Canada's Federal Conservatives

[Morgan]

PC4EVER said:

That's propably why they said they would prefer to see Harper as the leader of the new party for the next election. To get it in the harder way.You know, you have to make the difference between the spin (what you or other like you to believe) and would happen based on common sense.

You make no sense whatsoever.

The only spin I've ever read is the left wing media promoting Stronach as the perfect leader for the PC's whereas they portray Harper as a smart person BUT...

Don't you find that a little suspect, PC4EVER?

Liberals' polls [not my spin] have indicated that the gay marriage issue can hurt them if it becomes a political issue in the election. Harper can damage the Liberals, whereas a social progressive like Stronach cannot. Religious minorities are more likely to vote for a party that's clearly against gay marriage than for the parties that want it legalized. ie. LPOC and NDP The gay vote is much less than the minority vote. The LPOC can't afford to lose the latter.

Stronach can't bring anything different to the leadership of the PC's than Joe Clark did and look how miserably the PC's did under Joe Clark.

Also, I don't think Canadians like to be flogged by someone's super wealth. Martin hides his wealth, whereas Stronach celebrates hers, or rather the media celebrates hers. Harper is an average guy who doesn't threaten average Canadians or put them off.

You see Harper as ultra conservative. Actually I see him as centrist. You see progressives as conservative whereas I see them as Liberals who can't bring themselves to be honest about it.

[PC4EVER]

"One side alone will be asked to make all the concessions....all the time."

Yes, because you are in the far side of the political spectrum. Do you think that the NDP has any chance what so ever to run this country one day ?? It's mathematical and it's one of the problem with democraty. The power of the majority can be explain by the power of the average and at this game anyone on each side won't be able to get the power unless they use another system. Civil war, revolution, pustch. Beside that, name me one really right wing party who gain a majority government democraticly.

Even Republicans has to make compromises to get elected. As soon as they go to far, the Democrats take over. Anyway, in the States, they change almost all the times after 2 mandates.

You are like a bunch of wagons without locomotives. And more you will take times to realize that, more you will not understand why an Alliance party style won't ever be a goverment in Canada.

[Neal.F.]

Sorry PC4Ever, but I must disagree with you. Is it really about saying whatever it takes to win power?

If it is then this whole system isn't worth a tinker's damn. I am sick of my countyry being the plaything of rich liberal dilettantes, and, I believe, so are most rank and file citizens. notoce how many don't go out to vote?

More and more people see the whole damn thing as an elitist sham. And all the establishment PCs jumping on the Stronach bandwagon, and choosing flash over substance swooning over this woman with two failed marriages, who as Morgan points out flaunts her wealth just confirms in my mind that the system is broken, perhaps irreparably.

For a truly conservative government to get elected, it must not "go after Liberal supporters" but rather convince the skeptics who stay at home that they really would do things differently. peiople are sick and tired of the pork-barrel politics that have marred every government, party notwithstanding, for the last 40 years.

It is these people that must be reached, and convinced.

This fraud is fuirther perpetuated on us by the media which, as you just did, pounds it consistently into peoples' heads that "canadians will only elect socially liberal governments" . So a party of principle must convince people that they can win as well.

Reform convinced many of the former, but not the latter, no thanks to the massive Liberal smear job done on Stock Day, which Progressive Joe assisted by splitting the vote.

Had the vote not been split, an additional 30 some-odd seats would have fallen into Alliance hands, and convinced many that real change was at hand.

To go with Stronach, and all the cocktail party elitist endorsements she has will send the message that the system is really broken beyond repair. Reformers will be completely disillusioned., I believe , to the point where they will stay at home in droves.

What is needed in this country being destroyed by elitists is to scrap the current first past the post system, and institute a mixed member proportional representation system. However, the elitists will never pay anything more than lip service to the idea of changing a system that has served their selfish interests so well.

REmember c-129, the law which (recently ruled unconstitutional by the Supremes, in one of the rare good decisions they have made) effectively strangled smaller parties, by upping a candidate's deposit to $1000.00 (it had been $250.00) which closed the door to many who wanted to exercise their right to at least get on a soapbox and have their say, required them to get 125 signatures (instead of 25) to validate their candidacy and required parties to run a minimum 50 candidates, or lose status withelections Canada, and thus the ability to issue tax receipts for donations. the PROGRESSIVE conservatives introduced this, and it was heartyily supported by the Liberals. Talk about disenfranchising people. No wonder people have no faith in the institutions of this country.

IF social conservatives in all parties were to finally say, enough is enough, I will no longer help to prop up this fraudulent system, and banded together, and stood for principle instead of polls, then we MIGHT conceivably take back the country from the Family Compact and Chateau Clique, aka the Liberal and Progressive Conservative Parties

[PC4EVER]

Well, Neal, I don't say I have the monopoly of the truth. I just try to figure out why we did not get elected as you said with principles 31 years of the last 40. And for me, it was the explanation.

So from there, where do we go ?

Also, when you say the QC establisment is behind Stronach? Who do you refer to? Initials only will be fine.

[PC4EVER]

To Morgan.

It is spin against spin. If you think it is Harper that the new party needed, it is OK. But don't start by saying it is Harper and then try to justify your choice.

Do the reverse.

I don't support anybody up to now. I was supporting Prentice. I want to take a good look of who could be the best leader to represent the new party. For all the reasoins I gave in others post couples of days ago, I don't think Harper but espacially those who are surrounding him could do a good job. The perception in the west is very different from here in Quebec. It's too bad, you can say, but it is a fact.

How would you like to be called by unilingual francophone for a survey when it is clear that it come from Harper's group. Or being answering in french only by the new CP in Ottawa, and not being able to get a answer in english from that office. When the aggreement says the equality of treatement of both language, sorry, we taught that it was applying right away. And if it was only that.

If the way Harper is conducting his campaign will reflect how he will managed the party and then the country, no thanks.

[maplesyrup]

PC4EVER

I'm curious and though perhaps you might know. What has happened to former Prime Minister Joe Clark? We haven't heard anything at all from for some time now.

Has he basically retired from politics now?

[Brainiac]

I think you speak with forked tongue, Brainiac.

All I am saying Morgan is that it wouldn't be the first time the Liberals ripped off an Alliance idea and spun it to suit their own needs. Martin will flip flop till the cows come home. It won't matter, because people perceive the Liberals as the 'safe' vote. How many times did they vote in Chretien after he had lied his ass off? You know why? It was because he was the safe vote. People were ready for a change years ago, but there was no one they could feel comfortable voting for other than the Liberals.

[Neal.F.]

The papers are saying that BM himself may be ready to endorse her.

As for Harper, though I think Lord would have been the best choixce electorally and for the unity of the party, I think Harper has managed the CA VERY well.

[westcoast99]

Your dismissal of Ms. Stronach as a credible candidate appears sexist.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Gugsy

[PC4EVER]

Neal, BM is not Quebec establishment. You can put him on a national stage, I think.

Up to now, Clement seems to get a lot of attention from people who are working on the ground.

For Maple, as far as I am concerned, I don't know what is happening to Joe and I don't really care also. He will probably get retired as soon the election is called.

[Neal.F.]

Call me sexist , if you want.

I had high hopes for kim Campbell in '93. But she blew it.

Catherine Callbeck's carrer as PEI premier was short lived, and went down in flames...

Audrey and Alexa left the NDP with little more than a pulse.

Let's face it, women have fared poorly in politics in this country.

And this one, is carrying baggage., Her whoile sex life will be on display for all to see. Two failed marriages, like it or not will be spun against her.

All those negatives notwithstanding, I oppose her, because she is Joe Clark in drag. A social liberal.

If I wanted a social liberal, I'd vote for the genuine article: Paul Martin.

Elect Stronach, and the merger falls apart. The so-cons won't accept it.

[PC4EVER]

Could Clement be acceptable for so-cons, like you said ?

He is more conservatives than progressive with the Harris/Eves common sense revolution. Everyone is carrying baggages, Stronach, Harper and Clement, but could he be acceptable for Westeners and so-cons ?

And what about you Neal, a so-cons living in the East ?

[Neal.F.]

Where does Clement stand on social issues? I know libertarians swoon over his fiscal views.

As a so-con living anywhere in the country, a social liberal is not acceptable.

Can we get past caring about what region a leader comes from? Though I am in Quebec, I have no problem with a westerner leading a party, provided he governs with a national view, and not a regional one.

I want to see a break from pork-barrel politics of the past.

I am worried this is not going to happen. It really is becoming a rich boy's (or girl's) game.

A party that is supposedly "grassroots is demanding prospective candidates ante up 100 K just to run....

I can understand some kind of deposit, but 100 K?

[maplesyrup]

Is Grant Hill stepping down?

'Menzies quits post to make federal run'

http://www.producer.com/articles/20040115/...0115news09.html

'Alberta farmer Ted Menzies has stepped down from his national farm leadership positions to try to win the right to run for a seat in Parliament in an expected spring federal election.

The Claresholm grains and special crops producer announced Jan. 12 he is seeking the Conservative Party of Canada nomination in Macleod constituency, south of Calgary.

He has resigned as president of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, or CAFTA, and as a member of the federal government's agricultural trade advisory committee, citing the need to maintain the credibility of those groups. '

---------------------

2000 election results

Grant Hill CA 30,838

Cyril R. Abbott PC 6,102

Marlene LaMontagne LIB 4,121

Dwayne Good Striker NDP 2,934

Edited January 16, 2004 by maplesyrup

[Neal.F.]

Grant Hill announced back in August or September that he would not seek re-election.

A good parliamentarian, and a decent man. A loss for canadian politics. HE too is an MD, and unlike the coward Keith Martin was not shy to tell the truth about the homosexual lifestyle. I also remember the time he tried to save the life of Windsor MP Shaughnessy Cohen, who had a heart attack in the House, and passed away.

Deborah Grey also said she will not run again.

[theWatcher]

I support Belinda Stronach as leader of the Conservative party, and I am sure she can and will win.

Why???

Can you tell me one reason why? That doesn't invlolve being born rich and running her fathers company?

She had better prepare for press like this:

DAVID OLIVE

She will, of course, be torn to shreds.

Belinda Stronach is set to confirm next week that she will seek the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada.

It's not too late for her to reconsider, and avoid the embarrassment her father, Frank Stronach, suffered with his failed bid for a Commons seat in the 1980s.

There are many ways unavailable to most Canadians by which Belinda Stronach, 37, can influence public policy. Hurling herself into the electoral arena is not the one best suited to her.

An unhealthy media respect for multimillionaires and the conventions of political correctness has enabled the CEO of Magna International Inc. to craft for herself an image of business acumen and negotiating prowess in backroom politics.

Fortune magazine ranks Stronach among the world's most powerful businesswomen. The World Economic Forum, an annual celebrity summit usually held in Davos, Switzerland, tagged Stronach as one of its "Global Leaders of Tomorrow." A fawning press has alluded to her abiding interest in current events. Stronach is a "close friend of Bill Clinton."

Enough said, apparently.

Enough, in any case, for many moderate Conservatives and those hailing from Central and Atlantic Canada to latch on to Stronach as their best hope of keeping leadership frontrunner Stephen Harper from hijacking the newly merged Alliance-Tory party, and yanking it back into its Reform-era redoubt of right-wing nostrums and Western Canadian parochialism.

Withdrawing from the race earlier this week, moderate MP Peter MacKay of Nova Scotia seemed to pass the baton to Stronach. She has, he said, "proven herself in the boardroom, she's proven herself in the business world."

But Stronach has done nothing of the kind.

This isn't Canadian Idol.

It's a bid to run a G-7 country. Not for nothing did Harper launch his campaign this week promising a "Bloody Sunday." The polished Stronach image would not long survive the no-holds-barred scrutiny of electoral politics.

I'll try to be kind here. Stronach's opponents won't be.

Scan the Stronach résumé and count the ways she's vulnerable.

She was born with a silver spoon in her mouth. She's a college dropout. She's not fluent in French.

Stronach's flirtation with Olympics reform and a couture house in Toronto are the hallmarks of a dilettante. She has never fought to replace a level rail crossing with an overpass, has never launched a think tank, a food bank or an arts group. Nada.

Leading as scripted a life as Prince William, Stronach's paucity of major speeches and interviews has made her scarcely a spokeswoman for Magna, much less Canada.

Stronach is a figurehead CEO at a company where she was previously occupied, for the most part, with "non-core" assignments in personnel and philanthropy.

Having "joined Magna at birth," as she once said, and taken orders from company founder Frank Stronach her entire career, it's fair to ask if Belinda Stronach will be her father's puppet in Ottawa, as well.

What prompts Stronach to join the race?

"Citizens are encouraging me to run," she said this week. "Perhaps I could bring a fresh approach, a fresh perspective."

That will have to be fleshed out a bit, likely at the urging of political sherpa John Laschinger, recently of the David Miller campaign.

Between now and the leadership vote in March, Stronach will have to endure a crash course in Canada-U.S. relations, health-care reform, defence spending, gun control, same-sex unions, mad cow disease, the need to crack down on joint ventures like the pot plantation just discovered in Barrie, and the merits of the corporate welfare that brings Conan O'Brien to Toronto.

Unavoidably, there will be a backlash from Conservative delegates in the West, which coincidentally is bereft of Magna auto plants and racetracks operated by Magna Entertainment Corp. Squaring the Stronachs' gambling interests with the family values obsession of erstwhile Reformers will be an interesting exercise.

Harper already gave a hint this week of the little-rich-girl taunts in the offing. He'll find a heaven-sent zinger after perusing Anne Kingston's 2002 magazine profile of the neophyte Magna CEO, which mentions the Andy Warhol silkscreen of Chairman Mao adorning one of Stronach's former offices.

Jack Layton is holding his fire, but wishing ardently for an official opposition leader named Stronach.

For the NDP, it's a question of where to start with Stronach, after achieving such populist success from its attacks on Paul Martin's tax-dodging freighters.

Let's see: Magna's own helpings of corporate welfare? Stronach's $9.1-million CEO sinecure? Her father's 19th-century take on corporate governance?

With the ghosts of Joe Clark, Kim Campbell, Stockwell Day and other once-fresh faces haunting the campaign, Stronach will struggle at every church-basement appearance to justify the effrontery of her claim on delegates' support.

It will end badly. And Stronach will not have helped herself, the Conservatives, or the image of women in politics.

The arena needs more brawlers like Sheila Copps, consensus-builders like Audrey McLaughlin, and astute administrators like Barbara McDougall. But until we develop an affirmative-action program, Leave No Heiress Behind, it's hard to make a case for Stronach.

By contrast, tycoons are welcome participants in the non-electoral aspects of the political process.

Every New Brunswick premier of the past half-century, along with more than a few federal Liberal MPs in recent years, has collaborated with the Irving clan. And notables as varied as Pierre Trudeau and Barbara Hall have closeted themselves with members of the rival McCain family.

Paul Desmarais' Power Corp., Peter Munk's mining and real estate companies, and Jim Pattison's Vancouver conglomerate have nurtured budding politicians and taken them in from the cold after defeat or retirement.

As a non-partisan do-gooder, there's nothing to stop Stronach now from leveraging the Magna payroll in aid of her passions. The boards of Magna and associated companies boast more political diversity, clout and expertise than the average cabinet.

Those currently and formerly on the payroll include Tory powerbrokers Brian Mulroney, William Davis and Mike Harris, prominent Liberals like Brian Tobin, David Peterson, Doug Young, Ed Lumley and Dennis Mills, and former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae.

Committing herself to projects rather than partisan politics, Stronach could model herself after Bill Gates' life-saving missions in AIDS- and malaria-stricken Africa, taking up once again the developing-world humanitarian causes she adopted while married to former Olympian Johann Olav Koss.

Those activities would be an extension of projects already within Stronach's ambit.

At her father's instigation, Magna has for years sponsored ambitious scholarship programs, endowed university departments, funded community action groups, and sponsored the popular "If I Were Prime Minister" student essay contests.

As a private citizen, Stronach is free to express her views to a parade of supplicants, a privilege denied to MPs hamstrung by the discipline of partisan solidarity.

The groundswell of support for Stronach's leadership bid is so subtle it has not announced itself much beyond the utterances of Magna retainers like MacKay, recipient of $100,000 in Magna funds for his Tory leadership bid, and Harris, a $75,000 Magna director.

But if she put her mind to building a substantial inventory of good works, the time might yet come when far more citizens are encouraging Stronach to seek the mantle of political leadership than is now the case.

[Neal.F.]

And worse.

People will ask: Two failed marriages? We can understand one, but at age 37 with two marriages gone south, if she can't manage her home life, how will she manage a government?

And the Clinton stories will continue to swirl...... and we will soon hear about everyone she's "known" in the Biblical sense.

It's tougher for a woman in this game. A man sleeps around, he's a stud, a woman does it , and she's a whore.

That's just the facts. Politics is a blood sport, one where no chivalry exists.

Allm that notwithstanding, she's a social liberal, and why would a truly conservative party want a social liberal at the helm?

[maplesyrup]

The PC Party is having its last caucus meeting today, and then tomorrow the Conservative Party is having their first caucus meeting tomorrow, both in Ottawa.

Rick Borotsik, PC, reluctant MP of the new Conservative Party, is going to be on CBC "Politics" now, or shortly, with Don Newman.

Borotsik, who is not at all happy with the Alliance/PC merger, had said he was going to announce his political future this week.

2000 election results

Manitoba

Brandon-Souris (PC 1,333)

xRick Borotsik PC 13,553

Gary Nestibo CA 11,545

Dick Scott LIB 6,517

Errol Black NDP 4,497

Lisa Gallagher COM 141

Colin G. Atkins IND 93

During the show Politics, Borotsik said he was hanging in there for now, but he is looking at two issues, leadership and policy.

About leadership, Borotsik said that neither Harper or MacKay, should be running. Decisions on policy should begin to get sorted out he hopes, or at least dicussed, at tomorrow's caucus meeting.

Borotsik is definitely on the fence at the moment, waiting to see what happens. He said he would be back on Politics before March 20, to announce his decision.

Borotsik didn't say this, but my impression is that if Harper appears to be winning the leadership race, he's outta there.

Edited January 21, 2004 by maplesyrup