Progressive Tory

I beleive that Obama and Ignatieff have a far better chance of forming a working relationship than Obama and Harper, especially after our PM tried to stonewall Obama's campaign with the Nafta leak and invited John McCain for an official visit.

The Coalition has nothing to do with East and West and whether or not the 'twain shall meet'. It is simply about following the rule of law. Chapter 2 'House of Commons Procedure and Practice. "Simply stated, the convention provides that if a government is defeated in the House on a confidence question, then the government is expected to resign...The confidence convention applies whether a government is formed by the party or the coalition of parties holding the majority of seats in the House of Commons." This was no doubt the clause that Stephen Harper used when he requested that then GG Adrienne Clarkson allow him to become Prime Minister in 2004, despite the fact that his Party did not win the election. Perfectly LEGAL since his co-signers Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton also had the LEGAL right to help him form a coalition against Paul Martin. "The simple fact is that Harper is seen in the west as being a westerner. The fact is that westerners do not see themselves as full members of your confederation." I'm pretty sure Diefenbaker, Joe Clark and Kim Campbell thought they were fully part of OUR confederation. Again the misconception in Canada is that we elect Prime Ministers. We do not. We elect members of Parliament and the guidelines I've already mentioned apply. All 143 elected Conservative MPs will still be 143 elected Conservative MPs. That DOES NOT CHANGE. The only one trying to overturn the results of the last election is Stephen Harper, by attempting to turn a minority into a dictatorship. He failed. If vote splitting hadn't given the Conservatives enough seats to form a minority, would the MP in your riding that you voted for not be a legitimate member of the House of Commons?

I'm saying that Harper using the 'Separatist' and 'Socialist' anti-Canadian campaign to save his job is hypocritical because he signed the EXACT same deal in 2004 with so-called 'Separatists' and 'Socialists'. I'm saying that as Prime Minister of Canada you know or should know the Canadian Constitution and if you don't then you should not be the Prime Minister of Canada. I'm saying that Stephen Harper knew or should have known that in Canada we don't elect Prime Ministers, we elect Members of Parliament. If one Party wins a majority of seats, their leader gets to lead. If no single Party gets a majority, then the leader of Party with the most seats only gets to lead if he can WIN THE CONFIDENCE OF THE MAJORITY OF seats in the House. He knew that, which was why he wrote that letter to Adrienne Clarkson in an attempt to become Prime Minister without an election. It was a perfectly legal thing to do then, and is a perfectly legal thing to do now. My point is not legality but hypocrisy. In 2004, the GG refused him and since enough time had elapsed since the previous election, dissolved Parlaiment and instead we went to the polls. In this case it was only six weeks when Harper lost the confidence of the Majority. If he can't regain it, this GG may allow the perfectly LEGAL Coalition to take the reins, since we are in an economic crisis and can't afford the cost or time required for another election. The LEGAL Coalition will remain in place until Stephen Harper does his job or steps aside. Let's say he's on probation.

Yes and that went so well didn't it?

They have talking toaster ovens? What do they say? I had talking scales once until I silenced them with a hammer.

It was a very interesting year and I think this next one will be just as volatile. Thanks for sharing the article and have a Happy New Year. I have no life so am on the computer New Year's Eve. Grandson sleeping though so I'm taking a breather.

1. I agree that the economy will probably dominate the news and I think it will get worse before it gets better. 2. I think that Stephen Harper will be replaced as the leader of the Conservative Party before the year is up, and definitely before the next election. 3. I predict that when we finally get the true picture of the Canadian books we will all be devastated. I firmly believe, as most economists do, that Canada is already in a deficit and Flaherty has been engaged in creative bookkeeping. 4. I predict that the Canadian dollar will continue to fall, which won't necessarily be a bad thing. 5. I predict that Sarah Palin will forget her way home and will end up in a Canadian cornfield, asking "Is this Kansas?" 6. I believe that the Conservatives will be sitting on the other side of the House before the year's end. 7. I believe that the violence in Afghanistan will escalate, causing us to rethink the mission. 8. I believe oil prices will rise but not to the value they hit this summer. Probably about $60.00 a barrel. 9. I predict that George Bush will have another shoe thrown at him but this time the assailant won't miss. 10. I predict that no matter what happens, Canadians will continue to argue politics and policies with no hard feelings. Ok, maybe a few hard feelings, a little name calling but a lot of thoughtful insight. Those are my ten.

He's intelligent and in support of human rights. He has a way of speaking that grabs your attention. I may not agree with his stance on the war but it's no different than Harper's, so that won't sway voters either way. He's not into fake science but supports the Nobel prize winning environmentalists who promoted a carbon tax. Dion's problem was calling it a 'tax'. He should have called it a carbon credit, since the average taxpayer would have benefited. It's off the table now, but we can expect a legitimate environmental policy because like Obama, he's cutting through the crap. No more junk scientific theories from think tanks funded by the oil companies, because he's quite capable of thinking for himself. I'm embarassed sending Harper anywhere because on the world stage he looks like an idiot. Michael Ignatieff will be able to hold his own everywhere, and give us back some integrity. Of all the leaders he has the most appeal across the spectrum of Canadian voters. Mostly centre, he's Liberal when it comes to Womens' Rights, Equal Marriage and Choice, but is fiscally Conservative. And apparently, he makes women swoon, though I wouldn't know anything about that.

Doesn't matter when or where it was done. It was done. Why are they 'Separatists' and 'Socialists' now but comrades then? Hypocrisy. This is by far the most un-Canadian act by any Prime Minister in the history of this country, and just to save his job. Stephen Harper is NOT a leader. However, the Coalition will turn him into one or send him packing. It's his choice from here on in.

This is not about his reasons, though we know it was a power grab; just the hypocrisy of saying that it was undemocratic and un-Canadian to sign a deal with 'Separatists' and 'Socialists'. Why were they legitimate in 2004 but not legitimate now?

AdScam involved bureaucrats and not one elected official was charged. In fact the investigation was ordered by the Liberals themselves. However, the "In and Out" scam involved 65 elected Conservative MPs and is being railroaded by the Conservatives. Big difference. Besides, that's old news and tired logic. If you want to talk history, can you say 'Airbus'?

I'm not referring to combining the parties, I'm talking about his attempt to form a coalition with the Bloc and NDP to overthrow Paul Martin. You can find copies of Stephen Harper's letter to the Governor General Adrienne Clarkson everywhere: September 9, 2004 co-signed by Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton. How could you not know that? It was the recent headline in newspapers everywhere. Why do you think so many people are now supporting the coalition? I can send you a dozen links but google it. If you can't find it, I promise at least a dozen links. Right there in black and white.

You did know that Stephen Harper himself tried to form a Coalition with what he now calls 'Separatists' and 'Socialists', right? "On his way up, Stephen Harper was happy to meet with, and compose letters to the Governor General, with Gilles Duceppe, as well as with Jack Layton. On September 9, 2004, with the leaders of the Bloc and the NDP he co-signed a letter to Her Excellency, the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson that said: 'We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.'” http://www.jameslaxer.com/2008/12/quebec-b...rts-to-his.html So, in response to your comments Mr. Canada; I do have a grip, firmly on the Coalition, while they maintain their grip on Stephen Harper.

Doesn't matter. Personally I would prefer the Coalition remains in the wings, as a constant reminder to Stephen Harper that he must act as Prime Minister of Canada and not the leader of the Conservative Party. We are ready and we are prepared. Step up or step aside. There's a new kid in town.

You're right. I goofed. He came here as a boy. He still shares a lot of local history, though. Thousands of times I've walked by the site of his old law office and of course walked the path to the local pub he frequented (only I didn't go in). He could certainly drink with the best of them. Thanks for the correction.

Dan Rather is a well respected journalist and not the only one now speaking out against the media control for the past eight years.

There has been a bit of discussion about the future of the coalition and since I belong to a pro-coalition group I was asked to report on a townhall meeting held in Kingston, Ontario. This is that report. Others shared their experiences from other forums and rallys held across the country, and most were much the same. We like the idea of the Coalition remaining strong if no other reason than to prevent Stephen Harper from trying to turn his Minority gov't into a dictatorship. Bear in mind, this was held before Dion stepped down. For what it's worth: Town Hall Meeting Kingston City Hall Re: Coalition December 7, 2008 I went to the town hall meeting held last Sunday afternoon in the historic Memorial Hall, in Kingston City Hall. The panel included local candidates Eric Walton (Green) and Rick Downes (NDP). Peter Milliken could not attend since he is Speaker of the House and therefore must be impartial. In his place was Ron Hartley, a Canadian Diplomat, and member of Mr. Milliken's team. To round out the group, Professor Hugh Thorburn, former head of the Political Science Department at Queen's University, gave his insight into the legalities of the Coalition. Before the commentaries, the standing room only crowd was able to "meet and greet" and discuss the political drama of the past few weeks. Opinions were varied, but the common theme was the necessity of removing Stephen Harper as Prime minister, before he does anymore damage. I sat in the front row and the setting for this discussion was almost surreal, with the large portrait of Sir John A. reminding us just how different today's Tories are to the Party created by our first Prime Minister. As most of you know, he was born in Kingston, and his name still invokes civic pride. Professor Thorburn, not only validated the legitimacy of the Coalition, but cited it as a safeguard in our Constitution, from the partisan and ideological style of government being practiced by our current PM. He went on to say that Harper will likely bring down a "sweetheart budget", filled with funding for a variety of programs and the necessary economic stimulus that the opposition parties have demanded. For them to simply reject it could then be seen as hypocritical. This would mean at least the temporary survival of the Conservatives, though any sway from a new spirit of co-operation, would probably cause the government to fall, and the Coalition to possibly take over. Answering concerns about the "Dion factor", Professor Thorburn said that if he steps down "... and if the caucus and party executives elect a new leader from the three candidates vying for the job...Although it would violate normal procedure when electing a leader, the party leadership could argue these are extenuating circumstances." He went on to say: "This is an emergency and that would be justification for doing that. That would be my expectation and a course of action that is very likely." Touche. Ned Franks, a retired Queen's University Political Science professor, agreed. He told our local paper that "A new leader in the Liberal Party could keep the coalition together. If the coalition holds, the government will fall." Mr. Downes, the local NDP candidate gave a fiery speech that included a bit of comic relief. Pulling three different ties, in assorted colours, from his pockets he asked the crowd which one he should wear. Most knew this was in reference to the media's fascination with what colour Jack Layton was donning. He cited his reasons for supporting the Coalition; setting aside his Party's platform for the good of the country. He also reminded the crowd, that Mr. Flaherty's financial statement was a direct attack on unions, women and the Civil Service. Mr. Walton from the Green Party also gave his Party's reasons for aligning with the Opposition. His speech focused on the environment and concerns that the Harper government has not taken it seriously. He also touched on other important issues like funding for the Arts, return of the Court Challenges Program, daycare, Nafta and Aboriginal concerns. Canadian Diplomat Ron Hartley discussed Canada's International reputation and how much it has suffered since Harper aligned himself with the Bush Administration. People were then allowed to go to the mike and question the panel. One woman, formerly from Quebec, spoke of the insulting 'separatist' campaign run by the Conservatives, and the fact that Quebec bashing has now become commonplace across the country, empowered by a Prime Minister who not only allowed it, but instigated it; to save his job. Others, simply reiterated the goals of the Coalition, but I did find one question rather interesting. One gentleman asked what happens to the Coalition if an election is called. Eric Walton stated that his Green party would support joining the Liberals in the next election so long as proportional representation was part of the election platform. NDP Rick Downes agreed, and said that his focus would be on a National minimum wage. Does this mean that 'uniting the left' is within our grasp? Time will tell.

My point is how long can he tinker around the fringes before his base support, the Religous Right, will give up on him? He can't get it done.

I didn't read the whole thread, but another poll conducted the same day: "Ignatieff tops the list of party leaders Canadians would prefer as prime minister, with 28 per cent of respondents naming him the best head of government, according to the Toronto Star/Angus Reid survey." http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/553317

I've been married to the same man for 36 years. The best six months of my life. However, My husband knows that if Mike asked, we'd be getting a divorce. No question. LOL. Just kidding around. I like Ignatieff because I think he not only has the ability to revitalize the Liberals, but also bring all parties together. We need that right now.

Solidly Liberal until we have a Progressive Conservative party again. Michael Ignatieff is the closest thing to a Red Tory right now. There is only one in the Conservative Party who would make a good leader and that's Jim Prentice, but I don't see the Social Conservative wing of the Party ever accepting him. I liked Lawrence Cannon until he tried to defraud taxpayers in the "In and Out" scheme, so he's no longer an option. When Flora MacDonald was our MP I actively campaigned for her and she was the absolute best we ever had. She ran on her merit. I liked Bill Casey and Loyola Hearn, but they're both gone. Besides, I believe this board is a mix. It seems to be anyway. Why would I have to be engaged in some kind of espionage, infiltrating... what? Are there some kind of secret codes here that I might crack? Most people here seem pretty intelligent and willing to debate any topic from all sides. If everyone agreed with me, I'd stop posting.

"The first batch of used battle tanks that Canada purchased from the Dutch have arrived more than a year behind schedule...The 50-tonne iron monsters will sit idle while the federal government finds a company capable of the specialized modifications...A federal tendering document last spring said Canada would have to rely on the borrowed tanks until 2011 because modifications on the Dutch armoured vehicles would take longer than expected. Part of the problem is that industrial expertise to refurbish the vehicles has been lost over the years." http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/554755 And now: "The German tanks, specially armoured to deal with powerful improvised explosive devices, have taken a pounding on Kandahar's highways and are burning through spare parts at a high rate. Industry sources said stripping the older A4-variants for parts may present a bit of a problem since the tanks in Afghanistan are newer, contain fewer hydraulic systems and not all the parts are in the same configuration as the A6-type." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/20/mackay-tanks.html A complete waste of money. We should instead train diplomats who will work toward peaceful solutions. We don't need more tanks.

"A $70m lawsuit filed by Dan Rather, the veteran former newsreader for CBS Evening News, against his old network is reopening the debate over alleged favourable treatment that Bush received when he served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war." "Among those CBS considered for the panel to investigate Rather's report were far-right broadcasters Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/2...bs-lawsuit-bush

After the 2006 election I made a list of Evangelical/Reform/Alliance from the new Conservative Party. You can look them up. Most are still MPs: Ed Fast, Dick Harris, Chuck Strahl, John Cummins, Nina Grewal, Betty Zane Hinton, Ron Cannon, Marjory LeBreton, Mark Warwara, James Lunney, Stockewell Day, Colin Mayes, Randy Kamp, James Moore, Jay Hill, Gary Lunn, Russ Hiebert, Lee Richards, Deepak Obhral, Art Hanger, Diane Ablonczy, Jason Kenney, Stephen Harper, Rob Anders, Kevin Sorenson, Peter Goldring, James Rajotte, John Williams, Ken Epp, Rahim Jaffer, Brian Jean, Rick Casson, Monte Solberg (Retired but actively campaigning), Chris Warkentin, Bob Mills, Leon Benoit, Blaine Calkins, Myron Thompson, Rob Merriefield, Gerry Ritz, Lynn Yalich (Catholic Evangelical), David Anderson, Brian Fitzpatrick, Andrew Scheer, Carol Skelton (Retired I believe), Maurice Vellacott, Garry Braitcreuz (sic?), Brad Trost, Steven Fletcher, Inky Mark, Joy Smith, Brian Pallister, Vic Toews, Rod Bruinooga, Merv Tweed, David Sweet, Patrick Brown, Larry Miller, Diane Finley, Scott Reid, Gord Brown, Tony Clement, Cheryl Gallant, Guy Lauzon, Peter Van Loan, Gerald Keddy. All Social Conservatives. There are probably more but that's as far as I got. Quite a list. My point is that they will not sit on their hands forever waiting for action. But if you don't think the Church is the driving force behind Stephen Harper, I have a few links: "A common theme of news coverage of McVety is the degree of his influence and that of his evangelical colleagues over Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government generall" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_McVety "Harper is rapidly building an alliance with the worst elements of the US Christian right." http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/hedges http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bi...es/060525invite "The prime minister and other Conservative politicians have courted evangelical, as well as conservative Catholic and Jewish voters" and "More recently Ottawa’s Catholic archbishop told an audience that he would refuse communion to any Catholic politicians who support access to abortion if they couldn’t be persuaded to change their mind." and "Three New Democratic Party MPs were denied full participation in their church because of the position they and their party had taken on the same-sex marriage legislation" http://dennisgruending.ca/pulpitandpolitics/?cat=30 http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...96-76f3db32808e http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=00144 http://dennisgruending.ca/pulpitandpolitics/?cat=48 http://www.yayacanada.com/saba_harper.html http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2008/09/...n-evangelicals/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/evangelical/ http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...ry-private.aspx

Equal Marriage still legal, abortion still legal, Human Rights Commission still exists. If you followed the last Conservative Convention just before Christmas, the top two priorities were abolishing the Human Rights Commission and making abortion a crime. How close are they to that when the leader just emphatically stated that it's not going to happen? There was an old Harper speech when he was with the Reform Party floating around, originating I believe on UTube. In it he discusses the 'G words' in regard to Party initiatives. 'Girls', 'Guns', 'Gays' and 'Government Grants'. OK, he scored a moral victory when he removed the word 'equality' from the Status for Women charter, but what did it really mean? OK. He may have scored another victory when he closed down women's shelters as part of funding cuts, so many have nowhere to go when they're being abused. He can add that to his scorecard. Three years and the 'G' words still haunt him.