Neal.F.

You seem to think that the Alliance has nothing in Ontario, or for that matter Quebec. remember the CA got more votes than the Tories in 2000.... and to think that people in Ontario are going to go for Stronach or clement just because they're the homeboys is also a misconception. I live in Quebec and could not care less what region a leader comes from. I just want the best. As for MacKay, the little paper from David Orchard will haunt him for at least the next few months, if not much longer. He's aout of the game and should not waste his time. Ihear he ran up some BIG debts in his last campaign, some of which he is personally on the hook for. Stronach? get serious. I like what the Clement people called her "Paul Martin in a cocktail dress". social liberal, fiscal conservative.... that begs another question: Didn't the conservatives just get rid of Joe Clark?

Every nation MUST act in its own interest. Failure to do so, means subjugation to another, or others. Case in point: Poland. For almost 200 years , though it had a parliament (Sejm), the country was run by a handful of very powerful families, known as magnates. The magnates controlled the Sejm. the Sejm's deputies were usually members of the swollen petty gentry, often knights of no financial substance whose livelihoods depended on the magnate whom they served. Burghers and Jews had no right to send members to the Sejm, and thus were subject to the whis of the magnates. bear with me, I'll get to the point in a moment. There was another thing, which helped make this system unworkable: It was called the Liberum Veto. This was the process where ONE member of the Sejm could annul any and all acts passed, by simply rising and shouting "I object!". The bottom line is that if a magnate did not like a law, he could wipe out the whole work of a session when his delegate uttered thos two words. Thus much sensible legislation which would have strengthened Poland were simply quashed. This left Poland open to manipulation by foreign powers (Most magnates were in the pay of one foreign country or other, ie: France, austria, Prussia, Sweden or Russia) . Therefore, what it all comes down to is that Poland was not governing itself in accordance with its national interests, but rather in the short term interests of greedy magnates in their desire to enrich themselves, and in the long term to the benefit of their enemies. The country was indefensible, unless the magnates permitted the king (usually an elected foreigner) to raise an army for a specific purpose. Thus Sweden laid waste to the country in the 1650's and ultimately it was partitioned by Russia Prussia and Austria. This is one reason why I oppose globalization, supranational organizations, and too much corporate power. Corporate CEO's are the modern day magnates who act in THEIR interests, not in the intersts of their country. They are in a manner of speaking selling their country out to foreign interests for short term gain: ie: shipping jobs and factories off to Chian, India etc. There may well come a day when the west finds itself indefensible because their manufacturing capacity will have been emasculated. Nor can a government that purports to act in its own national interests take heed to what other countries have to say at the UN, for example. Let's not forget, France germany and Russia are acting in their national interest, and that may not co-incide with what is good for the USA. And finally, the WTO(GATT) . There is where governments do the bidding of their Fortune 500 CEO's, and you can be sure that they are not acting in the interests of the economuic strength of their countries so that the maximum possible good and opportunity exists for citizens. They are acting so that the big corporations can gain even more dominance, while the leading job creators, small & medium sized business are squeezed out. That said, we need to get away from globalization, and back to where countries entered into one-on one deals, not one where world bodies dictated what they think is best.

Given all three parties views on same-sex marriage, and commonality on other such issues, the Rainbow Alliance might well be a good name for such an entity. You might also want to co-opt the rainbow flag, or perhaps the logo for the old Natural Law Party..... Seriously, all these PROGRESSIVE conservatives are doing is, in alliance with a pro Liberal Party media, is creating a tempest in a teapot that is best ignored.

On the anti-globalization issue, he's SPOT ON. He has not announced his intention to run again. yet. But a few more reckless moves by Bush such as this one, and he may find men bearing gifts knocking on his door.... and a constituency. But even he might decide to hold his nose and sit this one out if the Dumbocruds nominate anyone but Gephardt or Lieberman. It would be irresponsible to do anything to facilitate either a Wesley Clark or Howard Dean victory.

Not only disagree with him, but very strongly as well. However, politically, it is a stroke of genius for Bush. He gets a nice chunk of the hispanic vote, and while angering conservtives,....well... where else can they go? Certainly not Howard Dean or (worse!) Wesley Clark! The country will pay a severe price for this later. Tell me why any immigrant would want to jump through all the hoops to come in legally now? Actually there is one thing that could foil a Bush re-election on this point.... a Pat Buchanan run under a 3d party banner. Buchanan, in retrospect, is starting to sound like a prophet.

Dean may not even win the nomination Gen Wesley Clark aka "Major Madonna" may well get the nod. However, given that Bush has almost $200 million in the bank for this election while Dean and Clark have raised 25 million combined, with which they still have to fight the primaries, it looks to me that we have a repeat of 1996 where Slick Willie Klinton had the big fat bank account and poor Bob Dole was struggling with chump change like these Dumbocrud sacrificial lambs.

My wife is an immigrant. she came to Canada after following to the letter all immigration procedures and getting her working permits, landed immigrant status and later citizenship the honest way. To have people here illegally get an amnesty, and jump ahead in the queue ahead of those who followed legal procedure is an obscenity, and a slap in the face.

Harper has it in the bag. He's got the whole CA establishment behind him. And anyone with brains in Ontario to. To think that Ontarians will vote for the Stronach woman just because she hails from Toronto is oversimplifying things. She'll get votes from the PC faction, but Harper will clean up from among former Alliance members. Don't hand Quebec on a platter to Prentice either. he did well among PROGRESSIVE conservatives, but many of them took their marbles and went crying home. Furthermore, Harper has just taken on Michael Fortier, a former PC leadership candidate (1998) as his campaign manager in the province.

Good analogy Pell.... If Dean gets the Dumbocrud nomination,he'll be lucky to win even 3 States. Jacko Will fare just as poorly.

I don't think that 24% is so bad for a party that has existed for a month and has no leader.... The leadershiop contest and subsequent news coverage will boost that . many votes currently in the Liberal pile are parked votes. Martin has been a disappointment, and it's only going to get worse, viz BC. The Bloc will hold their own in Quebec. Liberals could gain, but not many. Certainly not enough to offset Ontario/BC losses. It's early days yet, my friend.

Most of the NDP so-called urban support will evaporate on election day. They just won't bother showing up. However, they will retain party status because their organization on the Prairies and a few other pockets of strength WILL get the vote out. And the odds are on heavy that Svend Robinson will open his useless trap once too often in his grandstanding, and will make people think twice about voting for such a bunch.

If she runs she'll learn some real lessons...If indeed the Clinton allegations are true, it won't put her in good stead with conservatives, who HATE Bill Clinton. Remember the old Republican line "Clinton is not MY president!". You've read that one wrong, Maplesyrup.

Conservatives CAN win, though the more likely scenario is either a Liberal or Conservative minority. Edge to the Libs on Jan 8th, but that is subject to change. NDP Probably very little change in terms of seats, though pop vote will increase. Disadvantage to a Lib minority: NDP props it up and JAck Layton cranks up the sissification of Canada.

If she does, she'll become Canada's Monica Lewinsky overnight.... She's best off staying out that kind of limelight until she's properly married and settled down.

The Star will come out for the Liberals at the end of the day. They are obliated to, because of the legacy of the founder. What you are hearing now is the only way they can voice their displeasure with Martin. 905 will vote NDP when hell freezes over. They will go Conservative.

No. Not Orchardites. just people who are sick and tired of watching "court TV" on a global economic scale. I do NOT trust Supranational organizations. Anyone want to speculate on what happens when you cannot be protected in your own country under anglo-saxon law? When authority rests with one-world body, where can you turn for refuge? I can't speak for maple syrup, but I would identify more with Pat Buchanan on these issues than David Orchard.

Michael I was amused by the definition of liberal that you came up with: "liberal: adjective ... open-minded, not prejudiced, not strict or rigorous" Open minded: Let me tell you that there are alot of people who are looking for "open minds" into which they can dump their pernicious ideas.... I think a discerning mind is more desirable than an open one.

I question all the existing free trade agreements. The worst offender being GATT/WTO. For one thing, it faciliatates the exporting of Canadian and American jobs, and for another it diminishes the sovereignty of nations. While I am in favour of lower tarrifs and duties, I do not like any suprantional organizations whether it be the WTO, UNO, or International crimininal court. The UNO gives too much power to socialist bureaucrats while WTO gives too much clout to greedy CEOs. Frankly I'm disturbed by the shipping of manufacturing jobs to India, China, Vietnam etc. The strength of the west has always been rooted in its manufacturing capability. what happens when all our factories are closed, and everything is shipped back from China? I read somewhere about 2 years ago, that US military berets were being manufactured in the People's Republic of China! The day that the West loses the upper hand in manufacturing is the day it lays itself prostrate before its enemies in the world. You are right. The greedy Corporate CEOs get richer and richer by sacking our workers, and shipping jobs, both manufacturing and hi-tech to the third world. As was said on CNN last night, if this continues, the US will be home to people who work at McDonalds and shop at WalMart. While rich executives live in fabulous wealth in gated communities. and the rich execs won't get the last laugh. I can assure you that history will repeat itself when the workers to whom the jobs have been exported will start to demand better working conditions, and we have seen the violent insurrections that have happened since the industrial revolution took place. Human nature has not changed with respect to the fact that everyone wants their share of the pie. at the end of the day, though, if indeed National Security is a real concern of western governments, they will have to sit down and take a long hard look at the policies that have led to this potentially extremely dangerous situation. Trade and commerce must be encouraged, but not at the expense of the countries and values that permitted trade and commerce to thrive, and entrepreneurial opportunities to be avaiable to those who have the drive to do something. We need to encourage the downfall of tyrannical dictaorships worldwide, that are propped up by American, British, canadian corporations, who set up in those countries, creating the illusion that communist dictatorships, mixed with the right amount of tolerated capitalism, actually DO work. Where do you think Putin is getting the idea he can get away with re-establishing dictatorship in Russia again? Yes to free trade, but not on a global level overseen by suprantional organizations, but rather each country working out its own deals with another.

The ideal scenario would be for the Dippers to get 17% of the vote, siphoning enough votes away from the Liberals to allow Conservatives (assuming Stronach is NOT the leader) to come up the middle, while not getting enough concentration of support to actually win seats of their own. And it would be especially delightful to watch Svend Robinson get the long overdue defeat he so richlyu deserves. And Libby can go down with him. I'd also like to see Jack O'Layton lose his bid for a seat, but it would be delicious to let Comartin and Masse hold their Windsor seats, since Paul Martin Sr. used to be the MP there.

You bring up auto insurance Hugo.... These guys can ruin your life. It's not a simple matter of going somehwere else. If they cancel your policy, good luck finding another insurer. If you're lucky enough to even get a policy from a company that specializes in high risk cases, you pay through the nose. I had three minor accidents, none of which I was responsible for, over a two year period. I made claims, and the responsible party's policy paid them. However, about 10 days after my last claim, I got a letter from my company saying they would only cover me for 50 K liability, one-way. I told them I'd take my business elsewhere, and they sneeringly said , you have no choice but to stay with us. Nobody will insure you. Some phoning around proved they were right. fast forward 4 months, my car died, and I had to get a new one. One minor problem: How can you lease or finance a car without full coverage? It took me two weeks, but I found someone to cover me, one of the high-risk insurers, and I paid a small fortune to ensure a Hyundai Accent. My time in insurance purgatory expires in May this year, but I am still bitter over having to have paid out more than four times what I should have and frankly, it hurt. Why should I be screwed over like that when NONE of the accidents was my fault, and furthermore, my insurer was not the one who had to pay out? While I don't think govt. insurance is a good idea, I do think these corporate bastards should be regulated. On the other hand, EI is a travesty. I was let go almost two years ago, and after nearly 20 years in the work force to one degree or other, having paid into EI the whole time, I had not, until that time , ever applied to collect EI. The day I was let go, I went out on my own (self-employment) and applied for EI, so I could survive the first three months until commissions started coming in. after jerking me around for about a month, they finally let me know after years of paying in, that I would not be eligible, because , being SELF-employed, I was not UNemployed. They'd rather pay you to sit on your duff, and make the odd application to go work for someone else than to send out a few cheques to someone who has already taken the first steps toward getting off the dole, before he actually goes on it, AND taken a course of action whereby he might eventually become an employER, who might help others get off pogey in the future. Absolutely stupid. Neither dogmatic unbridled capitaliism, nor reliance on too much government intervention is a good thing. On the whole, provision of services should be left to private enterprise, but people should have recourse to a higher authority if they feel that they have been unfairly treated for no good reason by a corporation.

As an aside, if the Clinton allegations are true, can you imagine the friction between Canada and the USA if, in 2008 Stronach is PM and Hillary Clinton is US Prez? It'll make the Chretien/Ducros/Parrish era look like the good old days.... Fortunately, neither of those two can possibly win those offices!

First let's bear in mind that the Globe has a liberal readership, and is Toronto based, and in no way reflects the membership of the party tghat will vote for the new leader. It is an internet poll. Enough said. That said, If she wins, the new party can (and will) go to hell. And it will because she will totally alienate social conservatives, without whom, the Coinservative party under any name cannot come to power. If I wanted to vote for a socially Liberal fiscal conservative, I'd vote for the real thing: Paul Martin. We've had enough of Liberal-Lite. and seen where it gets us: 2 seats....20 seats....12 seats. And if theres any truth to the Clinton rumours she's best off not running. In fact no matter what, like it or not, fair or unfair, her whole sex life will be on the table, trust me.

I say mixed member proportional representation is the way to go. As for the NDP, and how they win seats, 1990 excepted, they had brillaintly succeeded in building up a core of very strong ridings the majority of which they could deliver each and every election. Ditto for the Federal party. remember how in 2000 they held onto to party status despite geting 8% of the vote. In some seats they won by razor thin margins, such as in NYstroms riding in SK, hwere he held on by a couple hundred votes, Even Svend had his plurality cut to less than 2000 votes. Another Sask MP just held on as well, and Joe Comartin in Ontario won by a handful. The secret is that in those core ridings they move heaven and earth to get every voter OUT to the polls. They have been known to drag in vanloads of known supporters 15 minutes before the polls close, that they just rousted out of the shower!

Maplesyrup, Unless you can prove that I am guilty of saying anything untrue, I will NOT retract even one jot or tittle of what I wrote. Bill C-250 is the most damaging piece of legislation ever proposed in terms of freedom of speech. This law could very well silence, by force of law, anyone who dares to criticize the homosexual lifestyle,and all its ingerent health risks in the slightest. How would you feel if suddenly a law was passed, promotedby a bought & paid for lackey of the tobaco industry, that threatened you with legal remedies if you dared to criticize smoking? What about Robinson being present at the physician assisted suicide of Sue Rodriguez? The fact of the matter is, that wherever you stand on the issue of euthanasia, it is still illegal under thecriminal code. He broke the law. he is accessory to murder. If you or I did such a thing, we'd have been prosecuted. What about Robinson getiing in with tree spikers in BC? The NDP purports to represent the worker, but who wouldhave been injured or killed when a chainsaw hit those spikes? Certainly not a suit from Macmillan Bloedel. Then there was the time he used a room in the parliament to train protestors for the G-8 riots in Quebec City. Taxpayers expense to teach people how to riot. And guess who got the bill for the vandalism?

Maplesyrup, I assure you, they can screw things up worse than the Liberals. Can you imagine what would happen if you gave Svend Robinson real power? He's done enough damage as a member of the 5th party in parliament!!!!!!! And if the NDP ever did come to power, it would bring with it other unsavoury characters...like Jaggi Singh, Sunera Thobani, Judy Rebick, Buzz Hargrove etc, for instance. It would be the gutter taking power.