Federal Liberal Leader - 2009

capricorn · October 19, 2008

well Mckenna is fiscally conservative, Harper isn't as evidenced by the last 3 budgets.

I don't know enough about McKenna's style to give an opinion.

then there's the anti-choice stance that many conservative's have.

Really?

His anti-abortion position as premier would not be acceptable to the party now.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1085183.html

In addition, if you tour the blogs you'll find that the common view is that McKenna is anti choice. Just google "Frank McKenna abortion" and you'll see what I mean. (As a rule I prefer not to quote other blogs in discussion forums.)

Topaz · October 19, 2008

Why doesn't the LIB give the job as party leader to the second guy down from the last leadership vote? Wasn't that Rae? I like Rae and he can take on the Cons smart mouth which can be very brutal at times and he does have a sense of humour.

blueblood · October 19, 2008

Why doesn't the LIB give the job as party leader to the second guy down from the last leadership vote? Wasn't that Rae? I like Rae and he can take on the Cons smart mouth which can be very brutal at times and he does have a sense of humour.

At least we know the Cons are kicking ass in Question period!!!

August1991 · October 19, 2008

Your last point calls into question the quality of your judgement/analysis offered in the first.

A Harper/Dion decade? I think it would have been good for Canada, and I thought (hoped\) Dion had the talent to survive at least one election.

Several years of Harper/Dion would have been good for Canada. Unfortunately, we won't get it.

Btw, Rae speaks French more fluently than Iggy. Check it out.

Ignatieff speaks French like Victor Goldbloom.

Bob Rae, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper are plainly not Quebecers. Language matters to Quebecers. Of the three, I think Ignatieff will get the federalist votes - even against a Bloc leader such as Duceppe.

In this past election, Harper lost a golden opportuniy. I'm still surprised Harper made this error. After Harper's gaffe in the 2008 election, Ignatieff will possibly make Canada whole. The Liberals just need a good leader acceptable to Quebec and they will regain power.

I still can't believe Harper was so foolish. He's no tactician, nor strategist. Harper's a fool.

Edited October 19, 2008 by August1991

marcinmoka · October 19, 2008

If only such a decision could be placed in the hands of all Liberal Party Members.

Wild Bill · October 19, 2008

Why doesn't the LIB give the job as party leader to the second guy down from the last leadership vote? Wasn't that Rae? I like Rae and he can take on the Cons smart mouth which can be very brutal at times and he does have a sense of humour.

What a wonderful idea, if you're a Conservative!

I can see the election signs now: "A Vote for Rae means more Rae Days!" and "Remember When Rae was Premier?"

Why not just hand every Ontario seat outside of downtown Toronto over to Harper right now and save time?

drewski · October 19, 2008

I don't know enough about McKenna's style to give an opinion.
Really?

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1085183.html

In addition, if you tour the blogs you'll find that the common view is that McKenna is anti choice. Just google "Frank McKenna abortion" and you'll see what I mean. (As a rule I prefer not to quote other blogs in discussion forums.)

i've acquainted myself with his position on abortion. While his personal position might be anti-abortion, like Paul Martin, he is not anti-choice and never tried to remove the choice from women in NB.

some use his opposition to Morgantaler's clinic there as proof of him being anti-choice, but I don't think it was as he didn't try to make aortions in approved medical clinics illegal

drewski · October 19, 2008

You appear to know more about the man than I do. Do you have one example of where McKenna and the Conservatives don't agree on?

another personally big issue is Iraq. Harper agreed with Bush's plans even if thee is not widespread global support. McKenna on the other hand rightfully believes that Canada should only become involved when there is lots of multilateral support for military action

blueblood · October 19, 2008

i've acquainted myself with his position on abortion. While his personal position might be anti-abortion, like Paul Martin, he is not anti-choice and never tried to remove the choice from women in NB.
some use his opposition to Morgantaler's clinic there as proof of him being anti-choice, but I don't think it was as he didn't try to make aortions in approved medical clinics illegal

So it's alright if McKenna has these views, but not Harper. That's a huge double standard.

BC_chick · October 19, 2008

So it's alright if McKenna has these views, but not Harper. That's a huge double standard.

First off, Harper has never clarified his position on abortion, he's always evaded the question and danced around it. For example, he said he wouldn't introduce any legislation on the subject himself, but he never said he would not allow others to do it. He's also never answered the question as to how he would personally vote on the issue if it were to be introduced in Parliament.

I'm sure you are well aware that there is a huge difference between being personally prolife and being against choice.

Furthermore, as I pointed out on another thread.... we judge politicians as a whole, not for each individual stance on issues. Harper's stance on abortion is just one of the many that makes him unlikeable to social-liberals. On other social issues, SSM for example, McKenna went beyond the Chretien/Martin stance and stated that gay-marriage is a constitutional right!

Edited October 19, 2008 by BC_chick

Wild Bill · October 19, 2008

First off, Harper has never clarified his position on abortion, he's always evaded the question and danced around it. For example, he said he wouldn't introduce any legislation on the subject himself, but he never said he would not allow others to do it. He's also never answered the question as to how he would personally vote on the issue if it were to be introduced in Parliament.
I'm sure you are well aware that there is a huge difference between being personally prolife and being against choice.

Furthermore, as I pointed out on another thread.... we judge politicians as a whole, not for each individual stance on issues. Harper's stance on abortion is just one of the many that makes him unlikeable to social-liberals. On other social issues, SSM for example, McKenna went beyond the Chretien/Martin stance and stated that gay-marriage is a constitutional right!

Really? My understanding from listening to him all these years is that while he himself is against abortion he believes in a truly democratic choice. Paul Martin's government had a whipped vote on same sex marriage. Liberals who had themselves trumpeted against the idea were then seen to be in tears as they toed the party line and stood for the vote. One of the first thing Harper did after taking power was to have another vote, where at least his own MP's were totally free to vote as they wished. Same sex rights still passed, but at least it was more demographic.

If you imply that his stance on abortion is part of why social-liberals don't like him I would reply that their own tendency to refuse binding popular votes on such issues is why libertarians like myself don't trust THEM!

Nothing is more frightening to me than other folks acquiring the power to limit a free citizen's choices by rigging the system.

I've heard Harper state that he would like to eventually have a free vote on abortion but that the issue is so contentious that it would tear a government and perhaps even the country apart! Thus it cannot be a priority for some years yet.

That seems only practical, to me. I personally am in favour of the "right to choose", even if unfortunately it sometimes ignores the wishes of the father. Yet I think a rigged vote or one that doesn't attempt to represent the will of the majority of the people is wrong! Democracy doesn't work when the people are not allowed to make what an elite would consider a mistake. We end up in a politically correct dictatorship. Sometimes it's necessary to make bad mistakes to properly learn an important lesson.

Again, my impression is that not only does Harper have no desire to impose his personal views on the nation but neither does he have any intention of having an abortion vote in Parliament for decades, if not longer.

Why would he want to commit political suicide and doom his party to the powerlessness of the Opposition bench for the next century?

Edited October 19, 2008 by Wild Bill

drewski · October 20, 2008

So it's alright if McKenna has these views, but not Harper. That's a huge double standard.

I never called out Harper on this specifically. I was speaking about the contingent of Conservative party members (mainly ex-Reform members) who are anti-choice

drewski · October 20, 2008

delete - double post

Edited October 20, 2008 by drewski

White Doors · October 20, 2008

I liked McKenna for Liberal leader. But, this should rule him out.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0012815

The above 2005 opinion piece is relevant today. The Liberals hammered Harper with accusations of being Bush-like and adopting Republican style policies. They cannot select a leader who is perceived to be Bush-friendly.

First of all, the Liberals should not select a leader remotely linked to the Chretien/Martin days. Neither should they go for Rae. He has pulled the Liberals too far to the left and his Ontario record continues to haunt him. I think Iggy is their best choice. He is fluent in French and a passionate speaker. He is the best positioned to return the Liberals toward the centre. He has the organization in place to mount a leadership campaign which could easily mobilize in a general election. He also appears to have widespread appeal and that includes in Quebec.

Rule him out? You did notice that Harper won, correct? You are giving way too much credence to left-wing rhetoric.

If the Liberals are to win, they have to move to the centre, Rae and Ignatief will not do this - McKenna may.

Personally, depending on the platform McKenna ran on, I would have a hard time not voting for him myself.

normanchateau · October 20, 2008

So it's alright if McKenna has these views, but not Harper. That's a huge double standard.

I agree that it is a double standard. Both Harper and McKenna appear to oppose abortion. The Washington Post has commented on McKenna's battles with Morgentaler:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...mp;slug=1936495

However it remains to be determined whether McKenna shares sufficient values with Harper to be labelled a social conservative. I have no idea whether McKenna, like Harper, opposes embryonic stem cell research, same sex marriage, decriminalization of possession of small quantities of marijuana and legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. I also have no idea whether McKenna, like Harper, favours mandatory six month jail sentences for one marijuana plant.

Notwithstanding the extent to which McKenna shares Harper's social conservatism, at least he appears to be a fiscal conservative. Unfortunately, Harper's last three budgets reveal that he is anything but a fiscal conservative. Had a Liberal PM spent as recklessly as Harper has since his election, Conservatives would rightly be calling for the ouster of this financial incompetent.

BC_chick · October 20, 2008

Really? My understanding from listening to him all these years is that while he himself is against abortion he believes in a truly democratic choice. Paul Martin's government had a whipped vote on same sex marriage. Liberals who had themselves trumpeted against the idea were then seen to be in tears as they toed the party line and stood for the vote. One of the first thing Harper did after taking power was to have another vote, where at least his own MP's were totally free to vote as they wished. Same sex rights still passed, but at least it was more demographic.
If you imply that his stance on abortion is part of why social-liberals don't like him I would reply that their own tendency to refuse binding popular votes on such issues is why libertarians like myself don't trust THEM!

Nothing is more frightening to me than other folks acquiring the power to limit a free citizen's choices by rigging the system.

I've heard Harper state that he would like to eventually have a free vote on abortion but that the issue is so contentious that it would tear a government and perhaps even the country apart! Thus it cannot be a priority for some years yet.

That seems only practical, to me. I personally am in favour of the "right to choose", even if unfortunately it sometimes ignores the wishes of the father. Yet I think a rigged vote or one that doesn't attempt to represent the will of the majority of the people is wrong! Democracy doesn't work when the people are not allowed to make what an elite would consider a mistake. We end up in a politically correct dictatorship. Sometimes it's necessary to make bad mistakes to properly learn an important lesson.

Again, my impression is that not only does Harper have no desire to impose his personal views on the nation but neither does he have any intention of having an abortion vote in Parliament for decades, if not longer.

Why would he want to commit political suicide and doom his party to the powerlessness of the Opposition bench for the next century?

From my understanding, Harper has consistently avoided answering the question on abortion. To paraphrase him from reports I've read, he said something along the lines of "my view is somewhere between the two extremes and bound to anger both sides." As for a democratic vote, I agree that it's mostly a symbolic gesture, unless of course, Parliament is stacked with prolife MPs at the time of the vote.

To get back to the poster's question regarding the perceived hypocrisy in accepting McKenna's stance on abortion vs. Harper.... what I was trying to say is that there is a big difference in believing in something in your personal life (McKenna), and feeling that the issue is up to Parliament to decide (Harper).

It's therefore not about whether or not the legislation will pass. It's about whether or not a politician feels abortion is a decision between a woman, her body, and her doctor, and another politician who feels like it's something that should be legislated. I cannot support the latter who feels 300 MPs sitting up in Parliament should decide what I do with my body, but I can respect the former who feels abortion is wrong, but he is not trying to legislate that onto anyone else.

That's the difference.

Furthermore, even if for argument's sake we say that McKenna also believes there should be a vote on abortion, I would probably still prefer him if I had to choose between him and Harper.

Why? Because his stance on the one issue is more forgiveable when it comes from a man who is otherwise not completely socially conservative. McKenna went further than Chretien and Martin in defending SSM which he said is a constitutional right.

Who would you prefer running the country... the guy who shares most of your opinions but one or two... or the guy who sees the world completely different than you?

Edited October 20, 2008 by BC_chick

drewski · October 20, 2008

I agree that it is a double standard. Both Harper and McKenna appear to oppose abortion. The Washington Post has commented on McKenna's battles with Morgentaler:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...mp;slug=1936495

However it remains to be determined whether McKenna shares sufficient values with Harper to be labelled a social conservative. I have no idea whether McKenna, like Harper, opposes embryonic stem cell research, same sex marriage, decriminalization of possession of small quantities of marijuana and legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. I also have no idea whether McKenna, like Harper, favours mandatory six month jail sentences for one marijuana plant.

McKenna believes in the power of the charter of rights and respecting the rights of all. This is shown by this quote from an interview he did as ambassador. It refers specifically to the respecting of the rights of same-sex couple under the Charters while not infringing upon the rights of the the others (ie the Chruch).

http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/wash...r/050628-en.asp

REHM: Here’s an e-mail from Andrew in Ann Harbour, Michigan who says as Canada readies to legalize gay marriage as there is continued talk of the gay marriage amendment here in the US, how are the differences in social values affecting US/Canadian relations?
MCKENNA: Well I’m glad that, that Andrew asked that question because it gives me a chance to comment a bit. Canada, the Parliament is about to vote and it would appear to approve same-sex unions. They also simultaneously are affirming the very clear right that churches have to make decisions about who they will marry and who they will not marry. So that there’s a respect for each, for the institutions, the institution of marriage and the right of the church to perform it but also to recognize that the Canadian Charter of Rights as interpreted by the courts would seem to require the government to acknowledge the legality of same sex marriages.

When my American friends ask me how that could come to be, I give them a very simple answer. In the United States, I know there are other arguments, but one of the arguments as to why guns aren’t controlled, although they are in Canada, why they aren’t controlled is that Americans will often say well, the right to bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. So my answer to that, whether one agrees with that or not, that is fact and I say well in Canada, our Charter of Rights confers rights interpreted by the courts that would lead towards same-sex marriages.

So, but there’s a balance in the respect we have for our Charter of Rights and the respect that you have for your constitution. And so as a result of that, that application or interpretation of our Charter of Rights, we will, we will be seeing in the next week a respect for the church’s right to choose in terms of who gets married and also the right for gay, for same sex marriages to take place.

noahbody · October 20, 2008

To get back to the poster's question regarding the perceived hypocrisy in accepting McKenna's stance on abortion vs. Harper.... what I was trying to say is that there is a big difference in believing in something in your personal life (McKenna), and feeling that the issue is up to Parliament to decide (Harper).

OTTAWA, October 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The launch of the Conservative Party Platform yesterday served only to further frustrate pro-life Conservatives already on edge after Prime Minister Harper's remarks from last week, in which he made clear his intention to prevent the abortion debate from being brought up by any party. If it wasn't clear enough from Harper's frequent repetitions, the platform states on page 33: "A Conservative Government will not initiate or support any legislation to regulate abortion."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08100813.html

There you go.

BC_chick · October 20, 2008

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08100813.html
There you go.

You should always read a post till the end, I already touched on this....

Furthermore, even if for argument's sake we say that McKenna also believes there should be a vote on abortion, I would probably still prefer him if I had to choose between him and Harper.
Why? Because his stance on the one issue is more forgiveable when it comes from a man who is otherwise not completely socially conservative. McKenna went further than Chretien and Martin in defending SSM which he said is a constitutional right.

Who would you prefer running the country... the guy who shares most of your opinions but one or two... or the guy who sees the world completely different than you?

IOW, abortion is just one issue amongst a sea of others where Harper and I don't see eye to eye.

Edited October 20, 2008 by BC_chick

noahbody · October 20, 2008

You should always read a post till the end, I already touched on this....

Actually, I did. You said:

Furthermore, even if for argument's sake we say that McKenna also believes there should be a vote on abortion, I would probably still prefer him if I had to choose between him and Harper.

I showed you the platform. It states the opposite. He agrees with you.

Why? Because his stance on the one issue is more forgiveable when it comes from a man who is otherwise not completely socially conservative. McKenna went further than Chretien and Martin in defending SSM which he said is a constitutional right.

Not sure if you're paying attention. But Harper doesn't want to reopen that issue either. He agrees with you.

Who would you prefer running the country... the guy who shares most of your opinions but one or two... or the guy who sees the world completely different than you?

Harper agrees with you.

IOW, abortion is just one issue amongst a sea of others where Harper and I don't see eye to eye.
[/quote

Actually, you do. If you don't want the status quo changed.

BC_chick · October 20, 2008

Actually, I did. You said:
I showed you the platform. It states the opposite. He agrees with you.

Not sure if you're paying attention. But Harper doesn't want to reopen that issue either. He agrees with you.

Harper agrees with you.

IOW, abortion is just one issue amongst a sea of others where Harper and I don't see eye to eye.

Actually, you do. If you don't want the status quo changed.

I appreciate your relentless efforts, but sorry, even if you managed to convince me that Harper and I have the same view on abortion (which you haven't), there are still way too many differences remaining.

That was my point which you don't seem to be understanding no matter how many times I repeat it.

White Doors · October 20, 2008

I appreciate your relentless efforts, but sorry, even if you managed to convince me that Harper and I have the same view on abortion (which you haven't), there are still way too many differences remaining.
That was my point which you don't seem to be understanding no matter how many times I repeat it.

Yes, yes. You hate Harper.

~yawn~

BC_chick · October 20, 2008

Yes, yes. You hate Harper.
~yawn~

No, not really, I'm just stating the reasons why I don't support him. Sorry, I thought since he's the PM and this is a political forum I'm allowed to do that. Perhaps I should just stick to flaming like you do. Oh wait, no, that's not the purpose of this forum.

drewski · October 20, 2008

I liked McKenna for Liberal leader. But, this should rule him out.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0012815

The above 2005 opinion piece is relevant today. The Liberals hammered Harper with accusations of being Bush-like and adopting Republican style policies. They cannot select a leader who is perceived to be Bush-friendly.

First of all, the Liberals should not select a leader remotely linked to the Chretien/Martin days. Neither should they go for Rae. He has pulled the Liberals too far to the left and his Ontario record continues to haunt him. I think Iggy is their best choice. He is fluent in French and a passionate speaker. He is the best positioned to return the Liberals toward the centre. He has the organization in place to mount a leadership campaign which could easily mobilize in a general election. He also appears to have widespread appeal and that includes in Quebec.

I don't think simple ties to the Bush's or Martin/Chretien should mean non-support for leadership candidates. We need to look beyond those ties, to actions. For example, McKenna while having ties to the Bush family, opposed the Iraq war and supported same-sex marriage. As for his ties to Martin/Chretien, he was an ambassador, he wasn't involved in domestic government decisions, which is where the problems with M/C came from. I also think you might be missing some the strong points McKenna bring to the table that we need in these rough times, namely diplomatic foreign experience and very importantly, a strong economic background and experience running a government and balancing budgets.

That is all experience that Iggy doesn't have. He might one day, but for now, he's still a relative outsider to the Canadian political system and to Canada as a whole (something Harper would no doubt remind us of time and time again). Now some might say that is good, and sometimes it is, but as I said, in these rough times, we don't need radical change, we need an experienced hand to help guide us through. For now I think that Iggy's outside views and academic experience would be best utilized supporting the party from inside cabinet, no running the show

blueblood · October 21, 2008

First off, Harper has never clarified his position on abortion, he's always evaded the question and danced around it. For example, he said he wouldn't introduce any legislation on the subject himself, but he never said he would not allow others to do it. He's also never answered the question as to how he would personally vote on the issue if it were to be introduced in Parliament.
I'm sure you are well aware that there is a huge difference between being personally prolife and being against choice.

Furthermore, as I pointed out on another thread.... we judge politicians as a whole, not for each individual stance on issues. Harper's stance on abortion is just one of the many that makes him unlikeable to social-liberals. On other social issues, SSM for example, McKenna went beyond the Chretien/Martin stance and stated that gay-marriage is a constitutional right!

of course he's going to dance around the question he's a politician. But the double standard remains, you say it's alright for McKenna to have personal views and not impose them, but Harper who is doing the exact same thing is getting crucified for it. That's BS and you know it.