kimmy

What difference does it make now? Why mention it now? Because Belinda.ca's character has been a hotly debated subject since her defection. -k

Of course there are Christians in the Liberal party. Martin makes no secret of the fact that he attends church every week. No one is expecting politicians to all give up their faith. What is expected, though, is that they find their own way to maintain their faith as a personal commitment in a secular government. That means that there needs to be rational arguments for the positions they take, not based on religion but based on what is best for society as a whole. Someone who believes strongly that their religion provides the best guideline for society will find a very personal aspect of themselves, their religion, under fire when others disagree. Melanie, the issue wasn't just that party members have their own personal religious beliefs. The issue of Christian *activists* within the Conservative Party has long been something that Liberal boosters have pointed to as "scary", and last week there was quite a lot of discussion about the fact that Christian *activist* groups have been able to help *activist* nominees win Conservative nomination in a number of ridings. But now, yesterday, a leader of one of these activist groups said that they've been able to help *activist* nominees secure Liberal nomination in a number of ridings too. You can read about it here, Canoe article and you can find some quotes from some of the aforementioned Liberals in the article linked to in the first message in this thread. -kimmy

I largely agree with you here. Many will passionately disagree. That, I disagree with. Many on this site (and beyond) believe that the big difference between the LPC and CPC is that the LPC is free of the "scary" elements that are part of the CPC. -kimmy

I'm not a Liberal. Like Argus says. Some of the arguments you've made over the past couple of months in support of the Liberals have seemed so strained that I've wondered if you were on the payroll. And, I mean, I understand you blasting the CPC on a regular basis, but in the "cities" thread where you essentially accused Jack Layton of being Buzz Hargrove's hand puppet? Chee. That was pretty over the top. -k

Funny that nobody mentioned this while he was a Liberal. What, specifically, did he say, and where can we read about this? -k {"Save me, Jeebus!!"}

Really, Sweal. There's a long list of situations when generousity is not appropriate, and a lot of them happen to be within the sphere of politics. The question being posed here is whether giving money to a potential leadership rival is one of those situations. -k

Not really classic at all, but pretty typical of those guys. They can't seem to resist an opportunity to make themselves look like dumb, ignorant assholes. They're too dumb to see how small this makes them look and how it damages their own cause. -k

Your comic sense is impeccable, as always, Eureka. Even Leslie Nielsen would be jealous of your ability to draw a laugh with straight-faced delivery of hysterically funny material like this. Somebody who didn't know you like I do would swear you seriously believe that. Tremendously entertaining! What's next? A little soft-shoe? The seltzer-bottle gag? A musical number, maybe? -kimmy

yeah, yeah. Gnomes, Illuminati, whatever. Who cares, as long as IMT gets sent to Christian Camp. -k

He has sold out to the radical christian right in the hope of winning again next election. To fatten the purse, he's also recieved a personal guarantee from Focus on the Family that he won't burn in hell. The man clearly has no principles. What'd he sell to the radical religious right? And what price did he receive? -k

I don't disagree that Harper has blown it, but I'm still having a hard time picturing this majority you predict. I think us anglos have a hard time realizing how much the sponsorship inquiry has captivated the imaginations of Quebecers. Most *realistic* (sorry, eureka...) analysis of Quebec has the Liberals hanging on to only core federalist ridings in Montreal... about 16 seats, as opposed to their current .. what is it, 24? In BC they will not make much impact in the rural ridings, and in the urban areas they'll be battling the NDP, not the CPC. I don't see them really having much growth potential in the Atlantic... they already have most of the seats there; there's not really many left for them to gain. In Alberta, of course, they've already lost Edmonton-Beaumont (and won't retake it.) And will be lucky if Anne McLellan returns to office. I doubt there'll be any particular breakthrough on the rest of the prairies either. Saskatchewan and Manitoba voters don't have the same trepidation with the CPC that voters Ontario and eastward do. I think that if we get a look at the regional breakdown of these results, you'll probably see that the Liberals revived popularity has been in southern Ontario, and Montreal and Vancouver, voters that went Liberal last election anyway. And of course, prior to the last election we were seeing numbers like this, and people were expecting a Liberal majority. Things didn't work out that way, and I doubt they'll work out that way this time either. If the Liberals are going to make such a big breakthrough... where are the seats coming from? -k

Is it that nobody views O'Brien as being worth rewarding? Or is it that only one side here has anything with which to offer "rewards"? That we have only one party in this country which has a realistic chance of forming a government has implications. If you're in the civil service or the press or potentially other spheres as well, you *know* who is going to be in charge in this country for years to come... and that has to have implications for how you do your job. -k

I listen. I just don't regard your views as god-given fact. This prediction, in particular, strikes me as fantasy. -kimmy

Yes... just another startling example of the Independent Party's use of Largesse to get their way in parliament... -k

pfff. I doubt any of these guys could have you buried alive in the foundations of a new construction project. Alfonso, now that guy was scary. -k

So you're predicting that the Liberals will not just sweep Ontario, and gain seats elsewhere? That seems a tad optimistic... they're still going to get pummelled in Quebec and in the West, the two areas where they need to gain some seats to put them over the top. These latest numbers put them *almost* at the level that got them a minority last time out... -k

I gather he's suggesting that Harper could be trying to make deals with Liberal MPs who aren't thrilled about the SSM issue. -kim

Liberals are scary -k

This was the member who said he'd stay on with the Liberals long enough to finish his work on defence committees, right? -k

Yeah, but Martin didn't just talk about giving away cash. The article says he's talking about about "a fundamental shift n the way different levels of government work together." He talks about a seat at the table. He talks about "input into shaping the national agenda." If he's just talking about giving away money, well, really, that's nothing new. That's what Canada's been about for over 130 years. -k

I agree with every word of this Like "addressing the democratic deficit", whistleblower protection, and "Paulberta", it looks like another Martin promise that when "Mr Delivers" delivers, you'll need an electron microscope to detect the results. -kimmy {Paul Martin is revolutionizing Canadian politics the same way New Coke revolutionized soft drinks. Martin is the biggest flop since The Adventures of Pluto Nash.}

Very wise words! We can be disagree without them without antagonizing them. We can be proud Canadians without being a bunch of pricks, right? ...can't we? -k

People of non-white races and from very different cultures are able to come to Canada and build very successful lives within a generation or two. So it seems to me that pinning the natives' plight on race or culture just doesn't capture the reality of the situation. How is it that natives seem to be perpetually mired in poverty and social problems, while so many Asian immigrants seem to find success in Canada so quickly? What's the big difference between natives and Asian immigrants? My guess is that it's the reserves. People keep asking why the natives should have to give up their way of life. Well, does any group anywhere in the world have the ability to ignore the passage of time? What way of life are people advocating the natives should be able to maintain, anyway? Surely the existence on today's reserves bears little resemblance to the lifestyle natives had in years gone by. If maintaining their traditions means continuing to hunt and trap, hey, go ahead... some of my relatives do that stuff too in their spare time. There's really nothing stopping them. If they want to maintain their languages and spiritual practices and cultural activities and clothes, that's great. Hundreds of other cultures in Canada do too, and somehow manage it without state support. Unlike the natives, other groups and cultures manage to do this stuff while participating in the world of today. -k

Last time I heard, of all the money we'd promised for relief in the tsunami zone, only $50,000 had actually made it there. Of course sending the DART team there was probably quite expensive, but we've promised far more than we've delivered. I get the impression that promises of foreign aid are more about perception within Canada than perception in the international community. I once told dad that I thought politicians just run around trying to put out fires. He told me "not quite... they're trying to get photographed near a fire while holding a bucket of water." -k

Utterly damning for Grewal, obviously. Whether it's as damning for the Tories as a whole somewhat depends on whether Grewal had input from the party leadership. I think Harper is making a huge mistake by continuing to stand up for Grewal. He should do a Chretien-- disavow any knowledge of Grewal editing the tapes. And refuse to sign Grewal's nomination papers next election. Which reward specifically was being discussed in this portion? I'm also curious what's meant by "someone like you". Ethnic? Vancouver-area? Riding that the Liberals could hold in the next election? It'd be interesting to know which other Tory MPs they'd talked to, and why the Liberals prefered Grewal to the others. If an ethnic MP crosses the floor, it hurts the Tories in the same way that Stronach's defection did-- creates the impression that the Tories are not an inclusive party. Had these negotiations panned out for Grewal, I imagine that there'd have been a speech something along the lines of Stronach's, except substitute multicultural in places where Stronach said women. Well, it's good news for PMPM that this portion finally made it public, at least. Overall, the edited portions add to my impression that Grewal was probably pretty sincere when he went to the Liberals looking for goodies. I don't think he was doing this for the Tories, I think he was doing this for Grewal. The portion about his interest in "security" and his pension makes me doubt that he planned this as a sting. Most likely he was taping this stuff because he wanted it as leverage to hold Murphy to any promises he was able to extract. I suspect Tory leadership might have gotten wind of Grewal's negotiations, and he came up with this "sting" idea as a means of covering his ass. I think that the editing job was probably Grewal's attempt to reduce the appearance that he was seriously interested in jumping ship. Harper might be trying to put a brave face on it publicly, but privately I bet he's furious at Grewal over this whole thing. -k