help pay their salary. The next leader of any party is the business of all Canadians. If you only want it to be the business of members of the Conservative Party, don't let them run for leadership of the country. If they can't find anyone strong enough to hold together both factions of the Party, they'll probably implode anyway. You're not at least curious about who will running against Michael Ignatieff?

Joe who? And why would Justin Trudeau run for leadership of the Conservative Party?

A agree. Shudder.

Love him, hate him, or merely tolerate him; the writing is on the wall. Harper's days as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada are numbered. His latest mishandling of the Parliamentary crisis, that he himself created, has left even those in his own party cold. "OTTAWA - Their blades remain sheathed, but astonished Conservatives are quietly fuming about the tactical blunder they fear could toss them into opposition. And the blame seems to be landing on the prime minister's doorstep. Stunned Conservatives MPs are barely concealing their outrage. Many are venting their anger in private because of Stephen Harper's iron grip on the party and the uncertain prospects of a coalition of opposition parties. But while a few blame Harper's new top aide, Guy Giorno, for putting their government on a knife's edge, most lay responsibility for their unprecedented predicament squarely at the feet of the prime minister." http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news.../article/498790 They looked to him to get them out of it, but instead he may have damaged good reputations to save his job. "After failing to bring forth an essential stimulus package last week, Stephen Harper has betrayed the fundamental obligation of a prime minister: to build and strengthen national unity in possibly the world's most difficult federation to govern. Beginning last week, Mr. Harper has sought to avoid a legitimate vote of confidence and its unpleasant consequences not by sober or even merely partisan constitutional arguments but, culminating in Wednesday's television address, by a barrage of deliberately gross distortions. He is turning a serious dispute over the need for immediate economic stimulus into an unrelated and dangerous matter of national unity." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/politics "As Prime Minister Stephen Harper battles a political coup from a potential opposition coalition, two mysterious websites suggest -- or are intended to suggest -- that he may also be facing a mutiny from within." http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...081130/20081130 Two names have been tossed around, Jim Prentice and John Baird; but I'm sure there are others in the Party who are capable to lead. Peter MacKay? Maurice Vellacott? Any suggestions?

I found it. You were right. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/20...s-20051017.html

Do you know that our constitution does not include the term 'Prime Minister'? His position is not even protected under our own constitution. The highest position in Canada is the Governor General's; as outlined in our constitution. Adrienne Clarkson in her book discusses the role of the GG and how modern day politicians disregard the importance of the office. When comparing Jean Chretien and Paul Martin (whom she didn't like); she states that Mr. Chretien would go to her before making any announcements pertaining to foreign policy or the military. When he decided not to go to Iraq, he had a meeting with her first. She may not have had the power to overrule him, but appreciated the respect he gave her. She said Paul Martin was the exact opposite, only coming to her when he needed something. She said that during the swearing in, Martin's posse showed up in jeans and T-shirts. She was disgusted. The relationahip between Harper and our current GG has been described as cordial, though it would appear he's following in Paul Martin's footsteps. No respect for tradition.