ParkdaleCon Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 It will be a wide field I think, which can be a good thing for party renewal, however, it increases the chances of a wildcard... i.e. O'Leary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Maxime Bernier today during his talk at the Manning Conference cleared up any doubt on him running. He laughed every time he said "If I run..." I don't think Bernier would have much of a shot appealing to many voters outside of Quebec, but he definitely would be a factor in the race, and a potential key endorsement at some point. By the way, it has yet to be decided what kind of leadership convention it will be, right? Or is it assumed it will be the "points" system from 2004 when Harper won? I'm not sure how big of a faction it is in the party but Bernier will appeal to many libertarian-minded conservatives, as well as fiscal conservatives. He could also appeal to youth, the big problem there is getting them to become members. Membership fees have ballooned and that will deter many people - particularly youth - from signing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) Sons of Anarchy! I think Maxime has been positioning himself subtly as a leadership candidate long before Harper stepped down. You don't saw. I don't know how much subtlety there was. Edited February 28, 2016 by Newfoundlander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Now for my third post in a row. If I were to rank the speeches I'd go with: 1) Michael Chong/Tony Clement 2) Maxime Bernier 3) Lisa Raitt 4) Kevin O'Leary I thought both Chong and Clement gave good speeches and showed they want to move the party forward and not focus on the past. They didn't mind criticizing things that went wrong. Clement put focus both on what the party needs to do from an organizational standpoint as well as from a policy standpoint. He talked about developing policies around poverty reduction and the environment, two areas where the party has largely be absent. Chong also talked about the environment and pointed out that it was an issue the party needs to develop policy around. Bernier was good as usual but his speech was pretty much the same as any he has given over the years. If you go to his website you'll find similar speeches. Bernier always likes to focus on subsidies to businesses. Raitt showed she can deliver and good speech; she has a folksy charm that can connect with people. However, her speech lacked substance when it came to how to move the party forward from an organizational and policy standpoint. She was also the candidate who most focused on Harper and his government over the last 10 years. She noted she got into politics solely because of Harper, his governing from 2006 to 2008 inspired her. She mentioned that she doesn't see herself fitting into any wing of the party, she got involved because of Harper and is staying involved in politics because others in the party share her values. Surprisingly out of anybody who spoke she seemed to be the candidate most interested in the status quo. It was noted numerous times throughout the convention that the party probably puts too much attention on fiscal issues and that they need to talk more about other policy areas. In questioning afterwards Chong and Clement mentioned the environment as an issue where the party needs to develop better policies in order to connect with voters. When Raitt was asked about this she mentioned that in her riding it's pocket book issues that people care about. Raitt was by far the most disappointing for me. She was someone who I thought I'd support but unless she takes a different approach over the coming months I'd support the other three noted above over her. 4) Kevin O'Leary was Kevin O'Leary. It was sad that the crowd seemed to lap up so much of what he had to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 4) Kevin O'Leary was Kevin O'Leary. It was sad that the crowd seemed to lap up so much of what he had to say. "... we won with the poorly educated! I love the poorly educated!" - Donald Trump. Same same but different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 I don't necessarily think that's true at all. Sharing values similar to O'Leary doesn't make one uneducated at all, though many of his views are polarizing. However, I just think he's solely focused on one area - the economy - and that's not what the party needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) It will be a wide field I think, which can be a good thing for party renewal, however, it increases the chances of a wildcard... i.e. O'Leary. O'leary is a great communicator, and a strong, forceful personality. They've lacked both, to be honest, since the party was put together. I don't see him as leader, but I'd love to see him in cabinet in a financial portfolio. Edited February 28, 2016 by Argus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 I'm not sure how big of a faction it is in the party but Bernier will appeal to many libertarian-minded conservatives, as well as fiscal conservatives. He could also appeal to youth, the big problem there is getting them to become members. Membership fees have ballooned and that will deter many people - particularly youth - from signing up. No, the big problem is his history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 "... we won with the poorly educated! I love the poorly educated!" - Donald Trump. Same same but different. The full quote was: “We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated," O'Leary is not Trump. Yes, he's brash, highly opinionated and in-your-face. But he has a lot more restraint than Trump, and has never targeted groups of people the way Trump has. He also doesn't make impossible promises to do stupid things like Trump does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 4) Kevin O'Leary was Kevin O'Leary. It was sad that the crowd seemed to lap up so much of what he had to say. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 O'Leary is not Trump. Yes, he's brash, highly opinionated and in-your-face. But he has a lot more restraint than Trump, and has never targeted groups of people the way Trump has. He also doesn't make impossible promises to do stupid things like Trump does. He hasn't made stupid promises yet because he isn't a politician yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Why? Because Trump North, that,s why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 He hasn't made stupid promises yet because he isn't a politician yet. Trump was saying stupid things long before he became a politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 I think over all Canadians are tired of politicians, all their fake unrealistic promises which are broken once they meet with the reality of things.....I think Keven OLeary like Donald trump represent that choice..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Because Trump North, that,s why. So no reason then. I've been watching O'Leary, off and on, over the last year or so on BNN, during interviews and question/answer shows on the economy, the markets and individual stocks. He comes across as someone with a sense of humour, knowledgeable, shrewd and intelligent. Maybe he's different in his game show persona, but I like the guy I see on BNN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 So no reason then. I've been watching O'Leary, off and on, over the last year or so on BNN, during interviews and question/answer shows on the economy, the markets and individual stocks. He comes across as someone with a sense of humour, knowledgeable, shrewd and intelligent. Maybe he's different in his game show persona, but I like the guy I see on BNN. Well I have heard him interviewed on his hints of running for the CPC and he came off sounding nearly as bombastic as Trump does. They should both stick to game show hosting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Trump was saying stupid things long before he became a politician. O'Leary has said she pretty stupid things. In fact the reason I can't stand the man is because he can't admit being wrong when presented with evidence that he was wrong. This happened on an episode of the Amanda Lang Kevin O'Leary show I happened to see by accident when travelling. A trader called O'Leary out on not understanding the proper mechanics/terminology of a trade. The trader was correct as I found out through a quick google search. But O'Leary could not admit that he made a simple but understandable error and that told me all I will ever need to know about him as a "man." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) O'Leary has said she pretty stupid things. In fact the reason I can't stand the man is because he can't admit being wrong when presented with evidence that he was wrong. This happened on an episode of the Amanda Lang Kevin O'Leary show I happened to see by accident when travelling. A trader called O'Leary out on not understanding the proper mechanics/terminology of a trade. The trader was correct as I found out through a quick google search. But O'Leary could not admit that he made a simple but understandable error and that told me all I will ever need to know about him as a "man." And would you say the same about things people like Trudeau have said which turned out to be wrong, but which they never owned up to? Edited February 28, 2016 by Argus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) And would you say the same about things people like Trudeau have said which turned out to be wrong, but which they never owned up to? Such as? Trudeau actually seems like someone willing to admit he was wrong, and change direction. Edited February 28, 2016 by Smallc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 one thing many of u are forgetting is the Justin brought in new and YOUNG voters and u tell me which of the names mentioned is going to do that for the Tories? They NEED someone younger like a Ben Mulroney, but I don't think he's into politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 If he is, given his line of work, he's unlikely to be a conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Such as. Trudeau actually seems like someone willing to admit he was wrong, and change direction. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-for-justin-trudeau-we-means-quebec-not-canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 A biased opinion piece? Nice. I disagree with him btw, but, his plan for the Senate so far is better than Harper's in that it's actually happening, and can actually happen within the rules set out by the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) A biased opinion piece? Nice. "Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau told interviewer Patrick Lagacé. Liberal MP Justin Trudeau appears on the Télé-Québec program Les Francs-tireurs (The Straight Shooters) in November 2010. Trudeau's Liberal leadership campaign says comments about Quebeders and Albertans in the interview are being taken out of context. (Télé-Québec) When asked whether he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans," Trudeau replied, "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. He simply confirmed what I have said before. To Liberals, only central Canada can run things. They have never had a leader from anywhere but Ontario and Quebec. Edited February 28, 2016 by Argus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 He simply confirmed what I have said before. To Liberals, only central Canada can run things. They have never had a leader from anywhere but Ontario and Quebec. I don't think he's wrong about that. Most people agree with him, anyway. The Liberals have ran the country for about 75% of its history for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts