Neal.F.

They will. they must. or they will hang side by side on the gallows of political history.

Is that your scientific opinion? The gateway drug premise confuses correlation with causation. Fact is, in cases where people started with pot and moved onto "hard" drugs, there were other factors (usually socio-economic) at work that influenced their choices. The fact is, these people were likely lazy and slovely (BTW, pot doesn't cause brain damage) before tehy got into weed. I know lawyers, accoutants and scientists who smoke pot regularily and function better than most "lucid" individuals. In cases where pot becomes a problem (because there is certainly such a thing as too much) it should be regarded as a medical condition, and not a criminal matter. You sound like one of those Ivory tower left wingers who equate poverty to drug use.. the same people who have turned poverty into an industry. I've known people who were good students, athletes and involved, who sudden;ly changed once they started smoking the ganja. As I said, I would have no problem with giving the death penalty to the predators that sell drugs. As for your assertion that you know accountants , lawyers, and scientists that smoke this lowlife product... Are you insinuating that because they are members of a profession that they are better than the rest of us? I wonder what their prodfessional asscoiations would think of their members who smoke this stuff? Hmmmm Lawyers.... enough said!!!! Accountants... aren't these the same guys who're getting nailed for cooking the books? Scientists.... the same bunch of loons who promote condoms as safe sex? and perform abortions? I'm not saying all ,members of these professions are bad, far from it. Just that because someone has a certain degree does not make them any better. These people you know may be "functional" but there's more to the picture than meets the eye. The pot issue makes me almost as, if not more angry than the gay marriage one.

I've seen the results and consequences of pot. They are in cemeteries, mental hospitals, public housing, welfare rolls, and on the streets. People I knew. Pot was not the final cause, but I guarantee you it was the gateway to other things. As I pointed out, potheads I knew are now on welfare, because they have been made lazy, slovenly, and even brain damaged. IT COSTS SOCIETY MONEY to have pot legal, as it does for it to be illegal. Drug dealers have the same morals as murderers. They have absolutely NO conscience. They should have the booknthrown at them. I don't have a problem with what China does with them. And I have zero sympathy for them either. I'll be damned before I will regard a piece of s*** like a drug dealer as a respectable business person.

Goldie is right. It's a done deal, or they're both dead meat. It really is that simple, and the Liberal media sneering spin just confirms the fact that the Lieberals are trembling in their boots. A 220-250 seat majority is now looking like a minority or at best a bare majority. And if the Martin strategy of exposing the crouton corruption backfires as it well might, since these very same MPs were part & parcel of the government of the last 10 years, and the right Conservative leader is chosen, there remains even the slight possibility of a Conservative victory, though it will likely be a minority, since Quebec's 75 seats are destined to go massively Liberal. As for the REd Tories, Jolly Joe the Grand marshall is retiring anyway, and Borotsik, Brison and Bachand can either get with the program, or cross the floor....

Stock has shown he can shake things up in Quebec. Harper is anathema here. By and large he is equated with the "No leaders from Quebec" faction of old Reform. Any third party voting will go NDP with Jack-O-Layton there. They might well get to eat alot of scraps from the Bloc table. The Alliance cannot afford to write off Quebec for another election. It's like giving the Lieberals a 50 seat head start. They should target ridings in the Beauce/Chaudiere regions which have a tradition of going against the grain. for example, 3 of four Adequistes were elected there. The Socreds used to come from there, including their last leader, Fabien Roy. They should also go after Joliette, another traditionally independent riding. They elected Tories for years while the rest of the province went red. And Quebec City is an area where the Alliance did well in the last election, as did the ADQ (They placed strong second to the Quebec Liberals in , I believe, 9/11 city ridings) . The Bloc is imploding, anyway, and not all of its support were separatists. It just became a convenient way to stop Liberals from getting elected. Some are social democrats and will go NDP if Layton works properly with Ducasse (Don't underestimate the fact that Layton grew up here) . Others might well vote for the Alliance if they are seen to have a Quebec friendly leader...as in Stock Day. The Alliance needs to build a beachhead NOW for the next election...if they get 10% and 1-2 seats, that would be a major achievement, and makes them a credible player for 2008. If they wait for 2008, they may have lost their drawing power from among protest voters to the NDP. Remember , after the votes are counted, nobody asks why. A vote is a vote, protest or otherwise, and gratefully accepted. Red Tories are liberals anyway. A party that gives into their weasely little demands (ie: gay marriage, choice on abortion etc.) isn't worth a damn. Might as well vote Liberal for all the difference it'll make.

I don't think Harper really wants it anyway.... my hunch is that he really wants King Ralphie's job when it becomes available.... He can afford to be gracious as everybody knows that MacKay has a snowball's chance in hell.

Loyalty to a 137 year old party, for one thing. And , as I pointed out the Alliance's original shotgun approach to the wedding. Let's face it Manning's "either you join us, or we'll crush you" approach was not a hot ticket. Thankfully, cooler heads seem to be prevailing at this time.

I hasten to point out that Gray Davis' caving into every demand of the gay lobby and the pro-aborts had alot to do with it too. since 54% voted for recall, and Arnie the liberal only got 48% of the vote and McClintock despite being virtually ignored by a star-struck media got 13%, that should tell you that a good many people were angered by the Davis social policy legacy as well. Arnie is basically an empty suit, and McClintock's strong showing against the odds places him in a good position for the next election by which time Arnie will have probably buggered things up.

Red tories are going to be politically homeless. That is for certain. All red tories do is make sure we get Liberal governments. They succeed in driving away the social conservatives, without whose participation in the coalition, a conservative party will never form a government. Real conservatives can't bringthemselves to vote for a guy who serves as garnd marshall in the Calgary gay pride obscenity, and backs Svend Robinson on most social issues. So either you Red tories are going to have to vote Liberal, or you'll hold your noses and vote for a real conservative, or you'll stay home. If you stay at home, no matter. there are alot more blue Tories who have been staying home who will come out once we're all rid of Joe Clark and his ilk. On the other hand, I don't share Springer's enthusiasm for Stephen Harper. While I do not doubt his conservative credientials, his command of the issues, and other such things, whaty I do doubt is his ability to pull votes beyond the west. I note that he has been working very hard in the maritimes, to his credit, but can he overcome the perception of his (defeatist) comments? And why are Alliance numbers so low in Ontario? I don't know if Mike Harris is the magic elixir, maybe yes, maybe no. What about Brian Pallister? He has distinguished himself in parliament, and stands solidly for the very family values that the Chretien government is selling down the river, yet is not perceived as a Bible thumping radical. What about Vic Toews? Jason Kenney & Gary Breitkreuz (who have stood up more for the unborn in Parliament than anyone else in memory). I would discount Chuck Strahl. He's left too much of a bad taste in too many people's mouths. Now back to Stock Day for a moment. For all the damnation he gets from the Harperites, he is a bridge builder. He brought the CA from zero in Quebec to 3d in terms of votes, beating out even the once-mighty Progressive Conservatives. He had succeeded in reaching out to a province which 3 1/2 years earlier had felt slapped in the face by the Reform party. Now, with Harper, one of the faces of Old reform back at the helm, support in Quebec has flatlined. Given another election there might havbe been some seats. an election after that, and they'd be a real player in Quebec. In the Maritimes, the CA nearly won Tobique Mactaquac, and fared respectably in several other seats such as Fredricton, Moncton, Southwest NB, and West Nova. It was taking root. Harper's comments, rightly or wrongly burnt many of those bridges. In all, the biggest mistake the United Alternative cum CA made back in 2000 was to have approached the PCs with a shotgun, rather than a bouquet. Whether that would have succeeded in bringing all tories over is doubtful, but a goodwill approach certainly would have pulled the carpet out from under Joe Clark's feet, and there would not have been the partisan backlash there was that enabled Joe Clark to steal enough votes to cost several seats in Ontario, one in NB, and to retain party status, which I remind everyone, he did only by 352 votes. (André Bachand barely held on, and only because the Liberals nominated a septuagenarian farmer who was also inarticulate).

My thinking is, that more often than not parties in canada are closely identified with their leader. My fear is that if both Messrs. Harper and MacKay don't fall on their swords, public perception of the whole thing would be that nothing has really changed, and the poll numbers would be in the mid- 20's at best. That would be the result if it was perceived as a takeover. If, however, there's what appears to mbe a fair deal, followed by a good leadership contest , then the Ipsos numbers of last week could bear out (32%) While the Lieberals still weighed in at 51%, the handwriting was on the wall, and the Libs tried to spin it away (Martin would overwhelm even a merged party) . Lets not forget that this poll reflects where things would stand, even without the Conservatives nominating a leader. Now ask yourself what happens with a 10% swing? Ladies and gentlemen, we'd have a real contest on our hands. Conservatives, it's time to get it right.

Black Dog (or should I call him RED Dog?) misses the point indeed. Ehud barak was ready to give the Palestinians 97% of their demands... 97% !!!!!!! and what happens? The Palestinians showed their true colours and took their rocks- er-marbles, and walked away... Not only walked away, but started another intifada, demonstrating for all to see that they never wanted peace.... That article one still stanbds and always will: To push the Jews into the sea. They don't want their own palestinian state alongside Israel. they want a Palestinian state ( a police state, no less) INSTEAD of Israel.

And Joe Clark resembles a chipmunk..... Now what is it about Mr Kenney, apart from his appearance that you don't like? the fact that he is dead set against abortion (slaughter of unborn human beings) and homosexual "marriage"? If Mr MacKay wants a merger, credit is due him. However, he is going to face a tough sell in the leadership campaign on account of his record of keeping agreements.

I don't consider Arnie a Conservative. I would not vote for him. I would be voting for Sen. Tom McClintock were I in California today. McClintock is a true conservative. He knows and understands the financuial matters of the state, and would bring in fiscally conservative policies to rectify things... More important;ly he is socially conservative. He would reverse the radical maves made by Moonbeam Davis , since he is staunchly pro-life, and also understands the nature of the radical feminist/homosexual movements, and is determnined to roll back the de-forms introduced by Dumbocruds. Arnie may be a fiscal conservative, but a social conservative he is not. In other words I'd prefer to see Arnie elected to ANY Dumbocrud, but tomnight will be a disappointment nevertheless.

Israel has been showing the utmost restraint ever since its inception. It would have been fully justified in wiping every Arab country that ever attacked it off the map. Their citizens are being slaughtered by terrorists (synonym for pathetic bloody cowards), and as far as I'm concerned they are fully justified in pursuing these cowards to their sources...their trainer....their funder...and even states and governmnets that provide them with the means to operate and provide tehm safe harbour. Long Live Israel!

Dalton McGuinty got a second chance, and made the mosty of it. Jean Charest, all but written off, even by me, got a second chance, and kicked Landry's gluteus maximus. Gordon Campbell won on his second time out. Enough examples for you? As for Stock, I remain convinced that he is not in the PMO today for two reasons: He was on the job 3 months before the weasel called the election. Joe Clark threw a "hail mary" pass, since he was at 8% aand had nothing to lose. he shone in the dbate, and split the vote. Add to that, the CA was unprepared for Kinsella's smear campaign. If Stock is in the race, I'll back him. Now Gugsy, what is your problem with Jason Kenney? Has Mr. Kenney ever promised someone something in writing , and then 30 days later entered into negotiations with exactly whom he promised not to negotiate?

Chretien has been on a one man crusade to burn the social fabric of this country toi rags since he announced his long overdue and protracted departure from public life. he has made gay marriage and the legalization of pot the #1 issues on the country's agenda. he is an utter embarrassment and future generations will be left with the bill. I have never seen two more bills get so much attention and priority from any government... even conscription and the GST were not rammed wthrough with the same sense of urgency. And now, the horrible little weasel is about to re-admit Independent MP Jean-Guy Carignan of Quebec-Est to caucus. He's the one who committed the hit & run so he could get his hair colouring done in time for an all-candidates meeting...... like saying gay marreiage is fine and smoking pot is cool, Crouton is once again setting a stellar example for youth. The vast majority of caucus do NOT want this man readmitted, and martin has said that he will kick him out again as soon as he takes over. Paul martin is holding his first caucus meeting shortly. What is needed is a united front consisting of at least 80% of the Liberal caucus calling on crouton to resign immediately. I won't hold my breath on that one. Chretien and his one running dog lickspittle Martin Cauchon both need to be awarded "the Order of The Boot".

I'm convinced that had the true Tory base turned out to vote, the total % would have been over 65%, which is still pretty bad. One of the problems is the media. It acts as if the only choices out there are Liberal, PC or NDP. Another problem is similar, it is the parties themselves who would like us to believe that there are only the three parties. They do so by writing electoral law to suit them, instead of the voter. There are other parties out there, many of whom would appeal to the voter who feels disenfranchised. Either that voter doesn't know about these options, or he is so jaded that, while he might like the FCP, Greens or Freedom Party, he is convinced that the system is so stacked against them (and him) that it is not only pointless to vote, but that going out to vote perpetrates the fraud. If electoral law is challenged, it helps even out the playing field, and contributes to our taking back the system for instance, in '92, the PC govt. in a doomed effort to thwart the Bloc and Reform, introduced a bill which amended electoral law so as to make it an onerous task for a smaller party to get on the ballot, and even retain its registration status. So the 158 Tories, 83 Libs and 44 Dippers nodded their heads gravely in assent and passed the law which: 1) raised the deposit for candidates from the nominal $250.00 to $1000.00. 2) They increased the number of electors' signatures required from 25, to 100, something a big party could accomplish at general meeting, but a minor party candidate would have to spend several evenings importuning passers by to sign. 3) They required that in order to retain registered party status (ie: retain the ability to issue tax receipts for donations between elections) the party would have to duly nominate at least 50 candidates. Talk about stacking the deck. The Communist Party of Canada challeneged this law and did so successfully, but only real political junkies know much about this. Now the government has to rewrite the electoral law, however, they have 5 years in which to do it. And no doubt they will come up with a way to make it even more restrictive, which will then have to be challenged again. Unless people get off their behinds and start to demand that democracy and choice at the ballot box be restored, we will move inexorably toward a system that nobody participates in because it is a sham, thus establishing perpetual elitist rule. My Father and many ofhis generation went to WAR over democracy. Rule of the Progressive Liberal Democratic Party is NOT what these men fought, and in many cases , died for. Yes Craig. I think that for many Life is too easy for them . they are Fat , dumb and happy, partaking of the bread and circuses offered by pop culture. But for those who really care, it's time to make some noise.

I would not rule out Stock Day or Jason Kenney. They may well take a stab at it. Day has shone as Foreign affairs critic, and has learned many a lesson. Kenney has long been seen as leadership material. He's got the smarts economically, and the social conservative credentials as well. Both Kenney and Day speak French. Though Day was not at his best in the debate, I have heard him him being interviewed in depth on French radio here. They'd be longshots, but possible candidates. And if either get into the race, I would be inclined to support either one. I also would not rule out another insurgency campaign from "Enza" As for Flaherty, not only is he unknown outside of Ontario, he has his eye on the PC leadership there as well. Word is, Eves is gone as soon as he lines up a directorship or two.

In addition to "first past the post" voting , election financing in Canada needs a complete overhaul. Why should we be paying for Liberal, PC , CA, Bloc and NDP election campaigns? -------------- Vol 10 No 39 FATTENING INCUMBENTS' WAR-CHESTS by CHP National leader Ron Gray Taxpayers now have the dubious "privilege" of paying the lion's share of election expenses for the party Allan Fotheringham dubbed "The Natural Governing Party" — the Federal Liberals. The changes zipped through the House and Senate with the concurrence of all the other parties in Parliament; they, too, will get their war-chests filled by the taxpayers. Not as much as the Liberals, but “the dogs eat the crumbs from their master’s table.” In addition, the Liberal Party gets almost two hours of the 390 minutes allocated for election advertising broadcasts — more than three times as much as any other party. Now, doesn't that make you feel all warm and happy? For several years now, the Christian Heritage Party has called for changes in the way the Elections Act supports political parties. "Don't set the rules according to how they will serve the parties," we've said. "The criterion should be: do the rules serve the need — indeed the right — of voters to have adequate information about all he options available?" Whenever I've asked that question, representatives of the five parties now in the House of Commons stare at me with faces as impassive as the Easter Island monoliths. The idea is so bizarre, in their eyes, that it cannot be comprehended. I might as well be speaking Swahili. But surely that should be the fundamental rule for everything about how elections are run: does it serve the voters? Furthermore, when the people we elect to make the laws use that power to pass laws which compel taxpayers to pay the election expenses of the sitting MPs and their parties, I believe that only one word describes such behavior: "CORRUPT". It's an overt abuse of legislative power! Even many Liberal MPs at first resisted the changes of Bill C-24. It puts a cap on donations from corporations — and most Liberals were lavishly-funded by corporate donations. But when they saw that the corporate largesse they lost would be more than replaced by the taxpayers, they obediently did the Prime Minister's bidding. What's more, this year they'll not only get a rebate of 50% of their expenses in the last election (under the old rules), they'll also get $1.75 for every vote they won in the last election (the new rules). The Elections Act says that $1.75 is to be paid in quarterly allotments, but this year they'll get the whole annual allowance all at once — just in time for the next election! Any grant of taxpayers' money based on the results of the previous election is merely a formula for perpetuating the status quo. But how else would you expect Liberals to use taxpayers' money? Citizens, in the Liberal world-view, serve two purposes: keeping Liberals in power, and paying for all their boondoggles (remember HRDC, gun registry, anthrax pills and all the other billion-dollar blunders?). Oh yes: Canadian "democracy" can be wonderful — if you’re a Liberal!

That's right, Craig. Like I said, it's simply a question of how you'd like your socialism. There is not an option for a true conservative in Ontario. None of the big three will actually reform, what they all propose is mere tweaking to the existing system. Hugo, there is an option for conservatives in Ontario. The Family Coalition Party. More people are realzing it now too. In some ridings they were close to 5%. Meanwhile, the Greens are becoming more relevant to the left. The Big parties had better take note. when "Others" (in this case the FCP and Greens. all others ran too few candidates, and garnered so few votes to be significant) can score over 4% province wide, there's some real DISSATISFACTION manifesting itself.

The NDP's ability to split the anti Tory vote In Ontario is a good thing, and frankly a neccessary evil. If they fizzle, there's a very good chance the Liberals will be in for a long , long time.

Relax Craig, he's staying on an interim basis. The Party exec asked him to stay on for a bit. You don't want ton bring a new leader in just yet. Best to bring a new leader in halfway through the mandate, so that he's not birdcage liner by the time the election is called. You want him fresh enough to have appeal, but on the job long enough to be credible. Remember the next election is at least 4 years away. McGuinty will NOT make the same mistake Peterson made by going too early. As for Eves, very gracious of him to agree to stay. he probably wants out more than anyone else. They need to pull together, instead of pulling an Alliance and nearly flying apart.

Tommy Douglas, like MJ Coldwell and JS Woodsworth of the CCF before him, was a social conservative. Is that where you think the NDP should be? Would Svend and Libby allow it?

I've never heard that, even from the CBC.... Interestingly, the CBC's Judy Madron issued a memo to all CBC outlets this morning counselling them NOT to use teh term Premier-elect, or premier-designate for Mr McGuinty or any other. To be Premier elect, it would have to be only in a case where the premier is elected by separate ballot as in Israel. Premier designate would refer to an appointed Premier who was waiting to be sworn in. Semantics ......

The probable result should Pelleken's statement come to pass.