Where does YOUR local CPC candidate stand ?

[caesar]

Don't worry goldie; we KNOW that you understand little. Perhaps when you learn about the world and issues ; you will understand.

[Goldie]

Right.

Nice way to avoid the Questions.

[Michael Hardner]

To the point of the thread: Please continue to tell me what your local CPC candidates have specifically posted on their websites about what they will/won't support in free votes.

[Argus]

With the prospect of a CPC government becoming more real with each passing day, we are told that a CPC government itself will not be introducing legislation on abortion, same-sex marraige etc.  However, a CPC government will allow free votes on any issue not covered in party policy.

It's hard to believe how otherwise sane and intelligent people are falling for the idiotic fearmongering coming from the Liberals and socialists.

There is NO chance of abortions being banned. NONE ZERO. ZIP! Absolutely NIL! A plank to ban abortion would not even come close to being approved by the Tory membership. So even if only the tories were allowed to vote on a free vote it probably would not pass. As it is, with the socialists required to support any such bill, and the majority of Liberals and Bloq MPs as pro choice there is no chance whatsoever that a free vote on abortion would result in the end or even serious curtailment of abortion freedoms.

It is a false issue raised to portray the Conservatives as radical and dangerous. Instead of talking about issues which concern us, like health care, defence, unemployment, free trade, the economy, the Liberals and socialists have us all chattering about non issues like abortion and gay rights. Just how F'ing important is it to you all that homosexuals get to have official marriages anyway? Is it more important than getting decent health care? Is it more important than whether your government diverts billions into the pockets of its friends and supporters? For almost half the election we've seen almost nothing but abortion and gay marriages. Christ! It's unbelieveable! It's like to some people, especially the media, it really doesn't matter if the entire health care system comes apart at the seams and people die by the thousands, just so long as we have a government that lets homosexuals get married. Who cares if the government is composed of lying thieves who make off with hundreds of millions, or even billions of our dollars just so long as there aren't too many anti-abortion MPs among them.

How about checking your candidates - ALL OF THEM - to see how they stand on health care, on an elected senate, on crime and security and poverty!?? How about checking on their honesty and integrity, and oh, I dunno, intelligence?! Wake the hell up, people!

[Michael Hardner]

It's hard to believe how otherwise sane and intelligent people are falling for the idiotic fearmongering coming from the Liberals and socialists.

Television advertising doesn't really appeal to the intellect. It's more impressionistic - that's why it works.

There is NO chance of abortions being banned. NONE ZERO. ZIP! Absolutely NIL! A plank to ban abortion would not even come close to being approved by the Tory membership.

We already know this. It's not party policy. Free votes are.

So even if only the tories were allowed to vote on a free vote it probably would not pass.

That's the question. And unless the local candidates tell us what their stances are, we don't know for sure.

As it is, with the socialists required to support any such bill, and the majority of Liberals and Bloq MPs as pro choice there is no chance whatsoever that a free vote on abortion would result in the end or even serious curtailment of abortion freedoms.

It is a false issue raised to portray the Conservatives as radical and dangerous. Instead of talking about issues which concern us, like health care, defence, unemployment, free trade, the economy, the Liberals and socialists have us all chattering about non issues like abortion and gay rights. Just how F'ing important is it to you all that homosexuals get to have official marriages anyway?

The larger issue - charter rights - are probably of importance to enough people. That's why the Liberals are taking this tack, I think.

Is it more important than getting decent health care? Is it more important than whether your government diverts billions into the pockets of its friends and supporters? For almost half the election we've seen almost nothing but abortion and gay marriages. Christ! It's unbelieveable! It's like to some people, especially the media, it really doesn't matter if the entire health care system comes apart at the seams and people die by the thousands, just so long as we have a government that lets homosexuals get married.

I don't think that health care is a particularly weak issues for the Liberals anyway. The Conservatives are probably more vulnerable.

Who cares if the government is composed of lying thieves who make off with hundreds of millions, or even billions of our dollars just so long as there aren't too many anti-abortion MPs among them.

Politics is all about deciding what issues are most important in the public mind. That's the battle that's before us.

How about checking your candidates - ALL OF THEM - to see how they stand on health care, on an elected senate, on crime and security and poverty!?? How about checking on their honesty and integrity, and oh, I dunno, intelligence?! Wake the hell up, people!

There's no way to practically tell how intelligent or honest a local candidate is, especially if they're a new face.

And the local candidate's stand on party policy is a moot point - they'll follow the party line.

I just think since free votes are already CPC policy, any CPC candidate has an obligation to be forthright about their views on social issues.

People do care.

[Bionic Antboy]

Hey guys, I found this Candidate in Lesalle-Emard that said this,

I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible,"

(Paul Martin, Prime Minister, North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003)

We should fry his ass, uh. War mongerer!

I'm cutting and pasting this from a previous thread, because it bears repeating...

[the teammartinsaid website contains a number of] out of context sound bites, with no detailed reference to source material, which is spurious to say the least. Just one example of a blatant lie by the Conservatives...

“I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible,"

(Paul Martin, Prime Minister, North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003)

The implication is that we should get troops on the ground, where in fact Martin was talking about humanitarian aid.

Many other quotes are out of context half-sentences as well.

Try googling some of the quotes and you'll find out.

The teammartinsaid website was created as a response to the stephenharpersaid commercials and website. Each Harper quote contains original articles to put the quote in proper context, something the Conservatives haven't got the balls to do.

Here's the Globe and Mail article regarding that quote...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...N20/TPNational/

Quoting the second paragraph...

The Conservatives call Prime Minister Paul Martin a hypocrite for attacking their stand on the war in Iraq, quoting him as saying last year that "Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible," but failing to mention he was talking about providing humanitarian aid, not sending troops to war.

This news came out in late May. So is Martin a warmonger for wanting to send humanitarian aid to Iraq?

Would you like some salt and pepper for the crow you're eating?

[idealisttotheend]

Nice one BA, lol.

[Bionic Antboy]

Nice one BA, lol.

Although all parties are guilty of playing the same game, the fact that this lie was pointed out in a national publication and they STILL have it on their website is totally reprehensible.

I REALLY don't like the way the Conservatives are running their campaign.

Why is Harper afraid to take questions from the people, avoiding debates whenever possible and now the party is telling it's members to keep quiet on social issues?

What are they afraid of?

I've voted for each of the major parties at one time or another, but I see no redeeming qualities in the new Conservative party.

The only reason they're seeing such high numbers has got to be due to the boondoggles of the Liberals.

[Argus]

So even if only the tories were allowed to vote on a free vote it probably would not pass.

That's the question. And unless the local candidates tell us what their stances are, we don't know for sure.

You don't understand common English? If you shot dead every MP in the house except the Tories, and then held a vote to ban abortions it would still fail. Is that easier to understand? Therefore, since when you pile on all the BQ, NDP and Liberal votes, the great majority of which will be pro choice, a free vote can lead to only one conclusion.

Is it more important than getting decent health care?

I don't think that health care is a particularly weak issues for the Liberals anyway. The Conservatives are probably more vulnerable.

Oh? Did the Conservatives spend the last ten years watching health care deteriorate and do nothing except slash health care transfer payments?

I just think since free votes are already CPC policy, any CPC candidate has an obligation to be forthright about their views on social issues.

But not the candidates from the other parties? Paul Martin spoke long and lovingly about his desire for more free votes to address the "democratic deficit" some time ago. Or did you simply not pay any attention because you knew he was a liar?

[Argus]

Why is Harper afraid to take questions from the people,

Why haven't I noticed that Harper is afraid to "take questions from the people"? Could you point out an example of where Harper has been "afraid to take questions from the people"?

[Bionic Antboy]

Why is Harper afraid to take questions from the people,

Why haven't I noticed that Harper is afraid to "take questions from the people"? Could you point out an example of where Harper has been "afraid to take questions from the people"?

Not attending the debate today, and avoiding one with Layton earlier, as well the party circling the wagons regarding commenting on social issues.

That strikes me as somewhat fearful, esoecially since this IS an election we have going on.

As for your assertion that even if all MPs were gone except for Conservatives that there would be no change in the abortion issue, that's kind of hard to prove, since they're not supposed to say anything publicly about such things.

How am I able to form an opinion on them if they're not out there engaging the electorate beyond the standard stumping?

As I've said before, I have no life long allegiances to any party, but their "hush hush" style is just too much.

[willy]

How am I able to form an opinion on them if they're not out there engaging the electorate beyond the standard stumping?

Your opinion seems formed. I am sure no matter how much engaging or debate you would still hold the same opinion.

As for the hiding, I have seen Harper in every province so far in this election and the candidates have been in local debates across the country. I have also seen Harper interviewed individually on all the major stations, and they will have the traditional debate this week. What else would you like, for him to call you at home? As for debating Layton, he only holds 18% of the vote now. If anyone should debate it is Harper and Martin and I look forward to that event. (If you didn't notice, I implied that Layton was irrelevant and for the Conservatives to win he is as his supporters are not likely to come on board but the Conservatives will attract more Liberals support before this is over.)

You seem to think this is not enough but it appears to be good strategy as they are the party in the lead and has consistently grown in support in the last couple of months.

Sucks to be in the minority eh?

[idealisttotheend]

I think we have lost the point of the thread. The point is that among all the promises of free votes, none of the individual MPs doing the voting are showing any interest in telling us their positions on social issues. In fact, they are being told not to talk about it all. If you are interested in social issues you cannot make an informed decision in the upcoming election as to what position you are supporting when you are voting for a given candadate. This is what leads to charges of a hidden agenda on the part of the Cons and this is what the Liberals have to exploit if they want to rebound in the polls (along with Harper's past positions on the various regions etc.)

[willy]

The party system is a balance between constituent representation, party policy and personal values. I think the point is that stated party policy is the priority and even though individuals can put forward other issues, they will never make it thought the system.

Look back and remember that many Liberal priorities never made it through let alone a bill put out by a back bencher.

As for personal views most candidates I have seen live have shared their views and added in the context. I have heard some Conservative candidates talk about free tuition. Are you worried that will pass? Probably not because you know it is not stated party policy and it doesn't play to your built in fears. All these other issues are fear mongering. The Liberals are driving that agenda, don't you feel manipulated yet?

I am a member of the Conservative Party and hold conversations with strategists and they have no hidden agenda.

They would like to get in power and move forward the stated agenda.

* More money to defense

* More direct money to the provinces for Health Care and more freedom to the provinces to address issues as they see fit. (You can hold your provincial politicians accountable for what that looks like)

* Pollution targets focused around toxic air emissions

* More accountability (starting with expanded powers for the auditor general)

* Tax cuts for middle and low income earners

* Remove gun registry and increase funding to RCMP

* Tougher sentences for criminals

* Reduce corporate welfare and with savings reduce corporate taxes

This is a large agenda, what else do you think they will have time for?

[idealisttotheend]

I am a member of the party and hold conversations with strategists and they have no hidden agenda.

They would like to get in power and move forward the stated agenda.

I'm not personally convinced the Cons do have any sort of hidden agenda, at least not as a party. But you are essentially arguing for supply side politics. The agenda they want to move forward on may not be the agenda the people are concerned about. If people are concerned about social issues than they have the right to know where the CPCers stand, either as a party or as individuals. I'm sure all people are concerned about different issues and am not arguing social issues are, or ought to be, prominent. But I am saying that abortion etc. are important enough that people have the right to know where the Cons stand if that is the issue they wish to cast their votes based all or in part on.

And I agree with you about private members bills being almost impossible to get through. But I believe C-250 was Mr. Robinson's private members bill and that seems to be getting a lot of response on these forums. C-250 deals with a social issue. Furthermore a governing party that wanted to make private member's bills easier to pass could easily do so. They need only extend parlimentary sessions and or deal with fewer government bills.

Therefore arguing that is impossible to pass a private member's bill is not a sound defense.

[takeanumber]

My proposal for reforming the Canadian electoral system along more democratic lines was dismissed as 'lunatic' a few months ago.

(Which I took as a good sign)

Anyway.

I know the personal views of my current MP, and I don't agree with most of them.

My Liberal candidae sucks. My NDP choice blows.

So dunno. That leaves the Greens. That candidate is pretty nice. She's a moderate.

But donno, I might have to hold my nose and vote Liberal. Imean seriously, between an aparteid-supporter and a corrupt Fiberal...which would you choose?

[Sully]

But donno, I might have to hold my nose and vote Liberal. Imean seriously, between an aparteid-supporter and a corrupt Fiberal...which would you choose?

Who in your riding supports apartheid, please provide links and facts to back up that statement. Would be good to make it public who this apartheid supporting jerk is right!!!!!

[Bionic Antboy]

How am I able to form an opinion on them if they're not out there engaging the electorate beyond the standard stumping?

Your opinion seems formed. I am sure no matter how much engaging or debate you would still hold the same opinion.

As for the hiding, I have seen Harper in every province so far in this election and the candidates have been in local debates across the country. I have also seen Harper interviewed individually on all the major stations, and they will have the traditional debate this week. What else would you like, for him to call you at home? As for debating Layton, he only holds 18% of the vote now. If anyone should debate it is Harper and Martin and I look forward to that event. (If you didn't notice, I implied that Layton was irrelevant and for the Conservatives to win he is as his supporters are not likely to come on board but the Conservatives will attract more Liberals support before this is over.)

You seem to think this is not enough but it appears to be good strategy as they are the party in the lead and has consistently grown in support in the last couple of months.

Sucks to be in the minority eh?

Actually, I don't consider myself to be in the minority, or majority.

What I'm saying is that the official party clam-up on social issues bothers me. And stumping from town to town isn't the same as debating. There's a difference between going out and selling yourself, and answering direct questions from the electorate.

The main reason I say that the Cons won't get my vote is because I want to have a comprehensive knowledge of where they stand, and they're actively AVOIDING telling Canadians that. It's the official party line. That doesn't strike me as very democratic.

Your opinion seems formed. I am sure no matter how much engaging or debate you would still hold the same opinion.

How could you possibly know? I've cast votes for all three major parties in the past and don't have a blind allegiance to any.

The new CPC just seems to go out of it's way to avoid open discussions, instead sticking to it's "talking points". They certainly are BEHAVING like a party with something to hide regarding their social issues.

And just to clear things up, although I am pro-choice, I have no problem with opening the debate on whether there should be some sort of restrictions, based on term and such. But they're even afraid to discuss that.

[Argus]

What I'm saying is that the official party clam-up on social issues bothers me.  And stumping from town to town isn't the same as debating.  There's a difference between going out and selling yourself, and answering direct questions from the electorate.

The main reason I say that the Cons won't get my vote is because I want to have a comprehensive knowledge of where they stand, and they're actively AVOIDING telling Canadians that.  It's the official party line.  That doesn't strike me as very democratic.

No, your problem is you don't like the official party line. Which is that there is no official policy on abortion or same-sex marriage. Harper has made it crystal clear that it will be up to individual MPs to vote on those issues. He has not told them to refuse to answer where they stand on those issue, merely told them not to make any outspoken, quotable, damaging statements. They can certainly say they are opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage and will vote that way. What they can't do is say abortion is like cutting off the heads of kidnap victims.

[Michael Hardner]

No, your problem is you don't like the official party line. Which is that there is no official policy on abortion or same-sex marriage. Harper has made it crystal clear that it will be up to individual MPs to vote on those issues. He has not told them to refuse to answer where they stand on those issue, merely told them not to make any outspoken, quotable, damaging statements.

They can certainly say they are opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage and will vote that way. What they can't do is say abortion is like cutting off the heads of kidnap victims.

But they (the local CPC candidates) haven't been saying anything, and that seems to me to be irresponsible, given their official party platform.

[Bionic Antboy]

No, your problem is you don't like the official party line. Which is that there is no official policy on abortion or same-sex marriage. Harper has made it crystal clear that it will be up to individual MPs to vote on those issues. He has not told them to refuse to answer where they stand on those issue, merely told them not to make any outspoken, quotable, damaging statements. They can certainly say they are opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage and will vote that way. What they can't do is say abortion is like cutting off the heads of kidnap victims.

Who are you to judge my reasons for not liking the gag order, and the general avoidance of discussing social issues that's become the Conservative Party line?

Your comment that He has not told them to refuse to answer where they stand on those issue, merely told them not to make any outspoken, quotable, damaging statements. sounds kind of contradictory. In other words, you're saying that MPs can say what they want, unless is outspoken, damaging and/or quotable... what the heck is left?

[Michael Hardner]

You don't understand common English? If you shot dead every MP in the house except the Tories, and then held a vote to ban abortions it would still fail. Is that easier to understand?

Well, how do I know that if the local candidates don't tell me how they feel ?

Therefore, since when you pile on all the BQ, NDP and Liberal votes, the great majority of which will be pro choice, a free vote can lead to only one conclusion.

This is all specific to abortion, and beside the point that the local candidates should be telling us.

Oh? Did the Conservatives spend the last ten years watching health care deteriorate and do nothing except slash health care transfer payments?

Based on Poll numbers I saw yesterday, voters see the Liberals as slightly stronger on healthcare than the CPCs.

But not the candidates from the other parties? Paul Martin spoke long and lovingly about his desire for more free votes to address the "democratic deficit" some time ago. Or did you simply not pay any attention because you knew he was a liar?

Well, yes. Maybe the other party candidates should start thinking about doing this, seeing as how a CPC government is looking more likely.

But, I think the party that has free votes entrenched in its policy has an obligation to have its local candidates explain their views, more so than other parties that might be sitting in parliament under the new CPC rules.

Martin will allow free votes, but not on anything that he doesn't want to allow free votes on. Just like Harper.

[Argus]

You don't understand common English? If you shot dead every MP in the house except the Tories, and then held a vote to ban abortions it would still fail. Is that easier to understand?

Well, how do I know that if the local candidates don't tell me how they feel ?

But why only the Tory candidates? You don't care how the other candidates vote? Are you under the illusion there aren't many pro-life people in the Liberal Party, that there aren't pro-lifers in the BQ and NDP?

In any event, Harper has not ordered his candidates to refuse to answer questions about abortion or same-sex marriage. He just doesn't want screaming headlines. It's perfectly all right for an MP to say "If there was a free vote on same-sex marriage I would vote against." It's not perfectly all right to say "Homosexuals are the children of Satan and must be expunged from the universe!" So to speak.

For example, were I a candidate and was asked about abortion I would say:

"Well, I'm kind of in the middle. I would not vote to ban all abortions. However, I am open to some kind of legislation governing abortions, particularly those in the late terms of pregnancy. It seems an awful waste to me to have a fetus aborted when it's viable or close to being viable outside the womb. Unless, of course, the health of the mother is endangered. So how I would vote would depend on the bill in question."

I don't think that would draw any screaming headlines, nor any wrath from the party offices.

[Michael Hardner]

But why only the Tory candidates? You don't care how the other candidates vote? Are you under the illusion there aren't many pro-life people in the Liberal Party, that there aren't pro-lifers in the BQ and NDP?

As I said in my last post, the CPC is the party that will allow completely free votes, so they should be telling us what they think.

In any event, Harper has not ordered his candidates to refuse to answer questions about abortion or same-sex marriage. He just doesn't want screaming headlines. It's perfectly all right for an MP to say "If there was a free vote on same-sex marriage I would vote against." It's not perfectly all right to say "Homosexuals are the children of Satan and must be expunged from the universe!" So to speak.

Whether he told them to be quiet or not, they're not being so forthcoming.

For example, were I a candidate and was asked about abortion I would say:

"Well, I'm kind of in the middle. I would not vote to ban all abortions. However, I am open to some kind of legislation governing abortions, particularly those in the late terms of pregnancy. It seems an awful waste to me to have a fetus aborted when it's viable or close to being viable outside the womb. Unless, of course, the health of the mother is endangered. So how I would vote would depend on the bill in question."

And they would jump all over your statement as being anti-choice.

I don't think that would draw any screaming headlines, nor any wrath from the party offices.

It might. It just might.

The CPC has a large conservative force that wants to be able to have its ideas heard. Fine. Harper's solution is to push that off on free votes, so that mainstream voters won't be scared into voting against the CPC. Also fine. No contradiction there.

But at some point, the rubber has to hit the road. If the mainstream is vulnerable to fear-mongering, and the political solution is to use free votes to mollify the conservative hardliners, then there's a disconnect if the local candidates don't tell us what they're thinking.

But, politically, it's a very good play by Harper. Quite in the league of Chretien, I would say.

But I don't have to believe it's all about integrity etc. etc. any more than I believed the Liberals when they pulled these stunts.

[caesar]

Where did people get the idea one can demand an abortion any time during their pregnancy. I believe it is cut off at 4 or 5 months unless their is a serious risk to the parent. Perhaps if the fetus has very extreme problems; it could still be done.