kimmy

FWIW the collection of Coulter-quotes can be verified at this article... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter Would reproducing the quotes here be a copyright violation? I don't believe anybody except Coulter can take credit for them (or would want to...) Provided the citations are correct, and are themselves not more than a fraction of the work from which they're taken, I don't see why it's not fair use to repeat them here. -k

I'll just mention that I think this whole thread was based on a misreading of the original article. The key quote: I believe that Mr Sweetman is saying he objects to parents using religion as an excuse to pull their kids out of school. As for the rest... as a fun-loving agnostic, I personally have little affection for organized religions of any stripe, but peoples' right to raise their children is probably among the most fundamental we have as a species. Any interference is a matter of the utmost seriousness and can only be condoned in clear-cut situations. -k

(WTF? The Sweal, obviously. But me? I can't imagine what I wrote to give anybody the impression I'm a Liberal supporter. That's actually quite funny.) -k

I can accept that she thought forcing an election at this time, or cooperating with the BQ to accomplish that goal, were bad strategic moves for the Conservatives. I somewhat agree. However, I think there's quite a leap in logic to get to "protecting the country". What's she protecting the country from? An election right now? That might be a little tedious and even mess up some peoples' summer vacation plans, but I just don't believe that we're hanging by a thread. To buy into your argument, I'd have to believe that an election right now is a threat to the country. I just don't see it. Sorry. -k

There were lots of stupid things said in this thread, but in my modest opinion yours wins the prize, as I said. I'm not sure you understand what "sarcasm" means. However, I do recognize that you were kidding. I just wanted to mention that your message was far funnier than you might have realized, for reasons that are perhaps not very flattering to you and your would-be road-trip buddy. I also wanted to mention that if somebody had even in jest said "I'd like to drive out and kick some _____ ass," and _____ was something other than Albertan, there'd be howls of outrage from the enlightened thinkers on the forum. -k

I won't attempt to apologize for Mr Fletcher's remarks; obviously it was an immensely stupid thing to say. I'll just don my asbestos armor and point out that everything I've read indicates that in the context of a discussion of World War 2, calling the Japanese "bastards" is an insult to bastards. -k

I don't think bigdude was trying to get people to vote for Paul Martin... bigdude's an enthusiastic NDP supporter. I think he was probably just trying to spur some discussion about Paul Martin. I've also tried to spur some discussion about Paul Martin lately, but failed. I've attacked his record... I've disparaged his manhood in terms that would make Linda Trimble shout "reverse sexism!" from the rooftops. A few days ago, I posted a rather negative view of Paul Martin's first 18 months as Prime Minister, and given the number of avid Liberals on this forum, I was sure that there'd be no shortage of people wanting to take issue with at least some of it. Nope. Not a single response. I'm kind of getting the impression that Paul Martin's greatest strength is that he's not Stephen Harper. In discussing why they prefer Martin over Harper, people on this forum focus on Harper's negatives, because the discussion of Martin's positives would be ... rather short. I'm not sure if "Mr Dithers" was the right gloss to put on the guy. I think "Mr Milquetoast" is probably closer to the truth. But at least he's not Harper... and I guess in a lot of people's minds that's good enough. -k

I probably wouldn't even vote for the Liberals if they changed their name to the Kimmy Party of Canada, but that's beside the point. Putting the word "Front" in your party's name is a surefire, guaranteed, can't-miss way to make yourself look "fringe" and "wacko". You can think I'm kidding or mistaken if you wish, but I'm not. -k

What's the plan? Jump out and roll the first guy you see who looks too "red-neck" for your liking? Brilliant. You are a shining beacon of the enlightened Canadian values you profess to defend. Of all the stupid posts in this stupid thread, yours is probably the stupidest. Congratulations, you win the prize. Remember to wear your Legion hat and your WWII medals so people know you're a "bad-ass". -k {...picturing Paul Revere mounting up and riding through the streets of Edmonton shouting "The Idjits are coming! The Idjits are coming!" ...one if by car, two if by VIA rail.}

But the question wasn't about the ethics of the deal. The question was whether Paul Martin's handling of it shows him to be a brilliant leader... and in my view it doesn't. Just lucky. -k

- He "co-operated" with the premiers and the NDP, to actually try to get something done. He "co-operated" with the NDP? Jack Layton PWNED him. That the NDP budget amendments are popular with many voters reflects well on the NDP. But let us not forget that it took the political gun to his head of Brault testimony and Harper threats to get them in place. The Liberals were very happy with their initial budget without the amendment; I'm sure a Liberal enthusiast like yourself was watching the Liberal convention with all the back-patting over Ralphie's new budget. Martin: "We're not making any budget deals!" Goodale: "We're not making any budget deals!" Martin: "We're not making any budget deals!" Goodale: "We're not making any budget deals!" (...Brault testimony + subsequent poll...) Martin: "We're open to budget deals!" Goodale: " .... whaaaaa?" And then they cut the deal with the NDP at a meeting that Goodale wasn't even invited to. Not only did they get pushed into it by a small party, they also made their own finance minister look like an imbecile in the process. I suppose if by cooperation you mean getting strong-armed, and by "get things done" you mean get bullied into actions that you never intended to take, then you could say that Martin "cooperated with the NDP to get things done." I don't think an objective observer would view it quite that way, though. He "co-operated" with the premiers? Are you referring to the health accord? Let's keep in mind that for 2 years prior to that, the provinces had been airing attack ads aimed at the federal government's funding of healthcare: "The government used to fund 50% of healthcare costs. Now the government funds 16% of healthcare costs." The government's only response was: "...please stop showing those ads..." After once again fighting an election where they portrayed themselves as the saviors of healthcare, the Liberals find themselves in a minority position where for the first time in ages they face the potential of being held accountable for the promises they made. After the fedz attempted to soft-pedal the provinces with some token concessions, the provinces banded together in display of public nastiness and rolled Martin, using his own campaign promises as the jackboots. However, they did emerge with a shiny new health accord, so I guess it's "promise made, promise kept." Martin has, at least, restored a portion of the money that he slashed when he was finance minister. What about the rest of his relations with the provinces? First there was the confrontation with Danny Williams, where Martin's solution was to give him whatever he wanted to avoid a messy confrontation. Then Dalton McGuinty comes calling. "We in Ontario face a $23 billion fiscal imbalance, and we would like some concessions like the Newfies got." Martin's response? "This talk of a $23 billion fiscal imbalance is completely wrong. Here, have $6 billion." And last week, Alberta's intergovernmental affairs department says "You know, we've been looking at the deal Ontario got... and like Ontario, we in Alberta contribute a lot to confederation. If they deserve some concessions, it seems like we should get some concessions too..." and promptly a half-billion dollar cheque arrives in King Ralph's hands. And then there's Quebec. Paul Martin's national unity catch-phrase is "Asymmetrical federalism," which is basically just a euphemism for "give the Quebec government whatever they ask for to try to fend off the separatists." I find it utterly hilarious that the people on this forum who are boosters of the "strong central government" vision of Canada somehow feel that Paul Martin is the guy who to enforce that ideal. What's funnier than that? During the campaign he gave us some rostrums about believing in "a Canada that speaks with one voice, not ten." ...and then proceeds to cave to the provinces every single time they've come calling. Your "strong central government" is being led by a man who has about as much backbone as Spongebob Squarepants. Considering your party called snap elections in 2000 and 2004 because the polls looked good, you might want to drop this one from your book of handy attacks. That's quite simple. What was the alternative? Try to downplay it? And make it look like he's trying to help cover-up for Chretien's posse? PM PM recognized quite early that the only way to separate himself from the scandal was to take strong action. This way he gets to say "Look, I called the inquiry. I did what's right." I do give him credit for doing it. It's something his dirtbag predecessor wouldn't have done, and in my mind is proof enough that Martin is ten times the man Chretien is. (although, coming from me this is faint praise indeed.) As an aside, I think trying to cover up and downplay the scandal would have been utterly disastrous for the Liberals. It might have helped short-term, but long-term this stuff would have come out. Enterprising journalists would have got into it, and might have presented it in a lot less balanced way than Judge Gomery is going to do. And then what happens? Not only does the scandal torpedo the party, it also torpedos Martin for trying to cover it up. This is truly rich. Just a couple of days after the Liberal-boosters on the board are wetting their pants in outrage over sexist comments directed at Belinda.ca, you're insulting Sheila Fraser in sexist terms. Awesome. If you check around, I think you'll find that the Liberals had a comfortable lead in the polls at the time Martin called the election, and that most observers were predicting a Liberal majority at the time. It was an inept campaign, that even many Liberals were pissed at Martin and his advisers about, that cost them. I don't think there's much mileage for you in attacking Fraser's character, either. I think most Canadians believe she's got an awful lot more integrity than anybody on Parliament Hill. The reason this government looks like a fly-by-night operation is Martin's desperation to avoid an election. He's created the appearance that he'll make a deal with anybody it'll keep him from going to the polls for another few weeks. If you're convinced that Harper's doing something underhanded or unusual for an opposition leader in a minority situation, why don't you look up how Real Canadian Hero ™ Pierre Elliot Trudeau worked with Joe Clark's minority government. I actually do like Paul Martin and his policies. I just think he's been a complete flop as a leader. Good guy, bad leader. If you can't see his shortcomings, then maybe you're the one who should open your eyes. You've been blinded by loyalty. -k

Given Bigdude's political leaning, I've got a hunch he meant Paul Martin. And I tend to agree with him. Sure, Martin won today. But judged on the whole of his 18 months or so as PM, I don't think "loser" is far off. He's bent over forward to accommodate every premier who's come looking to make bank off the federal government. He bent over forwards for Jack Layton. He left Ralph Goodale and Judy Sgro to fend for themselves when the heat was on. The only thing he's done during his tenure as PM that shows any semblence of guts or fortitude was calling the Gomery commission... and even that was most likely just because he thought it was the only way to save his political skin. He turned an expected easy majority into the current barely functional fly-by-night operation we saw today. Sure, he's a loser. -k {PM PM has the Midas touch... everything he touches turns into mufflers.}

At least it's not patronage. And it's not like the Liberals haven't done similar in the past. Consider the 2000 federal election, where the PCs and Liberals made a deal to help each other in Alberta. The PCs ran the most clueless candidate they could find-- with no financial backing whatsoever-- against Anne McLellan, in exchange for a similar favor in Joe Clark's riding. -k

You don't actually know anything about the man's politics, do you. -k

Hope you at least held out for a Senate appointment. -k

So... how well has he really used this astounding good fortune? Appointing her directly to a high-profile cabinet post certainly left her open to the attack that she did it out of ambition rather than principle. And it has left him open to the attack that he bought her loyalty rather than earned it. Here's an alternative situation which, just maybe, could have had better optics for the both of them and worse optics for Harper. Belinda announces just prior to today's vote that she has to vote in favor of the budget because of her principles. She votes with the government side. Harper has little choice but to publicly blast Stronach. In doing so he has to outline why he's so all-fired intent on bringing down the government, which has been a weak point for him for weeks. Stronach responds by reiterating her principles. Harper can really only come out of this looking like a bully who's having a hard time controlling his own MPs, not a good impression for a leader. Belinda looks sympathetic and principled. Having this blow-up occur publicly rather than in Harper's office can only be bad for him. Belinda, after confrontation with Harper, has either been kicked out of the party or leaves to sit as an independant. Later, she can go sit with the Liberals. Give the same speech she did yesterday about having much in common with PM PM. (She does, of course. Difficulty finding good caviar in Canada; peeves about the gardeners and butlers; tax shelter tips; that sort of thing. ) And after the Gomery report comes out, and you're honoring your promise to call an election within 30 days, that's the best time to announce that you're putting Stronach in charge of dealing with its recommendations. Then after everybody's all elected and happy, you can give Belinda.ca her cabinet posting. Just an idea. I think its fair to wonder whether they could have managed the cross to get more political mileage out of it. They certainly made a huge splash with it on Tuesday, but one might wonder whether that huge splash was the political equivalent of spending half your lottery winnings on booze, cars, and a gambling binge in Vegas. Tuesday was not a particularly significant day in terms of government timetable... the big splash Tuesday doesn't help them as much as a big splash at the start of an election campaign would have. -k

Yes, that sounds much like our dearly missed Caesar. She was probably giggling to herself for hours after she posted that. .... So what's the deal, anyway? Why the disbelief? What have the Liberals done to make you think they're ethically above doing something like this? Just given their actions in just the past couple of months, why would you assume they're too good for this? Source: CTV Here's the Ottawa bureau chief of a national network (and not even Global!) putting his name to the claim that the Liberals are trying to use patronage appointments to get Tory MPs out of parliament. So when tape-recorded evidence of just such a discussion appears, your reaction, naturally, is "UNTHINKABLE! COULDN'T BE! LIES, ALL LIES!!!" -k

My initial reaction is that I'm quite pleased to see "Belinda.ca" sticking. Please make royalty cheques payable to Kimmy.ca I think only time will tell how much of a genius move this was for Ms Stronach. If one is of a mind to view her move from a personal ambition standpoint, I'm have a hunch that it's going to work out well for her. She's not even 40 and now has one of the top cabinet posts... so she's certainly fast-tracked herself in that sense. It might have taken her decades to get there the old-fashioned way. Look how many years Lucienne Robillard had to work to build the credentials she brought to the position, and 10 years with the Liberal party, and now discarded in favor of Stronach. hmm. At least Mme Robillard gets to stay on as Intergovernmental Affairs Honk, which I would guess is probably about as desirable a job as the guy at Customs who has to sift through human feces searching for baggies of cocaine. (half-hearted attempt at pot-stirring: "Maybe it's just as well that the HR department is not in the hands of someone from Quebec anyway.") As for PM PM, I'm not sure how this makes him a brilliant leader. Not any more than winning the lottery makes you a brilliant financial planner. He had an unbelievable stroke of good fortune delivered into his hands by Mr and Mrs Petersen. This does nothing to enhance my opinion of Martin. -k

First thing I thought when I heard the story on the news tonight was of the leaked information about Grewal. Usual Dosage was also on the news tonight, claiming that Grewal approached him looking for a patronage appointment, and that Usual had to turn him down because that wouldn't be appropriate. I found that to be fairly believable, up to the part where Dosage said he had to turn him down. As if! Who to believe? Either guy could be lying. One thing worth remembering, though, is that early this month (or late last month, even-- I can't recall the exact date) someone at CTV-- I believe Mike Duffy-- mentioned that his contacts within the Liberal party told him that they were looking to offer senate seats to Conservative members to get them out of the HoC. I think August started a thread on the subject. And so the claim Grewal is making would certainly fit with that strategy, and likewise with the claims made earlier this month by Inky Mark. -k

"Screw the Red Book... Don't tell me what's in the Red Book. I wrote the goddamned thing. And I know that it's a lot of crap." -Paul Martin.

(uh, actually, I think he did...) In any case, the media's treatment of Stronach has *always* been bullshit-- I've posted this before. The Toronto Sun is the worst offender; I can only assume that paper's editorial board is made up of 13-year old boys. They're incapable of producing a Stronach headline without using either "Blonde", "Bombshell", or both. Even more respectable outlets often find themselves discussing her clothes, her jewelry, her makeup, or her hairstyle. .... The CPC's responses have kind of reminded me of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when Arthur battles the Black Knight. "Tis but a scratch!" insists the Black Knight after Arthur has sliced his arm off. They might deny it, and they might not even realize how badly they got jacked up. But they got jacked up. There's no other way to look at it. "Perception, perception, perception," as Newfie Canadian put it. And the perception this creates, for the CPC, is utterly disasterous. Whatever her motivation, she was key to their efforts in Ontario, and with women, and with moderate voters. And I feel that this raises questions about Harper's judgment and his leadership abilities. .... Eureka's insistance that this will turn Liberal fortunes in Quebec leaves me wondering if he's on the party payroll. The only other explanation is that Eureka has a much sharper sense of humour than I thought. .... I do agree with those who've pointed out that if she'd decided to go sit as an independant rather than jumping right to the other side and into a cabinet post, she'd have done a lot to combat the appearance that it was just opportunism. Opportunism or not, I think it's pretty clear that her tiff with Harper was long-running, and only getting worse. -k

The Conservatives have always maintained that the Atlantic agreement should be separated from the budget, and tabled a motion to do so. The Liberals have steadfastly refused to cooperate, strictly for political reasons: trying to get the Conservatives to vote against the Atlantic agreement. The NDP amendment-- which the Conservatives never agreed to support-- offers them away to (try to) force an election without voting against the Atlantic agreement. Joe Blow posted some terrific research in another thread, where he indicated that the Liberals could move to make this vote essentially a combined 2nd and 3rd reading, so that C-43 could go to the Senate for approval immediately after passing, guaranteeing the Atlantic agreement gets put in place even if the government falls on the later vote on C-48. If they feel this is really about getting the deal in place, and not partisan political maneuvering, then they could take that action and get the deal done. -k

This, on the otherhand... strikes me as something that not even the most optimistic Liberal party spinmeisters could say with a straight face. I doubt they place such stock in the actions of a unilingual anglo MP from Ontario that they'll reconsider their entire political outlook based on this morning's events. It might even make them more cynical (ie: "Now she's a cabinet minister and a big star. They bought her. Typical Liberal politics.") -k

It does but at what point is a moderate conservative just a liberal? My support for the CPC was never based on the notion that they were very different from the Liberals in terms of social and economic policy... I've always believed that in fact they *aren't* fundamentally very different in those areas (for reasons Black Dog expressed quite well in another thread.) If a government was just social and economic policy, I could support the Liberals without hesitation. My support for the CPC has always been based on my belief that they're a lot like the Liberals, except without the parts that disgust me. I believe that continuing the political status quo in Ottawa is killing this country very slowly through stagnation and cynicism and disaffection, and perhaps despite Martin's (possibly) sincere intentions, he's still the status quo. Despite his talk of renewal and reform and change, none of it has translated into action, and if he's shown me one thing during his tenure as Prime Minister, it's that he has gonads the size of Tic-Tacs. I just don't believe he has the proverbial stones to attempt any sort of meaningful change to this country's institutions or to take on Ottawa's culture. I think that the way things have been done will continue to be the way things are done if Paul Martin is returned as PM. These are the kinds of things I continue to see when I think of the prospect of another Liberal government, and I find the prospect depressing. The defection of Belinda.ca to the Liberals doesn't cause me increased optimism for my expectations of a Liberal government. But it's causing me to question whether the Conservatives are really as viable an alternative as I'd thought. It certainly makes me question Harper's ability as a leader. Attempting to defeat the budget is a dangerous political move. They were unable to separate the Atlantic agreement from the budget, so voting that down could really limit CPC potential for growth in that region. As eureka notes, voting against the provisions for funding of cities could be dangerous in urban ridings. And forcing an election right now is just not a popular move with the electorate. I honestly don't understand why Harper was so single-minded on it... it appeared to be a political mistake, from my point of view. I think she's an asset for a couple of very good reasons that I've already explained. -k

I'd assume a Political Science major would would be smarter than to include the word "Front" in the name of his political party. Canadians will never support a party that calls itself a "Front", which sounds only slightly less confrontational than "Brigade" or "Army". Never. Not even if it was "The National Mothers and Hugs Front." -k {best action group name ever: the "Militant Islamic Liberation Front" (MILF for short...)}