kimmy

Nonsense. This recasting of Manning as a sincere and scholarly man began only after he was turfed from leadership; prior to that he was fitted with the same "scary religious kook" label that has since been applied to Day and Harper. Perhaps it was just contrast with Day that made Manning seem mild by contrast, or perhaps it was the fact that with Manning retired from politics there was no further need to depict him as some sort of theocrat, or perhaps it's a blend of both. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure that the theory that he was just picking up steam at the time he was deposed is revisionism. -kimmy

The Conservatives are also within 7% of the Liberals in Quebec. If you put heartburn, hangovers, stale beer, or flat cola on the poll, they would also be within 7% of the Liberals in Quebec. The Ebola Virus might poll within 7% of the Liberals in Quebec. To consider being within 7% of the Liberals in Quebec as some kind of accomplishment is, I would think, a rather dubious conclusion. I once saw a Mad Magazine (!) feature on deciphering polls, advertising, and spin. One of the techniques they demonstrated went much along the same line: An advertisement enthusiastically declares, "Audiences at Cutthroat Island have doubled since week one!" Accompanying illustrations demonstrate the problem with that seemingly positive statement... The "week one" drawing shows one lonely customer sitting in an otherwise empty theatre. The "week two" drawing shows two lonely customers sitting in an otherwise empty theatre. While some may doubt the educational value of Mad Magazine, I find that particular cartoon comes to mind often now that I'm an adult trying to think critically about politics; it certainly made a more lasting impression on me than anything I learned in Social Studies class. Just as I often find The Daily Show to be a more insightful look at world events than what I see on "real" news programs. hmm. Perhaps that's a problem... -kimmy e newman. {what. me worry?}

Given substantive changes to the budget, billions of additional spending and the removal of tax cuts, the Liberals have given the Conservatives sufficient reason to withdraw their support for the budget. It's simply not what the people who voted Conservative MPs into Parliament voted for (it's not even what Liberal voters voted for, or Ralph Goodale wouldn't have been so opposed...) Do they really need any other justification for voting against the government? Earlier in the term, the Conservatives' detractors, including Liberal MPs, I believe, made mocking remarks about Harpers' decision to have MPs abstain from votes in order to let legislation pass. Now the free ride appears to be over, and the same people are suddenly not cracking jokes. -kimmy

The point you're trying to make was addressed repeatedly by people smarter than I am during the last SSM debate, so I'll just suggest that you use the forum's thrifty Search function to locate that thread and review. One problem with your example is that the comparison of "persons" and "non-persons" has a load of historical baggage that's simply not applicable in a discussion of "marriage" vs "civil union". I'll just add that there are a multitude of instances where the term "men" or male pronouns, rather than gender-neutral language, are used in our society but taken to extend to women as well. Sensible people decided it was possible to simply understand the concepts to apply equally to women, without rechristening women as men. While I suspect RB will have some histrionics to get off her chest, I think most people weigh in on the side of "not that big a deal" on the subject of gender-neutral language, because the understanding that the principles apply to women as well as men has become universal in our society. While the belief that the rights and privileges of marriage will apply to civil unions as well is far from universal in our society, codifying it into law makes that a moot point. However, my point wasn't to reopen that debate. It was simply to point out that given the number of socially progressive nations that have adopted a policy identical to the Conservatives', trying to characterize it as theocratic or barbaric seems like a real stretch. -k

Well, given the closeness of Liberal/NDP to the magic 154 that they'd need to ensure the defeat of a non-confidence motion, the opinions of all 3 independent members are very important right now. -k

The PM could remove opposition members from the House of Commons by appointing them to the senate? Intriguing... but also rather unsavory. Removing a riding's democratically elected representative from the HOC under any circumstances seems contrary to the ideal of our system. Doing it under such a thinly veiled pretense seems especially so. I'd expect it would be bad PR for the government, as it's such a transparent maneuver. I assume it would also be a temporary solution at best for Martin, as there would have to be byelections in the affected ridings within a reasonable length of time, wouldn't there? Overall it seems like a particularly underhanded gesture for a guy who claims to have such high ideals for how politics should be done in Canada. But as we've already seen, when ideals fight expediency, expediency often comes out victorious. -kimmy

If the "who?" fits... -k

I've noticed that a few times as well. I found that if I clicked to reply with quotes to the "missing" message, the reply form had the missing text in it, so it's not that the text was lost, it's just not displaying correctly for some reason. We should try refreshing, to see if retrying the page repeats the same problem, and we should see if it's always the same messages that don't display correctly. -k

Ludicrous. If there is any threat to Canadian unity right now it remains the separatist opportunists we have known lo these many years. ...who the Liberals have just handed everything they needed to secure an unprecidented victory at the federal level, a win in the next provincial election, and (according to the most recent poll) majority support. The Liberals claim to be the only party that knows how to preserve Canadian unity. But how's that working out for them? Alfonso Gagliano says they've handed victory to the separatists. While I'm not a fan of the guy, I don't see much reason to doubt his assessment of thie situation... -kimmy

If you want to get caught up into the semantics of whether "money laundering scheme" is a fair description of the program, you'll have to do it with someone else. Certainly not all the participants were Liberals, but all the participants who weren't Liberals seem to have profited greatly by playing along with the Liberals. And certainly one feature common to a great deal of the testimony and from a number of different witnesses has been the creation of false claims, false expenses, false contracts, all deliberately intended to conceal that the real destination of the money was the pockets of Liberal party officials. Now, whether that's exactly the "textbook" definition of money-laundering, I'm not sure... but I think it's pretty close to the mark. Close enough for horse-shoes and message boards. The notion seems to be that either Quebecers' affections could be bought with these cheesy little gifts, or else that Quebecers are too dumb to see through something so transparent. Either way, I'm not terribly surprised that many of them seem to have been offended. -kimmy

Thank goodness! Its comforting to know that the whole same sex marriage debacle has just been a nightmare, and the conservatives are going to stop their religious moralising as soon as I wake up. Phew! The same-sex marriage position adopted by the Conservatives is the same position adopted by theocracies like Holland and Sweden, and by hard-core right-wing religious kooks like Eureka. It is, in fact, a reasonable stance that nobody except hard-liners on either side of the issue should find objectionable. Myself, I have an equally hard time figuring out why the religious types are opposed to using the word marriage in that context and why the homosexual community is insistent on using the word marriage in that context. I just don't get why it's such a big issue for either side... isn't it the rights that's the important part? -kimmy

In fairness, Martin may have had multiple takes to get the right one, but the other leaders were reading prepared speeches from teleprompters, so it's not like they were trying to respond off the cuff or anything. -k

I kind of feel bad for him too. Maybe I've just been conned by his public persona, but I do somehow feel that he's a good and decent person at heart, and that he probably had very sincere intentions for what he might have accomplished when he took office. I'd like to think that he's a nice person with good intentions. That doesn't mean I think he's got what it takes to be an effective PM, just that I don't think he deserved the hand he got dealt. But lots of people probably felt bad for Kim Campbell and Joe Clark too. -kimmy

Well, I like the new look somewhat. It's quite ... ... blue. Aside from the improved blueness of the board, are there any new features that we users will notice? -k

I think it's something that can't be explained using facts or logic... you need rostrums. (nobody else knows what I'm talking about, but I bet The Sweal snorts coffee out his nose when he reads that. ) In all honesty, I expect you'll be accused of being Albertan or worse. Myself and my parents were living in Ottawa at the time of his death, and with myself being too young and my parents being too Albertan to "get it", we were all quite bemused at the massive outpouring of public maudlinisms and the long lineups to visit his corpse. -kimmy

Surely you're kidding us. "Ad-scam" was created by the PQ and BQ? Yes, the PQ and BQ may have motivated the "Ads" part of the equation, but the "scam" part, that was 100% LPC. If the Sponsorship Program had operated according to the government's own rules, and limited its expenses to doing what it was supposed to do, there'd be no "scam" to discuss. There'd be no Gomery inquiry. There'd be no daily allegations of criminal activity committed in the name of "defending federalism". The worst the opposition and the BQ in particular would have to complain about was that the benefits of the program are somewhat dubious. It is the scam part, not the ads part, which has disgraced the Liberals and discredited the cause of federalism in Quebec, and the blame for that falls squarely on the shoulders of those members of the LPC who just couldn't keep their hands out of the cookie jar. And then there's the question of whether the sponsorship program was even intended to "defend federalism", or if it was conceived from the ground up as a money-laundering scheme. I'm sure we'll never know for sure. But did people really think that sponsoring boat shows and petting zoos would prevent another referendum? Obviously I don't understand Quebecers very well, because if that's the sort of thing that would build their sense of federalism, I guess Quebecers must like boat shows and petting zoos a lot more than I'd have expected. -kimmy

Back in the "What is an Albertan?" thread, I wrote that the one time in my life I'd experienced what The Sweal refered to as "meaningless, imaginary tribalism" was during my time in Ottawa, and most graphically at Canada Day on Parliament Hill. That was when it was really driven home to me that there's something philosophically different at work that I'm just not a part of. I believe that this is the "ideal" of which you write; and as others have already pointed out, it is hardly universal in english Canada. If there's emotional angst or cognitive dissonance taking place over the slow-motion train-wreck of the LPC, I'm fairly confident that it's largely limited to those who are of a mind to don Maple Leaf war-paint, Maple Leaf ceremonial head-gear, chant Maple Leaf slogans, and so forth. -kimmy

As my feelings for Da Little Guy are well documented, I probably don't need to say much here. I will mention, however, that I find it a little amusing how quickly many people have turned against him. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here at the forum, just speaking generally... I enjoy that people who once would have fought tooth and nail defend the good name of Chretien are now prepared to make him the scapegoat for all of the problems that have befallen his party. However, I'm not quite sure of what you mean here... ...could you put that in a way that the less informed of me might better understand what you mean? I think that for some people, their willingness to recast Chretien as a hatchet-wielding baby-killer is a reflection of their need to have somebody to blame for PM PM's problems. I myself have always wanted to believe that Martin is a better and more decent person at heart than Chretien. And for some of us who had high hopes for the "Martin Era" the feeling that Chretien had handed Martin a "poisoned chalice" (as media-types phrased it) was there from the beginning. However, I think the growing realization of just how much trouble the Liberals are in has converted a lot more people, who might have had no gripes with Chretien before, to this "poisoned chalice" point of view. -kimmy

Indeed. The move to increase the number of relatives being brought to Canada appears to be a transparent attempt to curry favor with immigrant voters. Not a right or left issue, just a "let's try and stay in power" issue. -kimmy

Now that Paul Martin has publicly and formally hitched his party's fate to the Gomery inquiry, he had better hope like hell that "Da Little Guy" isn't successful in his attempt to have the inquiry shut down. I mean, what's he going to do-- go before the Canadian people and say "Well, I promised to call an election within 30 days of Judge Gomery's report, so that people will have all the facts. But since the inquiry has been cancelled, I guess that's not actually going to be necessary. Sorry; no election." or how about "Well, I promised to call an election within 30 days of Judge Gomery's report. However, since the inquiry has been shut down, I make a new pledge. Canadians need the facts, so I am going to appoint a new inquiry under Judge Smith. This should take another year to 18 months. I pledge that I will call an election within 30 days of Judge Smith's report. That should be somewhere around February 2007. Your patience is appreciated." No, I don't think either of those will fly. I think that Chretien succeeding in having Gomery shut down would be pretty much a dream scenario for all 3 opposition parties, and a crushing blow to the Liberals. Interestingly... if Chretien and his loyalists sincerely believe the Liberal party is the only party that can hold Canada together, and yet he continues to push to have Gomery shut down, a move that would undoubtably be devastating to the Liberals, what does that tell you? That his "legacy" is more important to him than the country? That his personal dislike for Paul Martin is more important to him than the country? (chee... and people were down on me for daring to suggest that Chretien might be a person of despicable character.) -kimmy

Indeed. This crisis gives the NDP a chance to fulfill their promise to the people who voted for them. I think we all know (realistically) that the NDP won't have enough support to form a government any time in the near future. How many seats they win in Quebec is not of great concern to them. They do need to convince voters in the regions where they do have some support that an NDP vote is not a wasted vote. If Jack Layton can push the Liberals into making the changes he wants, that will be a concrete accompishment that he can take to voters during the next election. If voters ask "Well, I agree with their principles, but it seems hopeless voting for a party that'll never have enough support to make things change," the NDP can reply "Here is something we did last time with our 20 seats in Commons. Give us 20 seats again, or better yet, more than 20, and we'll keep fighting to make this kind of change." -kimmy

I imagine that eureka was livid with that bit of testimony. Two of eureka's most enduring themes-- that the Liberal corruption is just money, and that the judicial selection process is noble and apolitical-- have been challenged in one fell swoop. This allegation should probably have its own thorough, independant investigation, separate from the Gomery inquiry. I doubt Irwin Cotler's histrionics have reassured people as to the integrity of the process. -kimmy

In light of the Liberals' decision to cancel opposition days, something like this was inevitable. The Liberals showed it was in their power to keep the opposition from introducing a non-confidence motion; the Conservatives have now shown it's in their power to get a non-confidence motion on the table anyway. I hope this motion doesn't pass; I do think there might be a price to pay at the polls if they appear opportunistic. I think they do need to wait for a real reason to force an election. In the meantime, Jack Layton should send Harper a thank-you note, reading something like this: "Dear Stephen, Thank you showing the Liberals that they can't keep a non-confidence motion off the agenda. This really gives my party a boost in our efforts to try and get the Liberals to make some compromises on socially progressive legislation. Thanks a bunch; Action Jack." -kimmy

That thread was actually started by The Sweal, not daniel. -k

That's probably a reasonable compromise. Waiting to the end of the testimony lets people hear all the information; surely they don't need Gomery's analysis to tell them what it means. Compromise? The vast majority of Canadians want to wait for the Report. What question were they asked? If the options were "election right now", or "wait for the report", then no doubt most prefer to wait for the report. Personally, I believe that people wish to hear the facts before an election. That would be the end of the testimony. Upon hearing the end of the testimony, do Canadians really need to wait for Gomery to tell them how to feel about what they've heard? How about the large portion of Canadians who answered "no" when asked if the Liberals still have the moral authority to govern? -k