Would you vote CPC?

JerrySeinfeld · June 30, 2005

OK So the Liberals have made everyone hate Stephen Harper based upon this marginal SSM issue. Lets say Peter Mackay became the leader and they dropped this as a concern. Would you as a "blue"Liberal look at voting for them?

kimmy · July 1, 2005

I don't think you can boil Harper's problem down to something as simple as people not liking his position on SSM. Harper's position on SSM is more popular with Canadians than Harper himself is.

Personally, I've become increasingly skeptical of Harper's judgment. If you backtrack to April when the Conservatives were briefly ahead in the polls, Harper has made a series of poor decisions since then, and in the process made me doubt that he would be a good prime minister.

-k

takeanumber · July 1, 2005

Peter McKay has proven himself to be just as untrustworthy (Orchard), socially regressive (same sex marriage isn't over....not by a long shot, the debate has only just begun) and a media whore (Belinda) as any Con.

No truck or trade with the Conservatives. Ever.

Riverwind · July 1, 2005

OK So the Liberals have made everyone hate Stephen Harper based upon this marginal SSM issue. Lets say Peter Mackay became the leader and they dropped this as a concern. Would you as a "blue"Liberal look at voting for them?

What the CPC would have to do to get my vote red tory/blue liberal:

1) Make it clear that the CPC leadership would not raise any so called social issues during their first term in power. If back bench CPC MPs insisted on putting bills forward the CPC leadership should commit to not supporting them because 'they promised the electorate not to table these issues'.

2) Make it clear that significant tax cuts, no matter how desirable, will not be introduced unless there is a surplus at the end of the fiscal year. A pledge to continue to use the conservative accounting rules that have given Canada many years of surpluses would help. Perhaps the CPC could promise to distribute any surplus as one time rebates to Canadians instead of program spending like the Liberals. Basucally, I want to be certain that the CPC will not insist on Bush style ideology driven tax cuts that create huge deficits.

3) Table a vision for addressing the overlapping jurisdictions for the country that still allow the federal government to be a meaningful institution in the lives of all Canadians (i.e. reducing the federal gov't to managing defense and foreign affairs is a evisceration not a vision).

4) Table a vision that will allow the private sector into health care but subject to very strict rules designed to ensure that everyone still benefits from the public system.

P.S. I agree with Kimmy on Harper's judgement - he would likely have to go before the CPC could get my vote.

THELIBERAL · July 1, 2005

OK So the Liberals have made everyone hate Stephen Harper based upon this marginal SSM issue. Lets say Peter Mackay became the leader and they dropped this as a concern. Would you as a "blue"Liberal look at voting for them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Liberals made me do it!!! WOW!!!

Harper did it to himself!

THELIBERAL · July 1, 2005

I don't think you can boil Harper's problem down to something as simple as people not liking his position on SSM. Harper's position on SSM is more popular with Canadians than Harper himself is.
Personally, I've become increasingly skeptical of Harper's judgment. If you backtrack to April when the Conservatives were briefly ahead in the polls, Harper has made a series of poor decisions since then, and in the process made me doubt that he would be a good prime minister.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow some are just starting to get it!

Can you say slow learners?

kimmy · July 1, 2005

Wow some are just starting to get it!
Can you say slow learners?

I kind of get the impression you ride to school in the short bus yourself.

-k

mcqueen625 · July 2, 2005

Surpluses? Where does everybody think those surpluses came from? They came from the pockets of ordonary Canadians, much in the form of inflated EI premiums. THat and changing the rules to make it more difficult to not only qualify for benefits, but for far shorter periods. This has left many Canadian who were unable to secure meaningful employment to resort to begging for Income Assistance from the Provinces (Welfare). This money is hardly a surplus but money that should never have been collected in the first place if it was going to be spent on the unemployed.

August1991 · July 2, 2005

OK So the Liberals have made everyone hate Stephen Harper based upon this marginal SSM issue. Lets say Peter Mackay became the leader and they dropped this as a concern. Would you as a "blue"Liberal look at voting for them?

What the CPC would have to do to get my vote red tory/blue liberal:

1) Make it clear that the CPC leadership would not raise any so called social issues during their first term in power. If back bench CPC MPs insisted on putting bills forward the CPC leadership should commit to not supporting them because 'they promised the electorate not to table these issues'.

2) Make it clear that significant tax cuts, no matter how desirable, will not be introduced unless there is a surplus at the end of the fiscal year. A pledge to continue to use the conservative accounting rules that have given Canada many years of surpluses would help. Perhaps the CPC could promise to distribute any surplus as one time rebates to Canadians instead of program spending like the Liberals. Basucally, I want to be certain that the CPC will not insist on Bush style ideology driven tax cuts that create huge deficits.

3) Table a vision for addressing the overlapping jurisdictions for the country that still allow the federal government to be a meaningful institution in the lives of all Canadians (i.e. reducing the federal gov't to managing defense and foreign affairs is a evisceration not a vision).

4) Table a vision that will allow the private sector into health care but subject to very strict rules designed to ensure that everyone still benefits from the public system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sparhawk, you should just vote Liberal.

There are many people on this forum, as there are in Canada, who will never vote for Stephen Harper. Bush Jnr, Reagan, Thatcher, Mike Harris in Ontario, Levesque in Quebec are/were politicians who also evoke strong feelings.

Personally, I've become increasingly skeptical of Harper's judgment. If you backtrack to April when the Conservatives were briefly ahead in the polls, Harper has made a series of poor decisions since then, and in the process made me doubt that he would be a good prime minister.

If the Liberals had not bribed Belinda to cross the floor, Harper in all likelihood would now head a minority government - and people would say Harper is a smart tactician.

Kimmy, the Toronto media ridiculed Joe Clark and Stockwell Day, and demonized Preston Manning and Stephen Harper. Western federal leaders have a very hard time. Despite this, Harper has done reasonably well.

kimmy · July 2, 2005

If the Liberals had not bribed Belinda to cross the floor, Harper in all likelihood would now head a minority government - and people would say Harper is a smart tactician.

Well, Harper's handling of her defection was certainly poor. And it seems as though Harper's management during the time between Brault's testimony and the key vote was a major factor in her leaving. Even discounting Belinda's claim that she left because she didn't believe they should force an election, the Liberals would probably not have offered such a hefty incentive for her to cross the floor had Harper not been trying to bring down the government. And supposedly a big factor in her decision to quit the CPC was Harper calling her into his office to berate her just days earlier. Not a good management move at such a crucial time...

Here are some major blunders Harper made during that key time:

-as soon as polls started looking favorable, Harper started feeding speculation that he'd force an election ASAP. So instead of talking about the Gomery testimony, the media was talking about Harper forcing an election. Dumb move. The right move would have been to keep the press focused on the Gomery stuff and indicate that they were going to vote on the budget, not on Brault (truth or not, that would have been the right thing to tell the press.)

-the procedural non-confidence motion. I know you believe that precident indicated the government should have immediately held a formal confidence vote after losing that vote. Maybe Harper had precident on his side or maybe not... but either way, it was also a dumb move. It made him look like a sneaky opportunist. The right move would simply have been to focus public attention on the government's move to reschedule opposition days, point out how desperate it looked, and remind everyone that the Liberals can't hide forever.

-the handling of the Stronach affair. Whether or not he personally shoved her out the door, the party's handling of the aftermath was rather poor.

-his dogged determination in standing behind Grewal. Enough said.

I don't think any of this shows him to be a smart tactician. It strikes me as ... well, a lot of people seem to think he's passionless and emotionless... C3P0 or whatever... but I think under the icy facade he's got a lot of anger for the Liberals... and I think it got the best of him.

Kimmy, the Toronto media ridiculed Joe Clark and Stockwell Day, and demonized Preston Manning and Stephen Harper. Western federal leaders have a very hard time. Despite this, Harper has done reasonably well.

I'm too young to remember the Toronto media's treatment of Joe Who. He'd become Joe Nobody by the time I was old enough to be aware of such things. And of course in the last years of his career, opponents of Reform were trying to recast Clark as a Cagey Veteran... the Elder Statesman of the Right... the Real Alternative to the Liberals... all of which was quite laughable, considering this was Joe Nobody and his regional protest party from the Maritimes.

I agree about Manning, Day, and Harper, of course, though I'd like to think the treatment was based on their politics, not their homeland. I expect (perhaps optimistically) that right-wing leaders from Ontario or Nova Scotia might receive an equally rough treatment in the Toronto media.

Has Harper done reasonably well? Compared to his predecessors, I think so. And prior to April, I'd have said he was doing reasonably well, period. But the mistakes I mentioned earlier have given me pause.

-k

July 2, 2005

Harper may have a lot of anger at the Liberals. More importantly, from my observation of him, is that he is a seething cauldron of repressed anger. Harper is angry at everthing and everone that does not follow his illogic.

He has no leadership skills and is a tyrant in waiting. I wonder what some in his party really think of him.

cybercoma · July 2, 2005

Harper may have a lot of anger at the Liberals. More importantly, from my observation of him, is that he is a seething cauldron of repressed anger. Harper is angry at everthing and everone that does not follow his illogic.
He has no leadership skills and is a tyrant in waiting. I wonder what some in his party really think of him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In another thread you say you're objective, then in this post you toss around labels like "tyrant" as if it's an undeniable truth. Harper is angry that the Canadian public is giving their money to criminals that are squandering it for their own personal benefit. That should make more than just Stephen Harper angry.

Hawk · July 2, 2005

Well, Harper's handling of her defection was certainly poor. And it seems as though Harper's management during the time between Brault's testimony and the key vote was a major factor in her leaving. Even discounting Belinda's claim that she left because she didn't believe they should force an election, the Liberals would probably not have offered such a hefty incentive for her to cross the floor had Harper not been trying to bring down the government. And supposedly a big factor in her decision to quit the CPC was Harper calling her into his office to berate her just days earlier. Not a good management move at such a crucial time...
Here are some major blunders Harper made during that key time:

Have you ever considered that perhaps the impression you gained was the intended result the media wanted you to get?

-as soon as polls started looking favorable, Harper started feeding speculation that he'd force an election ASAP. So instead of talking about the Gomery testimony, the media was talking about Harper forcing an election. Dumb move. The right move would have been to keep the press focused on the Gomery stuff and indicate that they were going to vote on the budget, not on Brault (truth or not, that would have been the right thing to tell the press.)

Yes he certainly should have, I mean we all know how much the Conservatives control Eastern Canadian media :lol:

-the procedural non-confidence motion. I know you believe that precident indicated the government should have immediately held a formal confidence vote after losing that vote. Maybe Harper had precident on his side or maybe not... but either way, it was also a dumb move. It made him look like a sneaky opportunist. The right move would simply have been to focus public attention on the government's move to reschedule opposition days, point out how desperate it looked, and remind everyone that the Liberals can't hide forever.

Again, the whole 'focus here' and 'focus there' doesn't work when the media is not on your side or your payroll.

-the handling of the Stronach affair. Whether or not he personally shoved her out the door, the party's handling of the aftermath was rather poor.

Oh thats right, they should be happy they got backstabbed by a media whore who then got appointed to a minister for the opposition. Add to that the fact of her crossing the floor completely screwing them politically and yeah, they should have thrown her a keg party.

-his dogged determination in standing behind Grewal. Enough said.

I dont see how that is, in any way, the wrong way for a leader to behave.

I don't think any of this shows him to be a smart tactician. It strikes me as ... well, a lot of people seem to think he's passionless and emotionless... C3P0 or whatever... but I think under the icy facade he's got a lot of anger for the Liberals... and I think it got the best of him.

I think almost everyone in the country has anger for the Liberals, except their elitist supporters in the Universities and Colleges (the ones who actually vote) of course =p

I'm too young to remember the Toronto media's treatment of Joe Who. He'd become Joe Nobody by the time I was old enough to be aware of such things. And of course in the last years of his career, opponents of Reform were trying to recast Clark as a Cagey Veteran... the Elder Statesman of the Right... the Real Alternative to the Liberals... all of which was quite laughable, considering this was Joe Nobody and his regional protest party from the Maritimes.
I agree about Manning, Day, and Harper, of course, though I'd like to think the treatment was based on their politics, not their homeland. I expect (perhaps optimistically) that right-wing leaders from Ontario or Nova Scotia might receive an equally rough treatment in the Toronto media.

Has Harper done reasonably well? Compared to his predecessors, I think so. And prior to April, I'd have said he was doing reasonably well, period. But the mistakes I mentioned earlier have given me pause.

-k

While we both agree Harper has done well considering the fate of his predecesors, I do think it has alot to do with their homeland. I have had Liberals tell me they didn't want an 'Albertan government' in power and have seen them be backed up by other Liberals, this tells me it has alot more to do with location than policies.

As for his mistakes, he is human and will have many... its always amazing how forgiving the media is of Liberals, try and imagine a Conservative government getting caught with the kind of crap they are pulling up now on the Liberals =p

Fortunata · July 2, 2005

Harper drove Belinda from the CPC. A huge error on his part in more ways than one. Not a good leadership move.

Peter McKay? He showed what kind of person he was when he promised one thing and immediately did another.

See, thats the thing about the CPC. They portray themselves as the honourable, ethical, honest party when so much of what they do and have done show the exact opposite. If they didn't sit under their halos looking down at everybody it wouldn't matter that they act just like any other politician (or party) but they do. Can they not see they do as they accuse others of doing? It makes them look like extreme hypocrites.

Hawk · July 2, 2005

Harper drove Belinda from the CPC. A huge error on his part in more ways than one. Not a good leadership move.

Martin bought Belinda, and she was more than willing to go. She cared more about her personal career than representing her riding, she deserves every nasty word or bad publicity that gets thrown her way.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with leadership.

See, thats the thing about the CPC. They portray themselves as the honourable, ethical, honest party when so much of what they do and have done show the exact opposite. If they didn't sit under their halos looking down at everybody it wouldn't matter that they act just like any other politician (or party) but they do. Can they not see they do as they accuse others of doing? It makes them look like extreme hypocrites.

Refer to my earlier post on media portrayals, and how they oftentimes are wrong =p As for doing as they accuse others of doing, explain how exactly they could be responsible for the scandals and money-laundering they are currently accusing the Liberals of?

ScottBrison · July 3, 2005

It would take a major doctrinal shift toward the center and personnelle changes before I would even consider voting for the Conservatives. Maybe when I've grown old and don't give a shit about the future since I won't be here to have to live with the consequences I'll vote for them.

I definatly wouldn't ever vote for Peter MacKay though, why would anyone vote for a man that sold his soul and sold out his own party? What does that say about him? how bad would things have to get before he sold out Canada as well? Say what you like about Scott Brison, at least he stood up for his principals instead of whoring himself like MacKay did.

ScottBrison · July 3, 2005

Surpluses? Where does everybody think those surpluses came from? They came from the pockets of ordonary Canadians, much in the form of inflated EI premiums. THat and changing the rules to make it more difficult to not only qualify for benefits, but for far shorter periods. This has left many Canadian who were unable to secure meaningful employment to resort to begging for Income Assistance from the Provinces (Welfare). This money is hardly a surplus but money that should never have been collected in the first place if it was going to be spent on the unemployed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As opposed to any Conservative Surpluses which come from Magic Money Fairies.

Oh no! High EI Premiums! I don't know how I'll handle that extra $10 (if that) off my paycheck every month! Especially when I know it goes towards those unimportant things like Debt reduction, health care, infastructure, etc.

I will admit it is a pain in the ass when governments collect taxes for one thing and then spend it on another, like here in N.S. the Tories brought in Gas taxes saying the money would go to roads first. Word of advice, if your driving down to Nova Scotia make sure you have good shocks on your car. Otherwise you'll be bouncing around like a plate of jellow in an 9.4 earthquake.

August1991 · July 3, 2005

Well, Harper's handling of her defection was certainly poor. And it seems as though Harper's management during the time between Brault's testimony and the key vote was a major factor in her leaving. Even discounting Belinda's claim that she left because she didn't believe they should force an election, the Liberals would probably not have offered such a hefty incentive for her to cross the floor had Harper not been trying to bring down the government. And supposedly a big factor in her decision to quit the CPC was Harper calling her into his office to berate her just days earlier. Not a good management move at such a crucial time...

Harper's handling of her defection? What was there to do but accept the fact it happened?

Go back in time. The Liberals lost what was tantamount to a confidence motion. For a week, there was speculation whether we had a government. In that week, the Liberals bought enough votes to be able to win another confidence vote.

As to Harper "berating" Belinda, or the true reason for her decsion, the only source we have for that story is Belinda herself. I notice too that the story started circulating once she crossed the floor.

I suppose that Harper could have slyly waited for an unequivocal motion of confidence and then sprung a surprise vote on the Liberals. The problem here is that the Liberals had no intention of holding such a vote. And even if they had, I'm sure they could have found X, Y, Z reason to claim it wasn't really a confidence motion afterall.

When a PM is willing to investigate opposition MPs for allegedly taking money for visas, or willing to let opposition MPs write their own CV, then it is hard to defeat the government.

-his dogged determination in standing behind Grewal. Enough said.

The game was over by then. I think Harper wins points for being loyal. He sent out a strong message to the other 97 in the Tory caucus that he'll stand beside them too.

-----

Game over? Far from it, really.

ScottBrison · July 3, 2005

accidential double post

ScottBrison · July 3, 2005

If the Liberals had not bribed Belinda to cross the floor, Harper in all likelihood would now head a minority government - and people would say Harper is a smart tactician.

First of all, she wasn't bribed she came to them and as a member of the shadow cabinet was placed in an equal position on the other side, secondly it was Harpers own idiocy that CAUSED her to leave in the first place.

Making it clear to her she was never going to be leader? What is the CPC a dictatorship? That's not his decision it's the decision of Conservative delegates.

I think the only reason they haven't dumped Harper is they know the Liberals would call a snap election right when the new leader took office and they would be annihilated.

ScottBrison · July 3, 2005

If the Liberals had not bribed Belinda to cross the floor, Harper in all likelihood would now head a minority government - and people would say Harper is a smart tactician.

Well, Harper's handling of her defection was certainly poor. And it seems as though Harper's management during the time between Brault's testimony and the key vote was a major factor in her leaving. Even discounting Belinda's claim that she left because she didn't believe they should force an election, the Liberals would probably not have offered such a hefty incentive for her to cross the floor had Harper not been trying to bring down the government. And supposedly a big factor in her decision to quit the CPC was Harper calling her into his office to berate her just days earlier. Not a good management move at such a crucial time...

Here are some major blunders Harper made during that key time:

-as soon as polls started looking favorable, Harper started feeding speculation that he'd force an election ASAP. So instead of talking about the Gomery testimony, the media was talking about Harper forcing an election. Dumb move. The right move would have been to keep the press focused on the Gomery stuff and indicate that they were going to vote on the budget, not on Brault (truth or not, that would have been the right thing to tell the press.)

-the procedural non-confidence motion. I know you believe that precident indicated the government should have immediately held a formal confidence vote after losing that vote. Maybe Harper had precident on his side or maybe not... but either way, it was also a dumb move. It made him look like a sneaky opportunist. The right move would simply have been to focus public attention on the government's move to reschedule opposition days, point out how desperate it looked, and remind everyone that the Liberals can't hide forever.

-the handling of the Stronach affair. Whether or not he personally shoved her out the door, the party's handling of the aftermath was rather poor.

-his dogged determination in standing behind Grewal. Enough said.

I don't think any of this shows him to be a smart tactician. It strikes me as ... well, a lot of people seem to think he's passionless and emotionless... C3P0 or whatever... but I think under the icy facade he's got a lot of anger for the Liberals... and I think it got the best of him.

Exactly, when you are the Prime Minister of Canada you have to be a brilliant tactician, you need to either make no mistakes, or minimize the damage of those mistakes because Canada, due to it's small population is always teetering on the brink of obscurity. Quite Simply Canada would either be completely irrelivant, or a "yes man" for the United States of Dubya were Harper to become Prime Minister.

ScottBrison · July 3, 2005

Harper may have a lot of anger at the Liberals. More importantly, from my observation of him, is that he is a seething cauldron of repressed anger. Harper is angry at everthing and everone that does not follow his illogic.
He has no leadership skills and is a tyrant in waiting. I wonder what some in his party really think of him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In another thread you say you're objective, then in this post you toss around labels like "tyrant" as if it's an undeniable truth. Harper is angry that the Canadian public is giving their money to criminals that are squandering it for their own personal benefit. That should make more than just Stephen Harper angry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm angry about it too, the difference is I UNDERSTAND it wasn't the whole Liberal party who did it. I'm not into this whole "Guilt by association" thing the Conservatives are throwing around, otherwise I'd believe all Americans are idiots because Dubya is an idiot, I know that's not true, and I feel for the poor Liberals down in the States who have to see their country be destroyed by the far right, and prey to God each and every day it doesn't happen here.

ScottBrison · July 3, 2005

Harper drove Belinda from the CPC. A huge error on his part in more ways than one. Not a good leadership move.

Martin bought Belinda, and she was more than willing to go. She cared more about her personal career than representing her riding, she deserves every nasty word or bad publicity that gets thrown her way.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with leadership.

See, thats the thing about the CPC. They portray themselves as the honourable, ethical, honest party when so much of what they do and have done show the exact opposite. If they didn't sit under their halos looking down at everybody it wouldn't matter that they act just like any other politician (or party) but they do. Can they not see they do as they accuse others of doing? It makes them look like extreme hypocrites.

Refer to my earlier post on media portrayals, and how they oftentimes are wrong =p As for doing as they accuse others of doing, explain how exactly they could be responsible for the scandals and money-laundering they are currently accusing the Liberals of?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I've seen Stephen Harper doing a lot of work for Calgary West since he's been making wild stabs at power. I wonder if he's even been to his riding since he's been elected. And since we're on the subject of buying Harper bought MacKay, he was more than willing to sell and only wanted to be part of a larger party and someday be it's leader.

Of Course media portrayls are sometimes wrong, I mean Hell we can't have all Liberal media! The Conservatives wouldn't be able to launch massive misinformation campaigns! Where would the fun in that be?

cybercoma · July 3, 2005

I'm angry about it too, the difference is I UNDERSTAND it wasn't the whole Liberal party who did it. I'm not into this whole "Guilt by association" thing the Conservatives are throwing around, otherwise I'd believe all Americans are idiots because Dubya is an idiot, I know that's not true, and I feel for the poor Liberals down in the States who have to see their country be destroyed by the far right, and prey to God each and every day it doesn't happen here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your arguments are so ignorant it's difficult to even post a serious reply to you. The kickbacks were used as campaign funds and deposited into the bank accounts of friends and families all the way up every rung of the Liberal ladder. This game of "it was only a few rogue MPs involved" is about as asinine as saying the mob boss is innocent because he didn't pull the trigger or organize the activities of the mafia. Like the Teflon Don, I expect Chretien and Martin to get off smelling like roses after this entire thing pans out too.

Your comparison to the president of a country's intelligent being an indicator of the intelligence of ALL americans is plainly stupid and has no parrallel to the situation we're talking about. And to even suggest that the Conservative Party is anything even remotely resembling the Republican Party in the United States is equally asinine.

ScottBrison · July 3, 2005

I'm angry about it too, the difference is I UNDERSTAND it wasn't the whole Liberal party who did it. I'm not into this whole "Guilt by association" thing the Conservatives are throwing around, otherwise I'd believe all Americans are idiots because Dubya is an idiot, I know that's not true, and I feel for the poor Liberals down in the States who have to see their country be destroyed by the far right, and prey to God each and every day it doesn't happen here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your arguments are so ignorant it's difficult to even post a serious reply to you. The kickbacks were used as campaign funds and deposited into the bank accounts of friends and families all the way up every rung of the Liberal ladder. This game of "it was only a few rogue MPs involved" is about as asinine as saying the mob boss is innocent because he didn't pull the trigger or organize the activities of the mafia. Like the Teflon Don, I expect Chretien and Martin to get off smelling like roses after this entire thing pans out too.

Your comparison to the president of a country's intelligent being an indicator of the intelligence of ALL americans is plainly stupid and has no parrallel to the situation we're talking about. And to even suggest that the Conservative Party is anything even remotely resembling the Republican Party in the United States is equally asinine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, since you're obviously living in the land of make believe I'll send you a copy of Mr. Rogers on DVD. Lets wait until Gomery issues his report and then we'll find out who's really responsible, and if you had bothered to read my post you would know I was saying I DIDN'T D-I-D-N-'-T think everyone in the states was an idiot because Bush is their President. And like it or not pal your party is exactly like the Republicans, the only difference is the Bush Administration comes right out and tells you how ignorant they are, the Conservatives are trying to hide it to obtain power and then we'll all know and be repulsed by how many simularities there are.