Jump to content

The Conservative Love-In


Recommended Posts

Not so much?

Well the CPC started their convention last night with Harper on the defensive over Cheryl Gallant's "Christianity under attack" leaflets.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

The timing of all of this is bad for the party, unless of course the whole of the party agrees in which case she'll be a hero, but I don't think the party agrees.

I would have thought that Harper and his staff would have tried to keep things like this from happening in the weeks ahead of the convention.

Then I watched Rahim Jaffer speak for a few minutes, and all he did for about 5 minutes was remind everyone of the differences between the Reform/Alliance part of the party and the PC part of the party, which seemed dangerous to me as the convention is being held in Montréal. I confess I didn't see his whole speech, so he may have tied both sides together afterward in a more symbiotic way.

It all makes for an interesting weekend.

I must admit, despite myself I am actually looking forward to seeing the resolutions and their votes this weekend.

Any bets on how well Harper will do on the leadership vote?

My bet-79%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its interesting, this story was not reported on the CBC this morning so maybe it will not get a lot of attention.

The Conversatives will have a tough haul. Putting aside any partisan preferences, my analysis is that they will have to amalgate some pretty disperate views and they are going to loose some of the more extreme right wing people when they attempt to moderate. I think that they want to loose them so that they are make themselves more of a real alternative to the rest of Canada.

I think this policy convention is going to be messy and they are going to have a public split with some in the party. that very split will only improve there chances for election and they know it.

They are in a no win situation on the abortion issue and perhaps on missle deference. I think their positions, in general, will moderate on several other social issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wanted to see some progress from the CPC during this convention, but they just can't seem to get it together.

From the G&M (I'd post the link but I think you may need to be registered to get it):

The Conservative party was born last year after an agreement to give equal weight at conventions to all ridings across the country — no matter how many members the riding has.

Mr. MacKay said he and other Progressive Conservatives would never have agreed to merge with the Canadian Alliance without that guarantee.

The old PCs pushed for the deal because they were smaller in numbers than the Alliance and they feared being swamped by the Alliance's more conservative Western power base during future votes on its leadership and on policy issues.

But members at a policy workshop voted to overturn that idea Friday and give extra weight to ridings with more members. That prompted Mr. MacKay to blitz the hall in a furious attempt to defeat the motion when it comes up for a general vote on Saturday.

"This party is in real jeopardy in my view," Mr. MacKay said.

"For me, this was a deal-breaker."

Asked if he would have backed away from the merger had he known this issue would re-surface, Mr. MacKay insisted:

"That's exactly what I'm saying."

The CPC needed to really avoid this kind of stuff and concentrate on national policy making.

Now, even if they do manage to hold it together and come up with some good policy, people won't remember.

EDIT- Same story on CTV.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CPC needed to really avoid this kind of stuff and concentrate on national policy making.

We are. We have 3000 people at this convention. We had 5 concurrent sessions in process most of the day.

The speeches last night were a good example of what we are really doing here. A young diverse party setting forth a clear vision.

The session I sat in on today had a homogeneity of views. I was excited to see the good policy that address the real issues challenging all of us. We put forth great policies on immigration, the environment, healthcare and many more things that touch us every day.

Compare that to the Liberal convention that is legalizing prostitution and pot.

The media coverage has been focused on the Liberal definition of what they would like to brand us as. The real problem the Liberals have is that it just isn't reality. They are constantly trying to distract from the mess they are making. The distractions won’t work for much longer. I am witnessing people working hard to make us a strong party that reflects the needs of all Canadians.

As we go forth now having a clear policy discussion the hidden agenda can be put to bed.

I encourage everyone to tune into CPAC tonight and hear it from the horses mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This party is in real jeopardy in my view," Mr. MacKay said.

"For me, this was a deal-breaker."

Asked if he would have backed away from the merger had he known this issue would re-surface, Mr. MacKay insisted:

"That's exactly what I'm saying."

Peter McKay is a slimeball. This is the guy who, during his campaign to become PC leader, pledged he would not merge the party with the Alliance, then promptly merged the party with the Alliance. And now he is upset because he's the one getting shanked in the back? Oh the irony...

I encourage everyone to tune into CPAC tonight and hear it from the horses mouth.

Given that we're talking about the party of Stockwell Day, Myron Thompson and Jason Kenney (to name but three), methinks you've got your equine anatomy backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be a hidden agenda with Harper as leader. If he goes moderate, which the party will have to go MORE moderate otherwise they will never win an election, he is not staying true to himself. He is as right wing as we have seen in federal politics; he is a socon and would not be out of place in Bush's administration. He has said as well, that basically, if he doesn't like the policies adopted at the convention, he does not feel the need to follow them. And he doesn't like the grass roots. He has this superiority about him that would not take kindly the rule (or event the suggestions) from the bottom up. He is as top down as Chretien was, maybe more so.

The Conservative party was born last year after an agreement to give equal weight at conventions to all ridings across the country — no matter how many members the riding has.

Mr. MacKay said he and other Progressive Conservatives would never have agreed to merge with the Canadian Alliance without that guarantee.

The deceiver gets deceived. How delicious is that??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The session I sat in on today had a homogeneity of views. I was excited to see the good policy that address the real issues challenging all of us. We put forth great policies on immigration, the environment, healthcare and many more things that touch us every day.

And yet the only thing that got attention was a resolution stacking the conventions with western Conservatives.

It's all about perception, and I perceive trouble in the CPC. ;)

The distractions won’t work for much longer. I am witnessing people working hard to make us a strong party that reflects the needs of all Canadians.

The shenadigans of Cheryl Gallant et al will make that hard, especially if a rift grows between the old Tories and the old Alliance.

If Harper wants to nip this crisis in the rear, he needs to come out strongly against it, something which he apparently won't do.

I encourage everyone to tune into CPAC tonight and hear it from the horses mouth.

I had planned to. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CBC faces a terrible quandary with this Conservative convention.

Do they provide their usual biased, horribly slanted coverage, distorting the facts while finding minor scabs to pick at endlessly?

Or do they just ignore it and hope the bad guys go away and don't ever threaten their fat jobs again?

Tough choice.

I don't perceive any dilemna at all. All they have to do is provide the rope and the conservative party will do the rest. Barely begun, and Harper is already following Gallant to the gallows.

You don't need to throw lemmings from a cliff. They jump willingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper had an OK speech (the "Promises made, Promises broken" part was a little corny though).

Interesting how they had an insert with a shot of Peter Mckay on the screen when Harper was speaking. He clapped and stood, but didn't smile a lot.

He talked a good game and said a lot of things I could agree with, and a few that I didn't.

The problem for him though will be the delegate vote on several key issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper as PM would be disatrous for Canada. He would have had Canada jump into bed with the US over Iraq, and is trying to take the same religious stance over same-sex marriage. Indeed, Harper would have Canada enter a "Same-Sex Marriage" with the US, uniting their 'neo-conservative values', but Harper and Canada would end up being the ones 'biting the pillow'every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so much?

Well the CPC started their convention last night with Harper on the defensive over Cheryl Gallant's "Christianity under attack" leaflets.

First of all, speaking as someone who can best be described as an agnostic, and hasn't been to church except for weddings and funerals for years - well, there's some justification in Gallant's views.

For the same people who would be absolutely appalled and righteously indignant at anyone mocking or ridiculing the religious beliefs of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. feel no hesitation or guilt at jeering at and mocking religious Christians, and that certainly includes the Liberals, and many of their ministers.

As for the "story", it is just that. It is something cooked up by the media, hardly a matter anyone else cares about or is interested in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Conversatives will have a tough haul.  Putting aside any partisan preferences, my analysis is that they will have to amalgate some pretty disperate views and they are going to loose some of the more extreme right wing people when they attempt to moderate.  I think that they want to loose them so that they are make themselves more of a real alternative to the rest of Canada.

Attempt to moderate? What the hell does that mean? The Conservative party has always been pretty moderate, as has the Alliance and Reform. The problem in this country is that perception is dictated by a third rate media with an intense political bias. A media entirely uninterested in moderation of any kind.

What would a moderate stand on abortion be? Millions want it banned entirely. Millions want abortion on demand for any reason at any time. But the great mass of people in this country want reasonable access to abortion with "some" regulation and law governing abortions in late terms. A moderate stand would be to go with that. Any stand other than abortini on demand, however, is anathema to the media, and anyone taking any other stand will be portrayed as an evil, anti-woman dinosaur of the far right.

What would a moderate stand on same-sex marriage be? Millions of Canadians want same-sex marriage. Millions do not want any kind of gay marriage. The great mass of voters would probably be content with a form of gay civil unions with all the rights of married couples. That would be the middle path, the path to accomodation and compromise. And running a country in a democracy is the art of compromise, not ramming things through based on your own personal beliefs or the beliefs of your supporters.

The media, however, are uninterested in any kind of compromise or moderation. Any stand other than wholesale acceptance of same-sex marriage is again anathema to them. And anyone who does not accept same-sex marriage is a bigotted dinosaur.

You can go down the list of social policies and questions and you'll find the media, all of it but a few stragglers, lined up shoulder to shoulder behind one and only one acceptable position, always on the left, and always demanding a complete shutout of the views of however many Canadians disagree.

The Conservative Party can either be a moderate party which takes into consideration the differences in this country and attempts to compromise, or it can do as the media wants; ignore everyone but the media's position and ram it through. That is the only path to acceptance by the media. The Liberals took it long ago. I suppose Harper can go that way and take the party into the same mushy left of centre territory as the Libs. It might even get him elected someday. But to what end? If you stand for nothing and care about nothing why are you even in politics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be a hidden agenda with Harper as leader.
The dark art of innuendo.

These days, no politician says what he means. Hidden agenda? That's just a way to imply some kind of dark, evil conspiracy among Conservatives. It requires a lack of intelligence, of course, but there's certainly no shortage of dumb voters.

Did the Liberals mean everything they promised last election? Did they tell us everything they intended? Of course not! Was bringing in a law legalizing same-sex marriage even on their agenda? Not that they ever told anyone.

What is the "hidden agenda" of the NDP? Does anyone really think they don't have a huge number of wingnuts from the far left who want to nationalize industries, particularly the banks, and do wholesale social engineering? Jack Layton has all sorts of things he wants to get done he'll never put before the voters because he knows they won't be defendable in an election. But nobody talks about his hidden agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper as PM would be disatrous for Canada. He would have had Canada jump into bed with the US over Iraq,
You mean like the Australians? Yeah, it's been disastrous for them to be in Iraq.....

If Harper had been PM we'd be exporting beef to the US right now and the softwood lumber dispute would have been gone.

So how exactly would this be disastrous for Canada?

and is trying to take the same religious stance over same-sex marriage.
That bastard! Imagine seeking compromise on an issue! Imagine daring to support the 40-50% of Canadians who disagree with you!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, the Conservatives can't help shooting themselves in the foot. I watched Harper last night and thought he was excellent during his speech... but the controversy over the equal ridings workshop makes Harper's speech pretty much an afterthought in coverage of the event.

Harper's promise that his party would produce no abortion legislation if they formed the government was (I thought) pretty significant, and the same sex marriage position-- same rights, different name-- is a compromise that only extremists on either side should take issue with. But Cheryl Gallant's leaflets overshadow Harper's reasonable positions on social policy. Gallant is just like Parrish... an MP who grandstands for a specific constituency at the expense of her party.

-kimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Argus,

You mean like the Australians? Yeah, it's been disastrous for them to be in Iraq.....
Might I remind you of the Bali bombing....besides, Canada is right next door, not 10,000 miles away. the 'Americanization' of Canada would be much easier than Australia.
If Harper had been PM we'd be exporting beef to the US right now and the softwood lumber dispute would have been gone.
Nonsense, it is an issue of US protectionism.

kimmy,

Harper's promise that his party would produce no abortion legislation if they formed the government was (I thought) pretty significant,
Election promises get you laughed out of the bank if you try to take them there....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like the Australians? Yeah, it's been disastrous for them to be in Iraq.....
Might I remind you of the Bali bombing...

Considering that the Bali bombing was a year *before* the invasion of Iraq, I think you're going to have a hard time arguing that the Bali bombing was a reprisal for joining the invasion. Al Qaeda might be pretty clever, but I'm not sure they're capable of time-travel or seeing the future.

kimmy,
Harper's promise that his party would produce no abortion legislation if they formed the government was (I thought) pretty significant,
Election promises get you laughed out of the bank if you try to take them there....

Yeah, but fear that he would break that promise is motivated by this same "secret agenda" paranoia, not on any policy position they've stated. What's their position on abortion? They just stated it. But I doubt that this will be the end of the kind of scare-tactics that we saw last election.

Promising to not introduce legislation is a lot different from promising something that actually requires government effort or particularly government money.

-kimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like the Australians? Yeah, it's been disastrous for them to be in Iraq.....

If Harper had been PM we'd be exporting beef to the US right now and the softwood lumber dispute would have been gone.

So how exactly would this be disastrous for Canada?

Yeah sure; and having our soldiers die in Iraq. Or what other price would we pay????

Do you mean that we should negotiate with blackmailers which is what Bush and his government are if these trade deals are being bogged down because we didn't join in an illegal invasion of a disarmed country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like the Australians? Yeah, it's been disastrous for them to be in Iraq.....
Might I remind you of the Bali bombing....besides, Canada is right next door, not 10,000 miles away. the 'Americanization' of Canada would be much easier than Australia.
The Bali bombing happened prior to the invasion of Iraq. As for the "americanization" of Canada, whatever cultural conspiracy you appear to be envisioning has nothing to do with the Tories.
If Harper had been PM we'd be exporting beef to the US right now and the softwood lumber dispute would have been gone.
Nonsense, it is an issue of US protectionism.
Such issues crop up frequently, and can be resolved much quicker when the trading partners are friends.
Harper's promise that his party would produce no abortion legislation if they formed the government was (I thought) pretty significant,
Election promises get you laughed out of the bank if you try to take them there....
Which only goes to demonstrate the pointlessness of the Tories trying to appeal to the left. No matter what they say they will never get any votes there. Instead of trying to appeal to the hard left and media they should be appealing to the centre to follow them, and telling them why.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such issues crop up frequently, and can be resolved much quicker when the trading partners are friends.

That is a great word, Friends, when people are friends things get done. However when you are someone's bitch...does that make you their friend? I think many conservaties have a pathetic distorted view on friendships...maybe they had none as kids, I don't know, but they don't seem to realise friendship is a two way street. Friendship is also strong and enduring, and capable of going through tough times, as well it is capable of understanding.

Think about it what kind of friendship is it when we have to do everything America wants us to do, that is not a friendship, it is asinine to belive so. A friendship would be understanding these differences and allowing each other to do different things that we may disagree with not getting are panties in a knot because one gorup wants to smoke pot and the other group wants to smoke Iraqi's. Friends should have the freedom to disagree with each other with out coercin, or ill fealings. What you seem to be proposing is NOT a friendship, what you are proposing is for Canada to fight a war in Iraq, get BMD, adopt U.S social poliocies, adopt U.S fiscal policies, while were at it lets jsut adopt the U.s flag. That is not a friendship, and if thatis what you define as a friendship...the please can you be my friend. My car needs washed, My tuition needs paid, I need a new computer, and I am getting kinda hungry.

The only thing I will agree with is that Canada has also returned the cold shoulder, Paul Martin said he woudl restore good relations with america but he two has nto acted like a friend, However George Bush has not acted like a friend either. If it takes Stephen Harper to make Bush our "friend" then this friendship comes with conditions and for Canada those are very poor conditions, and I don't think catering to every whim of America makes us friends it makes us slaves. If Paul Martin and George Bush can't make or create a friendship then it means that one is not to be found or desired at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such issues crop up frequently, and can be resolved much quicker when the trading partners are friends.

That is a great word, Friends, when people are friends things get done. However when you are someone's bitch...does that make you their friend?

Some people seem to feel that if don't constantly spit on the Americans we must be their bitch somehow. An odd bit of illogic.
I think many conservaties have a pathetic distorted view on friendships...maybe they had none as kids, I don't know,
Well, I agree with that last part anyway.
but they don't seem to realise friendship is a two way street.
Well, let's see, the Americans have largely defended us and our interests for half a century. They carry us in defence terms for NORAD and NATO. They invited us into the big guys clubs like the G7 (where we really don't belong), and we have an umpteen katrillion dollar trading surplus with them every year they never complain about.

What was it we did for them again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people seem to feel that if don't constantly spit on the Americans we must be their bitch somehow. An odd bit of illogic.

Listen if you want to debate, debate but don;t give me that crap. I never said we ahve to piss off Americans or we become their slaves, I simply claimed WE DO NOT NEED TO DO EVERYTHING AMERICA DOES TO BE THEIR FRIENDS, NOR SHOULD WE BE REQUIRED TO.

Well, I agree with that last part anyway.

haha, you still ahve a patthetically distorted view on friendship..now get your ass in gear and wash my car.

Well, let's see, the Americans have largely defended us and our interests for half a century. They carry us in defence terms for NORAD and NATO. They invited us into the big guys clubs like the G7 (where we really don't belong), and we have an umpteen katrillion dollar trading surplus with them every year they never complain about.

What was it we did for them again?

This may come as a shock to you but we are ten times smaller then them, so of course they will carry us on many issues...and in many international realted affairs....it is un fair to expect Canada to pull 50% of the responsibility for guarding North America. As for America never complaining about trade...uhmm.... your comments about the conservatives were in reference to what? Yes that is right the softwood lumber dispute. As for the G7, many left wingers on this sight-- as well as myself-- have promoted diversifying Canada's trade so we do belong in such organizations. However many conservatives want us to put all are eggs in one basket, which puts us in the posision where we do not belong in the G-7. However if oyu look at the countries not int he G-7 that belong their most are Asian countries and then there is brazil. Considering the G-7 is the elite of the Euro-America's Canada does belong in that sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...