Progressive Tory Posted February 8, 2009 Author Report Posted February 8, 2009 AFAIK, he still has to be confirmed as leader. He is still technically the interim leader. I suppose, though I think it will be just a formality. However, I believe the point was can he run for Prime Minister if he's JUST an interim leader? His Party call him their permanent leader, so no doubt have a clause in their own constitution. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
madmax Posted February 8, 2009 Report Posted February 8, 2009 The question is also whether or not they can entice the other 170,000 that voted Cons in 2006, and not in 2008 to get behind Ignatieff. I did. I voted PC until they were swallowed up by the Alliance/Reform. I then unenthusiastically voted NDP. How many times did you vote NDP??? Quote
Progressive Tory Posted February 8, 2009 Author Report Posted February 8, 2009 How many times did you vote NDP??? In 2004 (I hated the thought of Paul Martin as PM) and 2006 (Paul Martin had not changed my opinion any). In 2008 I voted strategically, so voted Liberal. I might have also voted NDP a few years ago when Brian Mulroney turned out to be a dud. (The year he won just 2 seats). I think Ed Broadbent may have been leader then. I never voted for Chretien. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Alta4ever Posted February 9, 2009 Report Posted February 9, 2009 In 2004 (I hated the thought of Paul Martin as PM) and 2006 (Paul Martin had not changed my opinion any). In 2008 I voted strategically, so voted Liberal. I might have also voted NDP a few years ago when Brian Mulroney turned out to be a dud. (The year he won just 2 seats). I think Ed Broadbent may have been leader then. I never voted for Chretien. So you can drop the tory from your name and leave it at progressive then? Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
punked Posted February 9, 2009 Report Posted February 9, 2009 In 2004 (I hated the thought of Paul Martin as PM) and 2006 (Paul Martin had not changed my opinion any). In 2008 I voted strategically, so voted Liberal. I might have also voted NDP a few years ago when Brian Mulroney turned out to be a dud. (The year he won just 2 seats). I think Ed Broadbent may have been leader then. I never voted for Chretien. Kim Campbell was the leader of the PC's that year, and the NDP had Audrey McLaughlin who sucked. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Posted February 9, 2009 Kim Campbell was the leader of the PC's that year, and the NDP had Audrey McLaughlin who sucked. The PC/Alliance merger was in 2003. Stephen Harper was head of the new party. Jack Layton was named leader of the NDP the same year. I voted for Kim Campbell and liked Audrey McLaughlin. 2004 election was Paul Martin, Stephen Harper and Jack Layton. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
madmax Posted February 9, 2009 Report Posted February 9, 2009 The PC/Alliance merger was in 2003. Stephen Harper was head of the new party. Jack Layton was named leader of the NDP the same year. I voted for Kim Campbell and liked Audrey McLaughlin.2004 election was Paul Martin, Stephen Harper and Jack Layton. You must not think much of the local LPC MP... Peter Milliken. He was elected in 1988. You voted against him in 1988, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006, and after 20 years finally put your X beside his name. 20 years.... What I find very interesting is that you voted for him, in a strategic vote for DION. 20 years of voting against Milliken, but he's ok now Quote
Moonbox Posted February 9, 2009 Report Posted February 9, 2009 One thing I wanted to mention about Iggy's poll numbers and PT's comments is that the CPC has been VERY careful in the last month or so not to appear like they're campaigning again. There was an article in the Globe and Mail on Saturday where a Harper insider indicated that they want to appear focused solely on the economy. Harper does NOT want to appear to be the man who triggers the next election. His entire credence statement is based on his economic background and a perception that he's going to be the guy to fix the economy (whether or not you believe it is irrelevant fyi, that's just what he's trying to project). Negative attack adds are going to make people think he's more concerned with curb stomping the Liberals while they're down and Canadians with few exceptions aren't going to appreciate it. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
gordiecanuk Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 One thing I wanted to mention about Iggy's poll numbers and PT's comments is that the CPC has been VERY careful in the last month or so not to appear like they're campaigning again. There was an article in the Globe and Mail on Saturday where a Harper insider indicated that they want to appear focused solely on the economy. Harper does NOT want to appear to be the man who triggers the next election. His entire credence statement is based on his economic background and a perception that he's going to be the guy to fix the economy (whether or not you believe it is irrelevant fyi, that's just what he's trying to project). Negative attack adds are going to make people think he's more concerned with curb stomping the Liberals while they're down and Canadians with few exceptions aren't going to appreciate it. Sharp commentary moonbox, very sharp. Harper is playing his cards close to his vest now...as is Iggy. Dion was a weak leader and Harper stomped all over him...idealogues are easy targets. Iggy is far more pragmatic (like Harper) so this is gonna be political junkie heavean for at least the next year. Quote You're welcome to visit my blog: Canadian Soapbox
normanchateau Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 Iggy is far more pragmatic (like Harper) Harper is only pragmatic when his life depends on it. Do you think he was pragmatic when a year after being elected Prime Minister, he introduced into Parliament a motion to take away the right of lesbians to marry? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6120701684.html Was Harper being pragmatic when he voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals? Or was he playing to social conservatives and the lunatic religious right? Was Harper being pragmatic when he introduced legislation requiring judges to impose a mandatory six month sentence for growing one marijuana plant? http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/5171.html Fortunately, Ignatieff now has the loathsome Harper on a leash, reducing the harm Harper's intolerance for civil liberties would otherwise produce. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Posted February 10, 2009 Harper is only pragmatic when his life depends on it. He tells us what he thinks we want to hear and then does the exact opposite. But if at least appearing to be pragmatic can result in a good photo op... he's your guy. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Moonbox Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 Harper is only pragmatic when his life depends on it. Do you think he was pragmatic when a year after being elected Prime Minister, he introduced into Parliament a motion to take away the right of lesbians to marry?Was Harper being pragmatic when he voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals? Or was he playing to social conservatives and the lunatic religious right? Was Harper being pragmatic when he introduced legislation requiring judges to impose a mandatory six month sentence for growing one marijuana plant? I can say for certain that if Harper had any chance of moving forward with his social agenda he'd lose my vote in a second. I really dislike his position on all of the above. I just know he has no chance of doing anything about it, so it's kind of a none issue for me. I don't have to like the guy. Fortunately, Ignatieff now has the loathsome Harper on a leash, reducing the harm Harper's intolerance for civil liberties would otherwise produce. Ignatieff doesn't have Harper on anything. The amendment to the budget was his way to make the appearance that he wasn't REALLY supporting the budget. Ignatieff is in no position to deal with Harper head to head so all we'll see over the next 6 months minimum is a repeat of last year. The Liberals are broke, the 'coalition' would ruin the party and Iggy knows that. He'll play the same waiting game Dion did (I'm not trying to compare him to Dion for the record) and the only way he'll make any moves is if Harper REALLY screws up. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 He tells us what he thinks we want to hear and then does the exact opposite. But if at least appearing to be pragmatic can result in a good photo op... he's your guy. I know and Ignatieff would NEVER EVER IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD think of telling the people what they want to hear. When he told everyone the stimulus plan wasn't working (before it was even made law) Ignatieff CLEARLY wasn't trying to score points with people worrying about their jobs or EI. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Progressive Tory Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Posted February 10, 2009 I know and Ignatieff would NEVER EVER IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD think of telling the people what they want to hear. When he told everyone the stimulus plan wasn't working (before it was even made law) Ignatieff CLEARLY wasn't trying to score points with people worrying about their jobs or EI. He did not mean that the budget as written wasn't working, just that it needs to be more flexible, because this economic crisis has little precedence. It is proving to be unpredictable, and the recent announcement of 129,000 jobs lost in month, means that we might have to rethink some of the initiatives. Reporters love to pick up key words or statements and then imprison them in their stories. I read the entire debate and all Opposition members were saying the same thing. If there's one thing we've learned recently, we need to be prepared for anything. The biggest criticism during the debate was that Harper and Flaherty are out making conflicting statements. They need to get their act together and their stories straight. Canadians want reassurance, not confusion. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Ignatieff doesn't have Harper on anything. The amendment to the budget was his way to make the appearance that he wasn't REALLY supporting the budget. You say 'tomato', I say 'What the hell are you talking about?' He played it to a Tee. Accepts the budget to stop the drama and allow government to start to act on the crisis, but puts Harper on Probation Says that while the budget has some good points, much of it is fundamentally flawed. Doesn't matter what Harper or his supporters think. Canadians agree with the Big Ig and the minutes are ticking away for 'Man of the Hour', Harper. They'll all come around Cause the man of the hour is taking his final bow G'bye for now. Edited February 10, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
punked Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 The PC/Alliance merger was in 2003. Stephen Harper was head of the new party. Jack Layton was named leader of the NDP the same year. I voted for Kim Campbell and liked Audrey McLaughlin.2004 election was Paul Martin, Stephen Harper and Jack Layton. You were talking about the year Brain won two seats. That never happened Campbell won two seats, and You said you voted for Boardbent, well that year McLaughlin was the leader of the NDP. Quote
kimmy Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) So you can drop the tory from your name and leave it at progressive then? Really. It would be like me calling myself "NDP Kimmy" because I voted NDP in the mock election when I was in grade 4. -k Edited February 11, 2009 by kimmy Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
punked Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 Really.It would be like me calling myself "NDP Kimmy" because I voted NDP in the mock election when I was in grade 4. -k Good for you a step forward for fourth graders everywhere Quote
kimmy Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 Good for you a step forward for fourth graders everywhere Well, as Winston Churchill put it, "A girl who does not vote NDP in the grade four mock election has no heart. A girl who still votes NDP when she is 25 has no brain." -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Moonbox Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 He did not mean that the budget as written wasn't working, just that it needs to be more flexible, because this economic crisis has little precedence. That's why be had to explain himself after the fact and say something along the lines of, "I can't help it I just get really excited." right? He jumped the gun and made himself look stupid. That's fine. They all do that from time to time. This was just funny. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Progressive Tory Posted February 11, 2009 Author Report Posted February 11, 2009 He jumped the gun and made himself look stupid. That's fine. They all do that from time to time. This was just funny. If it was a blooper, some of the press sure tried to turn it into a breaking news story. Actually, with the economic crisis being so unpredictable, maybe we need regular mini budgets, instead of massive spending and long term projections. That was the key feature of the debate and should have been the important story. With the potential of a further 300,000 jobs lost in the next few months, the budget should be more flexible, to deal with unforseen challenges. I know the U.S. has a different Gov't system than us, but they are dealing with each stimulus package separately. Maybe that's what Canada should have done. One new proposal to deal with each new problem. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Moonbox Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 If it was a blooper, some of the press sure tried to turn it into a breaking news story. It wasn't really a blooper. The media made it into news because he very clearly got caught yelling nonsense and rhetoric. He was trying to blame the current economy on Harper but ended up looking stupid. I know the U.S. has a different Gov't system than us, but they are dealing with each stimulus package separately. Maybe that's what Canada should have done. One new proposal to deal with each new problem. It's parliament. It takes awhile to get things done. If every issue was a mini budget we'd not see any stimulus until 2010. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
normanchateau Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 I can say for certain that if Harper had any chance of moving forward with his social agenda he'd lose my vote in a second. I really dislike his position on all of the above. I just know he has no chance of doing anything about it, so it's kind of a none issue for me. I don't have to like the guy. So you support him despite the fact that he's a social conservative. What's left to support? He's not governed as a fiscal conservative. Just look at his ridiculous spending in the 2007 budget: http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php Quote
Moonbox Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 So you support him despite the fact that he's a social conservative. What's left to support? He's not governed as a fiscal conservative. Just look at his ridiculous spending in the 2007 budget:http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php I've supported him thus far because the alternatives have been looking worse. My choices have been fringe party alternatives, dippers promising increased taxes and more welfare spending or Liberals promising idiocy like the Green Shift. The Liberals and NDP were promised to be a worse choice for me so like I said many times I settled on the one who'd do the least damage. Any party with Bob Rae as an important figure in it I'm going to stay miles away from. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
normanchateau Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 Any party with Bob Rae as an important figure in it I'm going to stay miles away from. Wasn't Bernier an important figure in his party not too long ago? Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.