Neal.F.

I voted Liberal for the very first time in my life!!!! Seriously, I'll tell you why the Alliance is getting demolished in this poll..... There's a daily newsletter published by Joe Hueglin, a former MP from the Niagara area, which always brings to the forefront polls such as this. Then the members go out and wildly vote away. What ticks me off the most is that here we have what may be the last chance to get a merger between the two parties, and instead of registering dissatisfaction with the Liberals (It's OK to wish them away, since the Liberal Party of canada does not have a political philosphy beyond say whaetever it takes to win, then do whatever we want to once elected), these PC fanatics go out on a destroy the Alliance kick. Very stupid. Here's how it appeared in that newsletter "The Daily Digest" Great way to build goodwill guys! Guess you like Liberal governments....

I think that the Libs are on their way out in Newfoundland...Good riddance... as for the Quebec liberal party, Just in case you didn't know, they are in NO WAY affiliated with the Fedlibs. There are some Liberals in that party, but there are also many conservatives as well. What unites them is the fact that they are not seps. I hope Ernie can hold on in Ont. Even diehard NDPsupporters are conceding that Calvert and his bunch of socialist goatherders are on their way out, and the BC Libs are really the Socreds under a new name. At least most of the country has something to balance out the outrageous Liberal govt in Ottawa. Now, Unity would gain seats in every province in the country, though only very modest gains in Quebec. It has to be done, with a view to a MAy/June 2004 election. If the will is there, it will be done. I think even the most ardent partisans of both parties are tired of glaring at the arrogant Liberals from the opposition benches.

Youi hit it on the head. Both PCs and Alliancistas would like to keep their parties and watch them ride on to victory, but it ain't gonna happen. In fact , we are at the point where if they don't unite, it is possible that the Lieberals may take many seats in Alberta!!!! The three parties are all pretty close in support there, albeit with the PCs trailing , but in a healthy third. This split vote will allow Lieberals to come up the middle. In order for the merger to happen, both groups will have to take some water in their wine. But that will be thr price of getting rid of the Liberals , and restoring a healthy Democracy before it is too late. Judging by the posts i have seen on this board and others on this matter today, the vast majority from both parties are open to this idea. Reality is sinking in. They should run with it while they have the momentum.

I agree Gugsy, with your suggestion of a delegated convention of 1000 from each party going in, and the moment the last ballot is cast, all current CA & PC cards become null and void while a new card for the new party is issued to all in time for the announcement of the new leader. Bit o' symbolism, but powerful nonetheless. I think Mike harris or someopne of his calbre would step up pretty quickly should this scenario be accomplished. Dennis, I must disagree, if there's a massive Lieberal majority under Martin that further weakens the CA and /or the PCs, just think about how difficult it will be THEN to raise funds for subsequent elections. On the other hand, if these guys can pull it together over the next 6 months or so, I think there will be no shortage of funds, since many votes are parked with the Liberals right now based on the premise that "there's nobody else to vote for". Give them a serious united alternative, and Martin is in deep trouble...

What good does it do do know your whol;e carreer in politiocs will peak at being leader of the opposition (or shadow cabinet) with no hope of EVER being government? Just a big fish in a small pond.. and a small fish in relative size to the average backbencher on the government side? If these guys are incapable of reeling in the egos, the one thing we can count on is Prime Minister Paul MArtin....then Tobin....then Justin Trudeau....ad infinitum. I'm inclined to think the behind the scenes executives of both parties might have a say and be able to twist the arms of the egotists.

PC Sen Tkachuk has submitted a proposal for parliamentary coalition, thence full merger. The deal would save 65 ridings for CA nominations, 40 for PC nominations, with the rest doing joint nominations. Both parties will sit together in the fall session, and if all works out, full merger in the new year under the name "Conservative Party of Canada". Harper has praised the idea. MacKay has yet to respond. The leadership issue would have to be resolved shortly after the merger. About time too. Whether or not diehard Tories and Alliance members like it or not, it is time they kissed and made up. There may not BE another chance. First off, Canada cannot afford and its status as a democracy may not survive another Liberal mandate... I guarantee you that the Lieberals will use all the means at their disposal to further consolidate their hold on power, making the task of dislodging them even more difficult than it already is. Serious players will come to the conclusion that public policy is being formulated exclusively in the Lieberal party, and will only consider running for them. On the other hand, if we have a credible NATIONAL opposition with the potential of becoming the government, the whole picture changes. The ONLY way this can be achieved is by a full merger of both parties. Sen. Tkachuk has made a very reasonable proposal to that end, I believe. the really fuzzy matter is the question of leadership... I think that after a successful joint caucus operation, followed by a formal merger in the early new year, an accellerated leadership contest must be held. Both Mssrs. Harper and MacKAy should be allowed to run, but if they decided to fall on their swords for the greater good of the country, they would be be well regarded. This would permit someone such as Mike Harris, who like him or not, is known for one thing- doing exactly what he says he is going to do-could ostensibly lead the party, if not to victory, at least a minority govt, or a VERY strong opposition poised to win the next time. The Lieberals on the other hand waffle on every issue. you never know what they'll do. they don't do what they promise, and they bring other things through the back door, and ram them down our throats. If we want what is possibly our last chance to restore a parliamentary democracy in this country where two parties can successfully vie for power, then full merger of the PC and CA parties, and NOW, is an absolute requirement. There are people from both parties working diligently behind the scenes to achieve this, fully aware of the consequences of failure. I hope blowhards in both parties can restrain themselves from torpedoeing the process. If the two parties don't work together, they'll hang together...and bring the rest of us to the gallows with them

Of those who contend for seats, let alone government, Only the PCs are a valid choice, Eves notwithstanding. If Howdy-doody becomes premier either by majority or minority coalition with Howie Hampton, It'll be Buffalo Bob Rae and his cappuccino sucking granola crunchers all over again. The time to send a government a message with a protest vote is when you know they have no chance of losing, but might be sobered by the loss of a few seats. Remeber 1990 when enough Ontarians thought voting NDP as a protest was such a great idea!!!!

may this trend continue..... Even with these numbers, it is permitted to cheer, since the Lieberals votes are concentrated heavily in Metro Toronto, and some urban areas like Windsor, Hamilton and parts of Ottawa, while the Tories are strongest in 905, and most of the rural areas in the east, and southwest. I think it is just sinking in to many people that Dalton just doesn't have what it takes to be Premier. And the NDP should be very worried. They might even have the long overdue burial they have been waiting for since 1995. Even if they hold a couple of seats, there will be no way to justify giving them party status. Even more worrisome to the Federral NDP, is that the way things work in that party, is that the federal and provincial wings fundraise together, and the provincial wing will deplete the Feds warchest just in time for a spring election. 6 Provinces with provincial NDPs went to the polls this year, so they will be facing the same sitiation almost nationwide, except perhaps in Manitoba, where the provincial winnerwill have no trouble raising new funds. But in NB, NF, NS, PEI, and SK (where the Sask prty will likely win) they will be facing an uphill battle.

I am convinced there is a definite media bias toward the Liberals. You don't need to twist my arm on that. The question I have for you is, Do you think that the media cheerleading will actually help the Lieberals, or will it backfire?

Gugsy, I've run and it's an experience you'll remember for the rest of your life, even if you only get 400 votes.... On the other hand, even if you go into it knowing you will not win, when the numbers come in, it's going to hurt... and will hurt for some days after.... But on the whole, it's worth it. Do it while you're and single. Once you've got the kids and the mortgage, and the wife who demands her share of your time, it's not as easy as it once was to go out there.

Great article.... For someone who loathes the Dumbocruds as much as I do, it is reassuring. The best thing about a Bush win in 2004, is that he will then be free to run a conservative government with no fear of what Liberal pundits will have to say, since he will not be eligible to run again in 2008. Now if the economy is picking up now, it should still be running with a full head of steam in 2008, which will weaken the Dumbocruds' chances even then. We can already see some of the republican contenders emerging. I say watch for Condi Rice, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, and others. What do the Dumbocruds have? They have already virtually nominated Hil-liary Clinton. Condi Rice would tear her apart. The only thing that could stop Bush is an insurgent right wing independent challenge of some substance, and none appears on the horizon at the moment. Meanwhile the Dumbocruds, if the nominate Dean, are dead. If they don't nominate him, they run the risk of Dean running as an independent antoi Bush radical from the left. The only thing that could prevent that , is if The Clinton woman offers herself up as a sacrificial lamb. She could run a strong campaign against Bush, but she is such a polarizing candidate that she would not even come clsoe to the electoral college votes she'd need. I figure she could take California, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Illinois, DC, Delaware, maryland, and maybe a handful of others. TWo years ago, I'd have added NY to the list , but 9/11 changed all that. Dean, on the other hand would fare as badly as McGovern or Mondale.

These poor sods in California basically being offered two poor choices, and calling Bustamoveamente a choice, is to use the term loosely. Nevertheless Arnie had better start talking ideas fast, or he'll just re-inforce my view that he's just another liberal empty suit . Unless he starts talking business, and moral issues, from a conservative view, if I lived in California, I'd have abig problem voting for him. I'd probbaly gofor McClintock. And one reason Buffet gave for supporting Hitlery Clinton in her NY Senatorial bid was was that he liked her views on abortion. Just the kind of idiot they need advising Arnie.

Here's the PEI NDP Website On it you will find a photo of our friend Pellaken!

Hogwash!!!!! Since when do you send a picture with a university application? How the hell would someone in the admissions office know someone is black?

Well said Wisdowsmite. You will find Pedophiles in any profession. Here is what the catechism of the Catholic Church sauys about Homosexuality: Chastity and homosexuality 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. -------------- The RCC Does NOT aid and abet in the commission of molestation . One certain Bishop did, but certainly not the church. Read on: Boston, Aug. 07 (CWNews.com) A CBS network news report, claiming that the Holy See orchestrated a cover-up of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, is based on a gross misinterpretation of a 1962 Vatican document. In a sensationalist report aired on August 6, CBS Evening News claimed to have discovered a secret document proving that the Vatican had approved-- and even demanded-- a longstanding policy of covering up clerics' sexual misdeeds. The document cited by CBS does nothing of the sort. In fact the network's story misrepresented the Vatican document so thoroughly that it is difficult to attribute the inaccuracy to honest error. The CBS story is based on a secret Instruction issued to bishops in March 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then the prefect of the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). That document sets forth the canonical procedures to be followed when a priest is charged with the ecclesiastical crime of "solicitation"-- that is, using the confessional to tempt penitents to engage in sexual activity. [The Vatican document, in an awkward English translation, can be downloaded from the CBS News site. CBS also offers the Latin original.] The Vatican document deals exclusively with solicitation: an offense which, by definition, occurs within the context of the Sacrament of Penance. And since that sacrament is protected by a shroud of absolute secrecy, the procedures for dealing with this ecclesiastical crime also invoke secrecy. In short, by demanding secrecy in the treatment of these crimes, the Vatican was protecting the secrecy of the confessional. The policy outlined in that 1962 document is clearly not intended to protect predatory priests; on the contrary, the Vatican makes it clear that guilty priests should be severely punished and promptly removed from ministry. It is important to keep in mind that the 1962 Vatican Instruction dealt exclusively with "solicitation" as that term is understood in ecclesiastical usage, under the terms of the Code of Canon Law. The policies set forth by Cardinal Ottaviani do not pertain to the sexual misdeeds of clerics, but to the efforts by priest to obtain sexual favors though the misuse of their confessional role. It is also important to note that because solicitation takes place inside the confessional, only the accused priest and the penitent could possibly have direct evidence as to whether or not the crime took place. If the solicitation led to actual sexual activity, that misconduct could be the subject of an entirely separate investigation, not bound by the same rules of secrecy. The crime of "solicitation" has always been viewed by the Catholic Church as an extremely serious offense, calling for the strongest available penalties. Cardinal Ottaviani stresses that any confessor who solicits sexual favors from his penitents should be suspended from ministry and stripped of all priestly privileges. These penalties apply to all cases of solicitation, whether they involve minor children or adults of either sex. The 1962 document is not concerned with all instances of solicitation; it does not concentrate on the solicitation of children. The CBS report claimed: The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests-- anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church. That is inaccurate. While it is true that the Vatican document threatens excommunication for anyone who discloses the proceedings of an ecclesiastical trial for "solicitation," it does not bar the priest's accuser from making separate charges about the priest's sexual misconduct. In fact the document makes it clear that during the canonical trial, the accuser should not be questioned about any sexual activity that he may have undertaken with the priest; the accuser is to be questioned solely about what occurred within the confessional. Thus, someone who was sexually abused by a priest would be free, under the 1962 Vatican policy, to bring criminal charges against that priest for his sexual conduct, while simultaneously charging the priest with "solicitation" in an ecclesiastical court. In fact, the Instruction from Cardinal Ottaviani stresses (in section 18) that every Catholic has a solemn duty to bring canon-law charges against a priest who attempts to solicit sex through the confessional. The importance of that obligation is underlined by the fact that a Catholic who fails to report solicitation is subject to excommunication. Moreover, the penitent remains under this solemn obligation to report solicitation even if the priest has already confessed his crime. The document on which CBS based its distorted story is a densely worded 24-page document, couched in the technical idiom of canon law, and accompanied by a 36-page Appendix that provides the formulas to be used in an ecclesiastical trial. No careful reader could fail to recognize that this was a specialized document, providing a set of procedures for a particular ecclesiastical offense. Why, then, did CBS News draw a broad general conclusion from a tightly focused legal document? Why did the network fail to distinguish between the ecclesiastical crime of solicitation and the public offense of pedophilia? The questions are worth pondering.

Affirmative Action is most insulting to those it is purported to help. It implies that without the help of "Nanny-State" , minorities are just too damned stupid or lazy to make something of themselves. Moreover it is criminal, since in the case of universities, better students are being turned down in the name of diversity (Liberals define "diversity" as being based on outside tangible or visual traits, not on ideas) in favour of those who clearly don't have what it takes. I wonder if the doctor who could have cured Cancer or MS was refused entry to Med School so that someone else could get in because tehy are a politically favoured minority? It also hurts universities, since their reputation and standing is contingent upon the success of the graduates they produce. Affirmative Action can be summed up in 6 words: "White Christian Males need not apply". THe world has changed greatly, but not because of anything whiny liberals have done. It is highly competitive out there in world, and nowhere more so than in business. Companies have to hire the best employees they can , and if they want to turn down an Indian, or a gay, who happens to the best qualified, their competition will snap them up. Get real. We don't need Liberals telling us how many people of what ethnicity or sexual orientation we need to hire... We just want the best we can hire.

Craig, most immigrants see it our way, that they wanted to come live in a fair society, one which is fair, basically because of Judeo-Christian values. Those Left Liberal fascists to whom you refer, are , for the most part, angry white atheists who hate anything that asks them to be accountable for their actions. It's total rebellion against any authority except their own. The few immigrants that screech alongslide the liberal swine are those who want to ingratiate themselves with the liberals, and wield political power ove their little ethnic fiefdoms.

Gugsy, I'm going to make the point here that though it is the religious community that is in the forefront of the pro-life movement, it is NOT a religious issue. It comes down to the most basic of all human rights, the right to life. By allowing people to arbitrarily take the lives of the unborn, you have opened the door for the decision to be made that others lives can also be arbitrarily ended. I think the next target of this utilitarian society will be the disabled or the elderly. Euthanasia is the beginning. It is packaged in "humane" sounding window dressing, but the case of Terri Schiavo down in Florida is just one case in point that shows the direction this could take. Your position, frankly, is one that advocates irresponsibility, and making others pay the consequences of one's actions. With fatal consequnces to the innocent victim. But as I said, by allowing abortion we have cut out the underpinnings of the basic right to life, a right, which , because of the permissability of abortion, we no longer have. SirRiff, your statement is the most vulgar and repulsive one on abortion I've ever seen on the subject. You argue that there is a HUMANE way to murder someone? The Nazis would probably argue that the gas chambers were a quick and humane way to dispatch Jews and Poles. The life begins at the moment of conception, and people need to take responsibility for their actions. Abortion is the ultimate form of abdication of responsibility. Look when two people jump in the sack, they know the risk of pregnancy is there, and both should be prepared to take responsibility for their actions. They know in advance the possible outcome. Maybe people would think twice, and we'd have a less promiscuous (and the diseases that go with promiscuity) society. Epiphany is absolutely correct in posting what she did. For many people, knowing their candidates position on abortion is very important, and she pointed out where we can get that information.

May you at least beat out the Liberal!!!! Cheers!

It will be an interesting 30 days to be sure... I am becoming more optimistic that the Tories can pull it off, but only with a virtually flawless campaign. Same sex Marriage will be a big issue in the rural ridings, of which there are many. Immigration could be a big one in T.O., which the Liberals own anyway. Dennis, you are right about Howard HAmpton being the potential spoiler. McGuinty is still seen as inept, gutless, a nonentity. As much as I hate the NDP, Howard hampton comes across as a more polished speaker, and Ernie definitely has the aura of P{remier about him. I can see the debate now... McGuinty looking wooden in his ill fitting suit while Ernie and Howie leave him in the dust. If the NDP can steal enough Liberal votes on account of McGuinty's ineptness, it's over for the Liberals. PC: 46-54 seats Lib:36-46 seats NDP: 4-7 seats I can't believe Ontarians could be so stupid as to elect a Liberal government.

I have a visceral hatred of Liberals, but no great love of Oilcan Ernie..... In a perfect world , it would be a Family Coalitoon Party majority.. However. since it is not a perfect world, I could live with a PC majority, and settle for a PC minority...(But in such a case, don't you think the Lieberals and NDP would form a coalition as they did in '85? However, I have a sick feeling that there will be Liberal government, I am not ready to say minority or majority, but if it must be, please let it be minority. The best thing the PC government has going for its re-election chances is Dalton McGuinty.... For anyone who is interested, Check this page out It should get very active, very soon.

PET was also more ideologically akin to the NDP than the Liberals, but he joined the Liberals because as an NDP leader, he would have NO chance of winning power. The Liberals had the organization in Quebec and Ontario, and could be a vehicle to power, whereas, the NDP maxxed out its potential in 1988 with 43 seats. They'll never do much better than that. So if Justin (and watch out for Sacha too, he's out there doing left-wing journalism) ver went into politics, it would be with the Liberal Party, which was effectively transformed into the monster it has become by PET, Jean Marchand, Gerald Pelletier, Marc Lalonde, Jean Chretien and the filthy gang of socialists that hijacked the party, and the country in the '60's.

Logical1, While your theory sounds good on paper, pure libertarianism, like Communism, does not, and cannot work, sonce it is founded on the false premise that people are basically good, and goiven the opportunity, will actfor the good. Please don't try to tell me that Hells Angels see it that way! The thing I hate most about today's libertarians (actually there are two things I hate about them) is the way thy hold their hands over their chest and profess to respectr the right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while at the same time espousing that some people have the right to decide whether others will have a chance to live! To wit, the abortion issue. Does the right to life supersede all others, or does the right of someone to take the life of another, conceived as a result of their actions take precedence? Libertarians also blow all sorts of hot air about people not passing the consequences of their actions to someone else... get consistent! Abortion is THE ultimate example of making someone else pay (with FATAL results) for one's actions. While i don't believe in giving perpetual welfare to able bodied couch potatoes, I can't accept allowing their babies to starve - on principle! The other thing I hate about libertarians is their burning desire to legitimize the drug dealer. I'll be damned if the piece of shit who sells dope to our kids is given a place in society as a respectable merchant! Drug dealers have forfeited the right to life. The Chinese have the right idea when it comes to them. Have you ever seen what drugs do to people? The death, the pain, the brain damage, the rendering of otherwise productive human beings to complte uselessness? It is government's responsibility to protect society from predators like them. Back to the main line of reasoning here, is that , as I pointed out charities funded PRIMARILY through voluntary contributions should be encouraged to provide the bulk of the aid, but one must look at the reality of mankind to understand that there needs to be an incentive to make charitable donations significant enough, so I suggest a credit against taxable income. Where there is a shortfall, however, government should help out in those cases. Children should NOT be left to starve, nor should they be denied an education. Education should not only be for the well-off. I can't help but wonder whether the scientist who would find the cure for cancer is working on an assembly line somehwere, or perhaps aborted . While I agree with less government, I did feel obliged to point out the glaring inconsistencies, and illogic and what is at best, pollyannaism, or at worst moral evil, inherent in PURE libertarian philosphy.

Watch out, Rock, Tobin & Manley.... Paul MArtin, if he is able to win the election, is likely a one termer, given his age, and coming down the pipe as we speak, is Justin Trudeau. The would-be also-rans time has come....and gone.... The Liberal party will do its damndest to recruit young Mr. Trudeau...

As you can imagine, Ned, the young mothers we have (Between the ages of 13 and 23) obviously had the conviction that to kill an unborn child is WRONG, or they would have taken advantage of the free-for all on abortion we have in this country, to our shame. Quick in and out, on the taxpayer's tab, and mom & dad don't have to find out about it. I have a great deal of respect for these girls, who don't think they have the right to make an innocent child take the consequences of their actions. To legislate that a welfare mother must not have any more children would be an obscenity. It would put us on par with China and their forced abortions, or the forced sterilizations that used to take place, most often on people with disabilities. When a young woman gets pregant, the first thing suggested to many by their friends, family, school guidance counsellors or even doctors, is abortion. as I said earlier, it is marketed as a quick, easy way to solve the "problem". What this society needs to do, if it is to be caled compassionate, is to make abortion illegal, cut all funding for it, and apply that funding to, among other things: Promoting A National Registry for parents who wish to adopt children: Creation of such a registry, which would be free to join, and would facilitate any programs designed to find homes for children who are not wanted by their natural parents. There are more people who want to adopt children, than there are children available for adoption, as demonstrated by the numbers of people who are willing to pay large sums to adopt children from China, Romania and other countries. Such a measure as proposed here will save time and money for all, and help to keep Canadian dollars in this country. Providing financial and social support for women who are facing the situation of an unwanted pregnancy. The program would provide direct financial aid where necessary, and work in conjunction with the National registry for adoptive parents to find a home for these children, and temporary lodging for the women if necessary. And to counterbalance the government funding, Passing legislation that would require fathers of so called "unwanted" children to take on their fair share of the responsibility for the pregnancy. That is to say, providing financial support to the woman in question until such time as the baby is of legal age in a case where the woman opts to keep the child, or until the child is born in a case where the child is placed for adoption.