Naw... no hidden agenda....

[Shakeyhands]

Whats up with this? Lets keep in mind who has formed the CPC.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06010904.html

Growing numbers of Conservative Party candidates in Northern Ontario, South Western Ontario, the Greater Toronto Area, Alberta and British Columbia are refusing to answer questionnaires put out by pro-life, and pro-family groups, and some are refusing to answer any questionnaires at all. While some Liberal and NDP candidates have also refused to answer questionnaires, Conservative candidates are unique in blaming their refusal on policy or directives from Conservative Party headquarters.

[newbie]

Good post. Censor all your candidates. Surprise, surprise.

[Leader Circle]

Again, this website is run by a bunch of homosexuals and their supporters, who HATE Stephen Harper, not for his policies, but for his disagreeing with SSM.

Nothing from this website, holds weight, except for a couple loons from this forum. (We already know about them...LOL)

Dead topic! Same old smear campaign bullshit, expected from the same old trolls!! Good Job, living up to our low expectations!

[newbie]

Again, this website is run by a bunch of homosexuals and their supporters, who HATE Stephen Harper, not for his policies, but for his disagreeing with SSM.

Nothing from this website, holds weight, except for a couple loons from this forum. (We already know about them...LOL)

Dead topic! Same old smear campaign bullshit, expected from the same old trolls!! Good Job, living up to our low expectations!

Did you actually read the article? Here are some highlites that maybe you missed:

Conservative candidate Blaine Calkins, running in the Alberta riding of Wetaskiwin, said, "Conservative Party policy is that we do not respond to surveys or questionnaires of any kind." and conservative Candidate Rakesh Khosla in Halifax West, responded to a Herald reporter asking about the meeting, "We've been told by Ottawa that we don't talk about that . . . That's a dropped subject."

Next time try to respond to the article and avoid conservative policy of ad hominem.

[Argus]

Good post. Censor all your candidates. Surprise, surprise.

It has become unfortunately necessary due to a shrill, hostile, unprofessional press, many of whom see it as their job to ensure no conservative party ever gets into power. They would love nothing more than to be able to portray the Conservative Party as full of scary "religious" folks.

[willy]

Have your read any of the surveys or questionnaires. The questions are leading to say the least.

The candidates I know of on the west coast respond in writing about the concerns but don't respond to these questionnaires. All the parties have the same practice. If the Conservatives sent out a written communication good for them. At least they don't hid the fact they don't participate for any group regarding this practice.

If you want to know the stance on an issue ask a question. They will answer it. They just wont sign a pledge of blind support for an interest group.

Is this not reasonable?

[Shakeyhands]

Willy, I still don't understand, every candidate has an opinion and should speak it, not be censored by the party for the sake of 'optics'... its kind of like a free vote no?

[shoop]

Would that be like the increased number of free votes in parliament that Martin promised in the last election but never got around to implementing? Seriously, attacking the Conservatives for supposedly stifling candidates is a ludicrous charge from the Liberals.

Willy, I still don't understand, every candidate has an opinion and should speak it, not be censored by the party for the sake of 'optics'... its kind of like a free vote no?

[betsy]

Good post. Censor all your candidates. Surprise, surprise.

Martin tried to censor the reporters!

And iy's been commented by quite a few. No wonder there's been some hostility coming from the press now.

[willy]

Willy, I still don't understand, every candidate has an opinion and should speak it, not be censored by the party for the sake of 'optics'... its kind of like a free vote no?

I am sure you understand. If I ask you a question that has a bias and then give you three pre written responses that has only one possible answer and none that reflect your view is that a free vote.

Again, candidates should respond to the issues, they are encouraged not to fill out surveys and questionnaires.

Can you see why if you were sent a save marriage survey how they might manipulate the responses in a way that would make you uncomfortable responding.

[The Honest Politician]

So if candidates should be allowed "respond to the issues" why can't the candidates talk about the meeting with the pro marriage church group in Halifax?

[I Miss Trudeau]

So if candidates should be allowed "respond to the issues" why can't the candidates talk about the meeting with the pro marriage church group in Halifax?

[explicit answer to rhetorical question]

Clearly, because the pro marriage group is going to vote conservative regardless. Its the people that are put off by the connection to that group that the Conservatives are going after. And we don't want people knowing what their Conservative candidates stand for, now do we?

[/explicit answer to rhetorical question]

[geoffrey]

So if candidates should be allowed "respond to the issues" why can't the candidates talk about the meeting with the pro marriage church group in Halifax?

You know what. I'm probably one of the biggest opponents of Canadian style legislation on same-sex marriage. But I've talked to gay person before. Does this mean I'm 100% everything they support? Absolutely not.

Just because a group meets with someone to get opinion doesn't mean they are 100% in endorsement with them. I'm sure you've met with people in your business/educational life that you don't agree with completely, and are just there to get their opinion.

I'm also pretty sure the CPC has had no hidden policy on same-sex marriage, Harper released the policy on day one, and it hasn't changed since. I'm struggling to see any merit in that accusation.