BC_chick Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) I was going to start this thread about the G&M's endorsement, but I created it as a general endorsement thread so we can discuss other endorsements too. So the G&M has endorsed the CPC but without Harper and their reasons for doing so should be commended: It is not time for the Conservatives to go. But it is time for Mr. Harper to take his leave. He can look back on parts of his record with pride, but he has undone himself and his party with a narrowness of vision and a meanness of spirit on a host of issues, from voting rights to crime and punishment to respect for science to respect for the courts. The topper has been how this election campaign was sidetracked into an artificial, American-style, culture war over niqabs and “barbaric cultural practices.” The spectacle of a prime minister seemingly willing to say anything, or demonize anyone, in an attempt to get re-elected has demeaned our politics. And while it may have firmed up the old Reform base, it also solidified the Harper Conservative Party as a party of, by and for that base.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-tories-deserve-another-mandate-stephen-harper-doesnt/article26842506/ I find this interesting because I don't think Harper is big enough to accept that he's being harmful to his party. If that was the case, he would have resigned a year ago as he should have. He seems very reassured of his capabilities and it's ironic because many of the CPC supporters on this forum and the ones I know IRL seem disillusioned with him even though they plan on voting for his party as the best alternative. With this knowledge of Harper's inability to accept his failures and step down, I think the G&M endorsement is meaningless even though in theory it's not a bad assessment. Edited October 16, 2015 by BC_chick Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 This is the most ridiculous endorsement ever. Harper IS the Conservative Party. His office prints the members' talking points for question period. Nobody can speak in public without his permission. If it weren't for Harper, the social conservatives would run amok and the party would be worse than it is now. Harper's the only reason the party even approximates the vision that the G&M has. Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Hmm... does anyone actually care which newspaper endorses which party? I mean, is anyone's own vote going to be affected by who a newspaper "endorses"? Quote
BC_chick Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Posted October 16, 2015 Exactly CC! He is not going to resign, he's the one people are voting for and as you said, he's the one at the helm with all the policies that the G&M is endorsing. It's meaningless (and ridiculous). Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
BC_chick Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Posted October 16, 2015 Hmm... does anyone actually care which newspaper endorses which party? I mean, is anyone's own vote going to be affected by who a newspaper "endorses"? I'm sure lots of people who are not as politically-inclined as us do get influenced. Admittedly, even though I make up my own mind, I love reading them and I read them with an open mind. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 With this knowledge of Harper's inability to accept his failures and step down, I think the G&M endorsement is meaningless even though in theory it's not a bad assessment. The National Post is working its way towards a similar endorsement of the Tories. "Oh yeah, that Harper guy isn't good, but, you know, vote Tory anyways." The Tories knew, or should have known 18 months ago what needed to be done to get a shot at government, and that was to push Harper out the door. Quote
Big Guy Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 For those who care about endorsements : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2015_Canadian_federal_election Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
ReeferMadness Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 The G&M endorsement editorial is completely delusional. The comments are hilarious though. One asked whether the ballot will be amended to include a choice that says "Conservative but only if Harper resigns". Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 The G&M endorsement editorial is completely delusional. The comments are hilarious though. One asked whether the ballot will be amended to include a choice that says "Conservative but only if Harper resigns". Well, it's a distinct possibility if the Tories manage a minority. I can imagine a situation in which Harper would willingly leave, or being asked to resign. An interim PM could try to reach across the floor, perhaps bat his or her eyelashes at the NDP, and at least make it past the Throne Speech, and recess Parliament while a new leader is selected. I don't say this would work, but it might be the only chance the Tories have if they manage a plurality to survive as a government. Quote
BC_chick Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) On the flip side CPC voters are not getting the leader they voted for if he steps down after the election. And as far as endorsements go, they should be for a party as it is, not as it should have been. Edited October 16, 2015 by BC_chick Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
ReeferMadness Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Well, it's a distinct possibility if the Tories manage a minority. I can imagine a situation in which Harper would willingly leave, or being asked to resign. An interim PM could try to reach across the floor, perhaps bat his or her eyelashes at the NDP, and at least make it past the Throne Speech, and recess Parliament while a new leader is selected. I don't say this would work, but it might be the only chance the Tories have if they manage a plurality to survive as a government. Geez, I hope not. These guys need to be sent away to figure themselves out again. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Geez, I hope not. These guys need to be sent away to figure themselves out again. I didn't say it would work, or the Tories would even try. Harper's hold on the party is strong, but I have to believe that if Ontario bleeds Tory support as badly as the polls show, and the Liberals and NDP even make inroads in Alberta, that Harper's position would become untenable, and there is a chance that the Tories, even under an interim leader, might at least give it a go. After all, they've got nothing to lose, and the NDP might like to be the bell at the ball, and see what they can extract from the Tories or Liberals in a bidding war. But this really does require that Harper resign quickly, and the Tory caucus throw their support behind an interim leader. So it requires a lot of ducks to fall into a row. Quote
Big Guy Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 It would have been interesting to know how Quebec would have gone if the electorate knew that Jack Layton would not continue as the leader of the federal NDP. I do not think that an "orange wave" would have been created. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 It would have been interesting to know how Quebec would have gone if the electorate knew that Jack Layton would not continue as the leader of the federal NDP. I do not think that an "orange wave" would have been created. The Orange Crush was as much about the Bloc's meltdown as the NDP's attractiveness. Honestly, looking at it four years on, I'm not sure how much we can attribute to Layton, and what credit can be given has to go to Mulcair, who was Layton's lieutenant in Quebec. Quote
The_Squid Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Damn liberal left-wing media with all those Conservative endorsements.... ooops... Shouldn't the fact that most news organizations endorse a flailing and failing Conservative Party do away with this right-wing talking point about the "liberal media"? Can we all agree that the media in general is NOT "left-wing"? Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Damn liberal left-wing media with all those Conservative endorsements.... ooops... Shouldn't the fact that most news organizations endorse a flailing and failing Conservative Party do away with this right-wing talking point about the "liberal media"? Can we all agree that the media in general is NOT "left-wing"? The media is pro-drama. Heck even the leading story on the CBC site is Gagnier. Quote
Smeelious Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 well except that all the newspapers endorsing the conservatives are owned by one company (except the G&M) Quote
The_Squid Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 The media is pro-drama. Heck even the leading story on the CBC site is Gagnier. Now you're being obtuse. It's a story that a paid lobbyist is working inside the Liberal Party lobbying for his industry, potentially illegally. But that's off-topic and should be discussed in the other thread. You are a Liberal partisan hack that excuses the bad behaviour of "your guys". Quote
Evening Star Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) This is the most ridiculous endorsement ever. I posted this elsewhere: their position seems to be "the Conservatives were so good on the economy that the other parties are basically adopting their economic policies. But the Tories are terrible in other ways: mean, secretive, hyper-centralized, obsessed with wedge issues and stupid culture wars, all because of Harper's controlling nature." By their own logic, you could get the good without the bad if you voted for one of the other parties. Edited October 16, 2015 by Evening Star Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 The G&M endorsement editorial is completely delusional. The comments are hilarious though. One asked whether the ballot will be amended to include a choice that says "Conservative but only if Harper resigns". And there's the point of just how silly this suggestion is. Why the hell would they suggest voting for something that won't be anywhere on the ballot. Maybe there is some reverse psychology going on here: if I can't vote for the CPC without Harper, then maybe I look elsewhere to mark my X. Quote
Evening Star Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Paula Simons of the Edmonton Journal has been strongly implying that the endorsements by Postmedia papers were made by the owners/publishers, not the editorial staff themselves. Edit: in this case, the editors might have intentionally given the most backhanded endorsement they could give. Edited October 16, 2015 by Evening Star Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Now you're being obtuse. It's a story that a paid lobbyist is working inside the Liberal Party lobbying for his industry, potentially illegally. But that's off-topic and should be discussed in the other thread. You are a Liberal partisan hack that excuses the bad behaviour of "your guys". Sex and scandal sell papers. It's best when it's a sex scandal, of course, but political scandals will do nicely. It demonstrates how the media will try to create narratives. "Oh, the ascendant Liberals, on the cusp of absolute victory, brought low by Gagnier's alleged influence peddling!" That's what gets people to buy your newspaper, to tune in to your broadcast or check out your website. It's the drama. Look at the main news sites, everything to do with Gagnier has "UPDATED" beside it, as if new revelations are found within. Honestly, at this point, two days since the story broke, I'm seeing little evidence that it is actually harming the Liberals. Nanos has a new leader poll that shows Trudeau in fact gaining ground. I think the electorate has already made up its collective mind, and wants the Tories out, and at this point they seem as willing to ignore questionable behavior in the Liberal camp as they were in the Tory camp in 2006. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Paula Simons of the Edmonton Journal has been strongly implying that the endorsements by Postmedia papers were made by the owners/publishers, not the editorial staff themselves. Edit: in this case, the editors might have intentionally given the most backhanded endorsement they could give.[/size] Generally speaking when a newspaper makes it endorsement, it is the publisher that calls the shot. This is the sort of thing that the owner of the paper decides. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 It's a story that a paid lobbyist is working inside the Liberal Party lobbying for his industry, potentially illegally. But that's off-topic and should be discussed in the other thread. You're entitled to your own opinion. You're NOT entitled to your own facts. To my knowledge, nobody has established that Gagnier is a lobbyist. You are a Liberal partisan hack that excuses the bad behaviour of "your guys". ad hominem attack. It's just a red flag that people shouldn't be paying attention to you. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 And there's the point of just how silly this suggestion is. Why the hell would they suggest voting for something that won't be anywhere on the ballot. Maybe there is some reverse psychology going on here: if I can't vote for the CPC without Harper, then maybe I look elsewhere to mark my X. Maybe they're hoping for Harper to announce his resignation in advance of the election. Wouldn't that be bizarre if a leader could increase his party's support by promising to leave. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
.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.