Promoting liberalism

[Conrad]

I would like to help out the liberals cause on this forum,but the people who support

good government,like honesty,integrity,the truth etc.,seem to be the supporters of the conservative stripe.Have they shown me that maybe my liberal friends are not actually what they claim to be?

[Riverwind]

I would like to help out the liberals cause on this forum,but the people who support

good government,like honesty,integrity,the truth etc.,seem to be the supporters of the conservative stripe.Have they shown me that maybe my liberal friends are not actually what they claim to be?

What exactly do you mean?

[bigdude]

He means that he is a right winger!

What a croc.

Mulroney's favourite expression was if you throw enough shit agsainst the wall some of it sticks.

[Conrad]

My point is not too complicated ,or so I thought.If I am going to support a party,they have to up front with me and other Canadians.At this point in time,I feel like the people on the lower end of the liberal machine are being told to keep up the support for our party,and not to read too much into all the corruption allegations.This would have been fine,except this Belinda deal makes me think the liberal process is all about money,and if you have enough,we will accept you above other true liberals who have worked long and hard for the liberal party.

[bigdude]

Come on.

Politically speaking it was a brilliant move.

The Conservatives were too stupid to see the benefits and credibility that Belinda brought to them. Now the Cons will pay the price in Ontario in the next election for their ignorance. Looks good on them I say.

[Conrad]

Sorry,but belinda is a traitor,and I've never felt comfortable with persons who trade sides at the drop of a hat.They are either good liars,or glory seekers.Her highly regarded move to our party in the future will not be a high point in the governing caucus.

[Riverwind]

My point is not too complicated ,or so I thought.If I am going to support a party,they have to up front with me and other Canadians.At this point in time,I feel like the people on the lower end of the liberal machine are being told to keep up the support for our party,and not to read too much into all the corruption allegations.This would have been fine,except this Belinda deal makes me think the liberal process is all about money,and if you have enough,we will accept you above other true liberals who have worked long and hard for the liberal party.

The Belinda deal was about a lot of things but it was not money. Belinda was a leadership candidate for Conservatives and has considerable visibility in the media. Having her join the Liberals was a huge opportunity for the party. One can criticise Martin for putting her so quickly into a senior minister portfolio, however, at the time Martin did not know whether he would still end up losing the budget vote. So giving a outsider the job of cleaning up the Gomery mess was a good way to position for an election.

It terms of the corruption scandal itself - if you have been following the Gomery inqury it seems pretty clear that only a small group of people were involved and were likely operatiing without the knowledge of most people in the party. Moreover, it looks like a lot of the money was use to line the pockets of the people involved and that giving money to the Liberal party was an after thought.

That said, it is unfortunate that a lot of people are very cynical and assume that if you were a Liberal then you must have known. This is rediculous, it is like saying that all employees at Nortel are crooks because management fudged the books.

On the positive side, many Canadians seem to willing to give Martin and his current team the benefit of the doubt. What will determine the outcome of the election will be how Martin is able to address the real issues that Canadians care about.

[Riverwind]

Sorry,but belinda is a traitor,and I've never felt comfortable with persons who trade sides at the drop of a hat.They are either good liars,or glory seekers.Her highly regarded move to our party in the future will not be a high point in the governing caucus.

Politically speaking, it was dumb move for Belinda. She would have been better off waiting for Harper to fail and then try again for the CPC leadership or if Harper won she would have gotten a Minsters portfolio.

It it not too hard to believe that she was movitivated by a desire to do what is best for the country (at what she believed to be the best). Also keep in mind that people's opinion's do change over time and expecting someone to stick with a party they don't believe in is kind of silly.

[Conrad]

She was always a true liberal at heart,but I think her goal in joining the cons was that she thought she could oust harper as the leader.This still leaves her as someone who just wants power,at any cost,and with really no convictions to speak of. I believe her remarks,"I did this for what is good for Canadians",were very shallow.Belinda wants power for Belinda,so watch your back Paul.

[Riverwind]

She was always a true liberal at heart,but I think her goal in joining the cons was that she thought she could oust harper as the leader.This still leaves her as someone who just wants power,at any cost,and with really no convictions to speak of. I believe her remarks,"I did this for what is good for Canadians",were very shallow.Belinda wants power for Belinda,so watch your back Paul.

Equally likely she could be someone who wants to change the society she lives in for the better. Obviously it is a bit arrogant for one to assume that one is the person to do that, however, that criticism applies to anyone who goes into public life. You could be right about her, but at this point in time she can be given the benefit of the doubt.

[August1991]

I would like to help out the liberals cause on this forum,but the people who support

good government,like honesty,integrity,the truth etc.,seem to be the supporters of the conservative stripe.Have they shown me that maybe my liberal friends are not actually what they claim to be?

First of all, Conrad. Welcome. In the past, we have generally had only Tories and NDP types (and a variety of strange guests) on this forum. Liberals were rare. I'm happy we've got some now.

BTW, this forum is unlike any in Canada, except maybe politiquebec. Every viewpoint is represented here and we're sometimes even polite with one another. Most important, there is no political correctness. Feel free to say what you think - but be civilized.

Conrad, allow me to deal with some nonsense in this thread before I get to your question.

Mulroney's favourite expression was if you throw enough shit agsainst the wall some of it sticks.

Bigdude, Mulroney never said that. You gotta link?

It terms of the corruption scandal itself - if you have been following the Gomery inqury it seems pretty clear that only a small group of people were involved and were likely operatiing without the knowledge of most people in the party.

Sparhawk, "Small group of people"? Sorry, that is not how people in Quebec understand it. It is not the way it is reported in the media here. To borrow a left wing term, it was "systemic".

One main point of that Leger poll was that the BQ is at 62% in Quebec. That's a "hard" 62%, as opposed to the "soft" Liberal 52% in BC. Since June 2004, one Quebecer in 10 has switched their vote from the federal Liberals to the BQ.

----

Now, Conrad, your question: "I would like to help out the liberals cause on this forum... "

I was a little surprised by the PM PM / Murphy / PMO / Liberal deals last week. I suspected Martin's staff had the the ambition but I wasn't certain they had the skill to pull it off. (IMV, Jim Coutts played a better game.)

But what has truly surprised me is the reaction. English Canada (Ontario) seems happy by the Liberal "victory". (I was expecting that English Canada would only be "relieved".)

All this has made me wonder about the English Canada, primarily Ontario, connection to the Liberal Party. Many people, mostly women, mostly in southern Ontario, vote for the federal Liberal Party. Regardless of rumours they hear.

Ontario provincial Conservatives were in power for 40 years or so (1940-1985). Is this a similar story? Dunno.

--

I think people in western Canada (Vancouver) vote Liberal because they don't want to vote socialist NDP and they don't like the Conservatives (which they see as born-again Christian).

IOW, western Canada is caught up in a strange public debate about morality and the federal Liberals are taking advantage of the situation. Weird.

[God knows where this post will lead to...]

[mcqueen625]

She doesn't like the policies of the CPC, even though she helped craft that very policy?? The truth is that walking across the floor was all about power and had absolutely nothing to do with what's good of Canadians. She didn't like the idea that daddy's money could buy her everything in life except the leadership of the CPC, so she has settled for second best, crossed the floor for a Cabinet Minister's position, with ambitions to replace Martin just as soon as she thinks Martin has his back turned long enough. Let's not forget one thing here, rich people are motivated by power. Money buys privilege, and privilege buys power. Belinda has all the money daddy could give her, now she wants the power that she feels her money commands.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Sparhawk, "Small group of people"?  Sorry, that is not how people in Quebec understand it.  It is not the way it is reported in the media here.  To borrow a left wing term, it was "systemic".

The serperatists and federalist conservatives are using misrepresentations and outright lies as a means to gain political advanatage. Thats what is "systemic."

One main point of that Leger poll was that the BQ is at 62% in Quebec.  That's a "hard" 62%, as opposed to the "soft" Liberal 52%  in BC.  Since June 2004, one Quebecer in 10 has switched their vote from the federal Liberals to the BQ.

The people of Quebec are having the wool pulled over their eyes, and you, August, seem to revel in it.

[Riverwind]

It terms of the corruption scandal itself - if you have been following the Gomery inqury it seems pretty clear that only a small group of people were involved and were likely operatiing without the knowledge of most people in the party.

Sparhawk, "Small group of people"? Sorry, that is not how people in Quebec understand it. It is not the way it is reported in the media here. To borrow a left wing term, it was "systemic".

It would not be the first time the media exagerates a story to attract more viewers/readers. All of the revelations keep coming back to the same group or four or five people and a handful of advertising companies. Gomery himself said that he felt that a lot of the missing money went to line peoples pockets and did not necessarily end up in Liberal party coffers. Four or five people in a party with 100s if not 1000s of workers and volunteers across the country is not "systemic" - no matter what partisans would like to believe.

That said, I can understand why Quebequers would see it as "systemic" because those four or five people were in control of the Quebec wing of the party. However, it is a bit insulting to suggest there is something wrong with people outside of Quebec who can see the bigger picture and are willing to give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt.

One main point of that Leger poll was that the BQ is at 62% in Quebec.  That's a "hard" 62%, as opposed to the "soft" Liberal 52%  in BC.  Since June 2004, one Quebecer in 10 has switched their vote from the federal Liberals to the BQ.

The fact that Quebequers have no party other than the BQ to turn to is quite a concern. But it is hard to believe that electing a party with social and economic values which are completely out of synch with Quebequers is going to make Quebequers feel any better about federalism.

IOW, western Canada is caught up in a strange public debate about morality and the federal Liberals are taking advantage of the situation.  Weird.

The federal Liberals may be benefiting in BC because people want leaders who are willing to govern the country and move on from the Gomery induced psychodrama.

[Riverwind]

She doesn't like the policies of the CPC, even though she helped craft that very policy?? The truth is that walking across the floor was all about power and had absolutely nothing to do with what's good of Canadians.

She tried to push CPC in a direction that she believed in but discovered that the party was dominated by social conservatives that would not move as far as she wanted. She tried to stick with the party was public about her misgivings long before she switched parties. The crisis of the budget vote forced her to stop wavering and make a decision. Switching to Liberals was a very risky move for her which makes it hard to believe that she did it only for power.

with ambitions to replace Martin just as soon as she thinks Martin has his back turned long enough.

She has as much chance of becoming the leader of the Liberal party as she had of becoming the leader of the Conservative party. Which is next to zero but not completely zero.

[cdnstiff]

here's my take

I don't know how B.S. will fit in with her new friends - she is very pro-US. Have a look at her family's company Magna - the ex-US ambassodor (Bush supporter) is on Magna's board of directors.

If B.S. thinks that she can buy the leaders spot - there will be a lot of pissed off liberals.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You know, maybe Belinda was told the truth. Her opportunities for acheivement with the Liberals are limited only by her ability to win her seat and broader support for the party. Maybe that sounds like her best shot to her.

[kimmy]

Her opportunities for acheivement with the Liberals are limited only by her ability to win her seat and broader support for the party.

I am guessing you meant to say "Her opportunities for acheivement with the Liberals are limited only by her ability to win her seat and broader support within the party."

And also by her inability to speak french. She started learning at least 32 years too late to develop the kind of fluency that it'll take to become Liberal leader.

I don't think she would ever lead the CPC, and I don't think she has the prerequisites to lead the Liberals. That's not me being a partisan, that's me trying to be as objective as I can. I don't believe she will ever develop much credibility with francophone Canadians. She's now a high-ranking cabinet minister. That's probably the most she could realistically hope to achieve in any party in Canada.

She was given an opportunity to reach that "glass ceiling" less than 2 years into her political career, and she took it. *maybe* she could have become a high-ranking cabinet minister as a Conservative, or maybe not... but she could and did as a Liberal. From the standpoint of building her political career, she's done as well for herself as she could have, in my opinion. That's not to touch on whether it was right or wrong or good or evil, that's just from the perspective of getting as high as she could on the totem pole of Canadian politics.

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

Her opportunities for acheivement with the Liberals are limited only by her ability to win her seat and broader support for the party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am guessing you meant to say "Her opportunities for acheivement with the Liberals are limited only by her ability to win her seat and broader support within the party."

No, I usually mean what I write, the occasional empty nostrum notwithstanding. My implication is that as long as she wins her set and is an asset to the party, she will be rewarded commensurately within the party -- as distinct from the experience she could anticipate in the Conservative Firewall Coalition.

I don't think she would ever lead the CPC, and I don't think she has the prerequisites to lead the Liberals.

I'm inclined to agree. But among the Liberals she will have the chance to surprise us all, whereas there is nowhere to go with the tories.

From the standpoint of building her political career, she's done as well for herself as she could have, in my opinion. That's not to touch on whether it was right or wrong or good or evil, that's just from the perspective of getting as high as she could on the totem pole of Canadian politics.

Yep.

[kimmy]

Her opportunities for acheivement with the Liberals are limited only by her ability to win her seat and broader support for the party.

I am guessing you meant to say "Her opportunities for acheivement with the Liberals are limited only by her ability to win her seat and broader support within the party."

No, I usually mean what I write, the occasional empty nostrum notwithstanding. My implication is that as long as she wins her set and is an asset to the party, she will be rewarded commensurately within the party

eh. You're welcome to have your views... but that strikes me as a little naive. We've all seen the kind of factional strife within the party that emerged when it started to look like time for Chretien to hit the bricks... the kind of King-maker games that were played. If she ever wants to be leader, she'll need a "posse" within the party... and how many MPs would hitch their horses to her wagon (or whatever the metaphor is)" We seem to agree that she just hasn't got the prerequisites... how many people in the party will think differently? Surely there won't be many people within "the party of national unity" who see a unilingual anglo as a credible leader. I would also expect that her being given a top cabinet post on her first day in the party probably doesn't sit well with people who've devoted their whole careers to the party... I'm not sure how well she'll do once her patron PMPM retires.

It'd be nice if this was a meritocracy... but the truth is, it's party politics in Canada, and I don't hold our major parties in very high esteem.

-k

[cdnstiff]

So will B.S. run next election? or will she be offered a patronage appointment? or will she return to head Magna? She doesn't strike me as a career politician.

[Argus]

Sparhawk, "Small group of people"?  Sorry, that is not how people in Quebec understand it.  It is not the way it is reported in the media here.  To borrow a left wing term, it was "systemic".

The serperatists and federalist conservatives are using misrepresentations and outright lies as a means to gain political advanatage. Thats what is "systemic."

You are in denial. You can't admit, even to yourself, perhaps, that your party is uttelry corrupt in everything it has been doing over the past twenty years, so you simply hold your hands over your ears and shout "Nna-naa-naa-naaa-naaa".

BTW, any idea how many supreme court judges bought their seats or how much they paid for them?

[Argus]

She doesn't like the policies of the CPC, even though she helped craft that very policy?? The truth is that walking across the floor was all about power and had absolutely nothing to do with what's good of Canadians.

She tried to push CPC in a direction that she believed in

Which is liberalism

but discovered that the party was dominated by social conservatives that would not move as far as she wanted.

Not only that. There were fiscal conservatives who wouldn't move in her direction either (shudder).

The fact is the real crass opportunism of Stronach was not jumping to the Liberals at all, it was trying to take the leadership of the Conservatives. So far as I know, and perhaps someone might enlighten me if I'm mistaken, she has _no_ conservative beliefs of any kind, either fiscally or socially. However, the leadership of the Conservative Party was open and she saw an opportunity to make use of her dad's money and her pretty face to become Prime Minister. When that didn't work and there was little prospect of immediate power she started looking for somewhere else to go.

[Canuck E Stan]

And in today's news:

LIBERALS DEFEND PATRONAGE SPREE

"The Liberal government hurriedly approved about 450 orders-in-council starting around the time in April when Prime Minister Paul Martin prepared to address the nation in a televised broadcast to plead his case for a delay in holding a federal election."

"In total 448 of the 1,033 approved orders-in-council government decisions were made between late April and May19- including more than 300 appointments in various government positions."

"However,Marc Roy,a PMO spokesman,denied the increase in appointments was related to the precarious situation and an apparent unavoidable spring election."

" He denied cabinet had stepped up appointments to ensure positions were filled by Liberals before a possible election."

I checked mail,I didn't get an appointment. Did any of you Liberals out there get one?

[Riverwind]

You are in denial. You can't admit, even to yourself, perhaps, that your party is uttelry corrupt in everything it has been doing over the past twenty years, so you simply hold your hands over your ears and shout "Nna-naa-naa-naaa-naaa".

Sorry, there is no evidence to back up such sweeping accusations about the entire Liberal party or even the current Liberal leadership. Gomery is supposed to sort through the various accusations and claims by people that have a vested interest in making it look like they were not responsible. His terms of reference are broad enough that his report will seperate fact from fiction even if he cannot specifically assign blame to individuals or organizations.

I have noticed that many conservative supporters feel that the corruption scandal should give them a free ticket to power and seem to get extremely self-righteous since many Canadian voters are not willing to do that. I could equally say that conservative supporters are in denial regarding how little their party and its policies appeal to people outside of Alberta.

From my perspective, I would have gone over to the CPC a long time ago even though I think the Liberals are being unfairly accused because a timeout from power would give the Liberals to properly expunge the guilty from thier ranks and to fix their internal systems.

However, the social conservative bent of many of the CPC leadership a concern that they would make ideologically driven tax cuts like the Republicans in the US have left me with two unattractive choices. I am sticking with the Liberals for now because policy is more important than mismanagment of a relatively small government program under a different leadership team.

BTW, any idea how many supreme court judges bought their seats or how much they paid for them?

More unfounded accusations.