Next Federal Gov't

[Guest eureka]

I am not saying that, Kimmy. I am saying that heu have been given a direct focus on an isue where they can show equal malfeasance. It is a pity that we cannot just get on with important matters and treat this as the limited affair that it is.

The Liberal PR machine has not functioned well for years. If it had, there would have been no sponsorship program: no referendum disaster in 1995. And that, in part, is the consequence of the political games played by all parties when they should all have focused on the ending for all time of the Separatist agenda in Quebec.

I fault them all: the Bloc and the PQ mostly. Why should we in Canada have to resort to bribing traitors?

[kimmy]

I am not saying that, Kimmy. I am saying that heu have been given a direct focus on an isue where they can show equal malfeasance.

They're going to campaign against Brian Mulroney? That ought to go over well.

It is a pity that we cannot just get on with important matters and treat this as the limited affair that it is.

When has that ever happened?

The only change this time from previous elections is that this time it's the Liberals and not the Reform/Alliance/CPC on the side of an issue that the media just can't get enough of.

-kimmy

[I miss Reagan]

Interesting. David Kilgour was just on the Rutherford matter-of-factly stating how Canada's government ranks up there with the most corrupt in the world. I also read a statement where he says Canada has become a "Northern Bananna Republic". I couldn't agree more especially with all the tolerant Ontarians, tolerant of corruption that is. I hate to spoil the conservative enthusiasm but this liberal tolerance of corruption will lead to little change in an election. There was a great article out of Winnipeg today with respect to the likely outcome of an election.

Conservative longshot

[Guest eureka]

Has it crossed your mind that you should not just sit in a stupor and listen to idiots like that?

The rankings for "Best country to live in" in which Canada is always at the top or close to it, factor political corruption as one of the weightiest categories. We can't be so bad in Canada.

[I miss Reagan]

Has it crossed your mind that you should not just sit in a stupor and listen to idiots like that?

The rankings for "Best country to live in" in which Canada is always at the top or close to it, factor political corruption as one of the weightiest categories. We can't be so bad in Canada.

Gosh I didn't think about that. Who comes up with those rankings again??

The honorable United Nations

[The Terrible Sweal]

The question I would pose is this: Why would voters who want to react against corruption ever turn to the Tories?

[I miss Reagan]

The question I would pose is this: Why would voters who want to react against corruption ever turn to the Tories?

Because they've never had a chance to govern. How can you say they're corrupt?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The question I would pose is this:  Why would voters who want to react against corruption ever turn to the Tories?

Because they've never had a chance to govern. How can you say they're corrupt?

Hello! Mulroney, Mike Harris.

[I miss Reagan]

The question I would pose is this:  Why would voters who want to react against corruption ever turn to the Tories?

Because they've never had a chance to govern. How can you say they're corrupt?

Hello! Mulroney, Mike Harris.

I'm sorry but I tune out when people try to compare today's Conservatives to the PC's of over 20 years ago.

I don't like those old PC's either, that's why we started the Reform Party.

[Guest eureka]

Then how about the Conservatives of the Reform years. Hello! Mulroney!; Hello, Harris!

[Bro]

The question I would pose is this:  Why would voters who want to react against corruption ever turn to the Tories?

The obvious reason would be,that Mr. Harper would be our next PM,and in so doing,would hopefully rid Canada of the problems associated with having yet another Quebec rooted PM. The rest of Canada might have a chance to be governed as it should be,without Quebec calling all the shots.

[kimmy]

Then how about the Conservatives of the Reform years. Hello! Mulroney!; Hello, Harris!

Personally I find it interesting that the Liberal boosters, who have continually strove to convince people that the CPC and the Canadian Alliance were just Reform in different clothes, are now instead desperately trying to link the CPC to the Mulroney Tories.

I also find it interesting that people who are trying to convince us that the Conservatives are still the same 12 years after they left power, while at the same time trying to convince us that the Liberals are a completely different party just 16 months after Chretien took his short walk in the snow.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

Personally I find it interesting that the Liberal boosters, who have continually strove to convince people that the CPC and the Canadian Alliance were just Reform in different clothes, are now instead desperately trying to link the CPC to the Mulroney Tories.

You'd like for people to ignore one or the other side of the party's bastard beginnings, wouldn't you?

I also find it interesting that people who are trying to convince us that the Conservatives are still the same 12 years after they left power, while at the same time trying to convince us that the Liberals are a completely different party just 16 months after Chretien took his short walk in the snow.

I would find it interesting how, after making the argument that this goverment is culpabel for the actions of the former one, you could fail to see the irony.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Bro wrte:

(The Terrible Sweal @ Apr 13 2005, 06:18 PM)

The question I would pose is this:  Why would voters who want to react against corruption ever turn to the Tories?

The obvious reason would be,that Mr. Harper would be our next PM,and in so doing,would hopefully rid Canada of the problems associated with having yet another Quebec rooted PM. The rest of Canada might have a chance to be governed as it should be,without Quebec calling all the shots.

If you imagine political corruption is exclusive to Quebec, you need to pay closer attention to details of govenrment action in a whole lot of other places. Is BC politics lily-white? Ontario, NS?

[kimmy]

You'd like for people to ignore one or the other side of the party's bastard beginnings, wouldn't you?

I never saw anything unsavory or dirty about the party's Reform roots, so I would say "not really."

When Liberals persisted in saying "Reform-Alliance" during speeches as if they were Detective Columbo revealing the key piece of evidence, I always just found it amusing. I never really got how they figured that was supposed to be the smoking gun they seemed to think it was. My response was always "and?"

However, I realize that it probably inspires a much different reaction in Ontario. Nonetheless, I don't personally feel any need to apologize for the party's Reform roots or to pretend they're not there.

I just find the Liberals' about-face in strategy interesting.

"Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!"

"Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!"

"Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!"

"Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!"

"Don't be tricked! They're still the old Tories!"

I would find it interesting how, after making the argument that this goverment is culpabel for the actions of the former one, you could fail to see the irony.

I pose the opposite question to you. Don't you feel a little uncomfortable promoting this New Leaf Liberals idea, while at the same time arguing that the Tories are still the same old party they always were?

In response to your question, I simply note that 16 months is not 12 years. I note that the Reform part which makes up the larger part of the CPC's membership was in large measure a direct and hostile response to the corruption of the Mulroney Tories. I would point out that of the party's current MPs, candidates, and organizers, very few have ties to the old Mulroney regime. While some of the old Mulroney back-room people may have stayed on with the PC party after the catastrophic defeat in 1993, I have been told that most left for greener pastures at that time (rats and sinking ships, as the old adage goes.)

Now, has the Liberal Party undergone similar change under Martin and I just missed it? Aside from the retirement of Da Little Guy, the defeat of a few MPs, and some shuffling of cabinet posts away from Little Guy loyalists, I see little evidence to support the view that the party has undergone any great metamorphosis. Did I just fail to notice the Great Liberal Putsch of Aught-Four?

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

kimmy wrote:

I never saw anything unsavory or dirty about the party's Reform roots, ...

Really? So, I suppose you have no idea why the party has had to twice fold itself away under a new label in futile efforts to get elected.

When Liberals persisted in saying "Reform-Alliance" during speeches as if they were Detective Columbo revealing the key piece of evidence, I always just found it amusing. I never really got how they figured that was supposed to be the smoking gun they seemed to think it was. My response was always "and?"

And ... 'don't vote for them.'

I just find the Liberals' about-face in strategy interesting.

"Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!"

"Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!"

"Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!"

"Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!"

"Don't be tricked! They're still the old Tories!"

I don't see what you mean by about face. The new CPC has ALLl the taints of BOTH the old tories and the Rabid Alliance. It's not inconsistent for opponents to point that out, it's ... obvious.

Don't you feel a little uncomfortable promoting this New Leaf Liberals idea, while at the same time arguing that the Tories are still the same old party they always were?

I think my position is more nuanced than that. Politics in Canada is corrupt, but that is only part of the problem. Decadence is afflicting our society. We, the people, and the leaders we support, have lost contact with the meaning of our principles, and our institutions have become infirm-of-purpose.

And deeper still, all of the world is locked in was has become a life-or- death struggle between reason and unreason.

So returning to Canada and asking: Which party will best give effect to our principles and enliven our institutions, I say neither, and vote Green. But I think the Liberals are less likely to undermine them blindly.

What party is corrupt? I have to say, both, but with the Conservative party erring on the wrong side of my choice in the reason/unreason meta-conflict.

In response to your question, I simply note that 16 months is not 12 years.

No more than Paul Martin is Jean Chretien, no less than tories serve Money.

I note that the Reform part which makes up the larger part of the CPC's membership was in large measure a direct and hostile response to the corruption of the Mulroney Tories.

Indeed, and where is the Reform spirit now? Forced down the throat of a protesting PC party, then quickly dropped. Grass-roots? Democratic renewal? Don't make me laugh.

Now, has the Liberal Party undergone similar change under Martin and I just missed it? Aside from the retirement of Da Little Guy, the defeat of a few MPs, and some shuffling of cabinet posts away from Little Guy loyalists, I see little evidence to support the view that the party has undergone any great metamorphosis.

But you are presuming a conclusion: Is the Liberal party really so thoroughly rotten that such a metamorphosis is necessary?

And you overlook an further concern: At what cost would this metamorphosis be accomplished?

[Guest eureka]

Where did those rats go? Were they drowned or are they really just back in the fold but now in control?

What is unsavoury about Reform is that it was nothing but an opportunistic movement for personal power. Its support came solely from those who would devolve even more power to the provinces for nothing other than personal gain. That is still with the present "Conservatives" whose leaders are "provincialists."

Reform was not at all a response to corruption in Mulroney's government. Much of its support was from the energy industry and Manning et al were front men.

The policies of the CPC are little changed from Reform. They have now seen the light on Kyoto but only after the energy industry has agreed to live with the need it can no longer deny. Nothing has changed in its healthcare position. Manning and Harris have just released their proposal to turn it over to the provinces.

Why would any Canadian vote for a party that is determined to fracture the country? Why would they vote for a party that is determined to reduce our soial programs to American style money and charity over equality? The worst in the advanced world.

[Argus]

No sense of humour required, Kimmy. I could make mincemeat of the "Conservatives" over this.

Huh. You are a pretty poor excuse for a cook even on this little bulletin board. You can't even make mincemeat of the conservatives HERE, much less out there.

The contract awarding has been going on for generations and it does need to be cleaned up. But, the Liberals can point to many of the past Conservative failings of the same kind.

No Tory ever got up in front of TV cameras and talked about putting money in brown paper bags and sliding it across tables. If you think people are going to overlook that kind of thing you're even more sadly confused than most of your writings would seem to suggest.

They need to get on with some good policy initiatives and give this the small play that it really deserves.

Corruption, mismanagement, bribery, kickbacks, election fraud, racketeering - small stuff, eh? You must be a Liberal!

[Argus]

And now they have been given a focus and an oncentive to do something. The ineffectual part is media and political perception. They have not been so bad at all.

All this can be put into a proper perspective in a campaign.

Oh it will be, it will be. I can see the Tory and NDP ads now, guaranteed to feature seedy characters gathering in a bar, the heat turned up so coats will come off to reveal hidden microphones, and bags of money pushed across the table in exchange for large pieces of paper marked "Contract". Wait for it. It's probably being put together even now.

[Argus]

I also find it interesting that people who are trying to convince us that the Conservatives are still the same 12 years after they left power, while at the same time trying to convince us that the Liberals are a completely different party just 16 months after Chretien took his short walk in the snow.

I would find it interesting how, after making the argument that this goverment is culpabel for the actions of the former one, you could fail to see the irony.

Perhaps you might pause to ponder the fact that this government IS the former one, with largely the same cast of characters. They just replaced their lead actor with their top supporting actor.

[Argus]

What is unsavoury about Reform is that it was nothing but an opportunistic movement for personal power. Its support came solely from those who would devolve even more power to the provinces for nothing other than personal gain.

The Reform Party was a grassroots populast party whose support came almost entirely from vast numbers of people who had become disaffected from the traditional parties and their corruption.

For some reason this deeply disturbed some people, particularly urbanites from central Canada who were, quite literally, frightened at the thought that ordinary people might have a strong say in how the country was run. The quivering lemmings, for want of a better term, felt a desperate need to be ruled by those they saw as the elites, preferably lawyers, and an even stronger need to be told what to do and think.

Reform was not at all a response to corruption in Mulroney's government. Much of its support was from the energy industry and Manning et al were front men.

Not that you ever let facts get in your way, but the Reform Party was rather notorious for the amount of funding it got from ordinary members, as opposed to the Liberal Party, which gets most of its funding from corporate Canada (and now we know why).

I think that, once again, there is a terrible fear among some pampered, central Canada urbanites that power will shift to those they see as inferiors, ie, westerners who have odd views on fredom and self reliance. Thus money from corporate interests poured into Liberal pockets is fine, as long as those corporations are headquartered in Toronto or Montreal. But when the corporations are in Calgary they represent some kind of evil cabal in their tiny minds.

I also find it odd that so many people who allege a deep and abiding love of Canada, and are shrill to attack anyone who, for example, speaks desperaginglly about Quebec, are so open in their loathing and fear of western Canada and the people who live there.

[Argus]

And deeper still, all of the world is locked in was has become a life-or- death struggle between reason and unreason.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the real voice of reason would not be as shrill and filled with fear and hate as their esteemed representative on this web site appears to be.

[Guest eureka]

You are admirable in full flight with your overblown oratory, Argus. Can you do it from a podium so well? You might even persuade a few of the real lemmings that you know what you are talking about.

As it is, you can put more garbage in coloured bags in a few paragraphs than any mob waste management front.

It may have escaped you that Manning, with the, probably nominal, input of Harris has just come out with another supposed study for the Fraser Institute rehashing all the old Reform stupidity. Privatization, devolution of powers, cutting social programmes, etc.

There is nothing "grassroots" about Reform. It was demagoguery pure and simple: a hypocritical appeal to pocketbooks that there was no intention to deliver. Manning was the most dangerous, to Canada, politician of the 20th. century. I would put him about on a par with Huey Long in the US.

And, Brault was not a Liberal. He was an opportunist who played any party including the PQ.

[Argus]

You are admirable in full flight with your overblown oratory, Argus. Can you do it from a podium so well? You might even persuade a few of the real lemmings that you know what you are talking about.

Can't say the same for you, but thanks just the same.

As it is, you can put more garbage in coloured bags in a few paragraphs than any mob waste management front.

Don't know much about mob outfits. Maybe, seeing you're a Liberal supporter, you can educate me.

It may have escaped you that Manning, with the, probably nominal, input of Harris has just come out with another supposed study for the Fraser Institute rehashing all the old Reform stupidity. Privatization, devolution of powers, cutting social programmes, etc

Which you read, right?

And, Brault was not a Liberal. He was an opportunist who played any party including the PQ.

Ooo, as good a definition of Liberal as I've seen lately.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I also find it interesting that people who are trying to convince us that the Conservatives are still the same 12 years after they left power, while at the same time trying to convince us that the Liberals are a completely different party just 16 months after Chretien took his short walk in the snow.

I would find it interesting how, after making the argument that this goverment is culpabel for the actions of the former one, you could fail to see the irony.

Perhaps you might pause to ponder the fact that this government IS the former one, with largely the same cast of characters. They just replaced their lead actor with their top supporting actor.

Well, that's the question for voters to ask themselves: are Martin's Liberals the same as crooked Chretin's? Is the CPC the same as the scary Alliance or the dirty old tories?

Shall we examine the evidence?