10PM EST CTV Declares Winner

[sage]

Norman, you think Harper's stance on mari-jane was the reason he didn't resonate with BC voters? That's rubbish.

I agree with you on the religious zealot thing though.

One thing you neglect to point out though is that while the Tories seat count went down, their popular vote was up something like 5 points in BC.

As for losing the Cadman seat, it should be put into perspective that they lost it to an NDP'er named Priddy who was a family friend of Cadman and endorsed by Cadman's widow.

[tml12]

Let me tell you something. If Michael Ignatieff takes the reigns of the Liberal Party, I will vote Liberal in the next election.

Cybercoma,

Do we know what he supports and what he doesn't support?

[scribblet]

Norman, you think Harper's stance on mari-jane was the reason he didn't resonate with BC voters? That's rubbish.

I agree with you on the religious zealot thing though.

One thing you neglect to point out though is that while the Tories seat count went down, their popular vote was up something like 5 points in BC.

As for losing the Cadman seat, it should be put into perspective that they lost it to an NDP'er named Priddy who was a family friend of Cadman and endorsed by Cadman's widow.

I agree pot is not and was never a key point of this election, and I don't think SSM really was either.

Maybe someone could define a 'religious zealot' and explain why anyone with religious convictions shouldn't be allowed to run for office if they win the nomination process fair and square, and why a leader should deny these people a part in the democratic process. This is a democracy, they have a right to a voice as much as anyone else. I'm not religious, but darn it, I get bent out of shape when people try use the 'scary religious zealot' stuff. IMHO if a candidate is really off the wall, is really racist etc., the membership will not support them, and neither likely would the voters. Personally I believe the voters are finally realizing that this 'scary religious zealot' nonsense isn't cutting it.

[Shakeyhands]

Well, it's going to be very close but it looks as if Harper will be able to get support in the House from anyone of the BQ, Libs or NDP. (Englsih-Canadians are going to discover Andre Arthur!)

Rona Ambrose and Josee Verner will become well-known. I was surprised how well Jason Kenney speaks French.

The NDP has done well in BC.

Ontario just doesn't want to vote for a western party.

----

In the longer term, in a year or two, when the Liberals get a new leader, it'll be a whole new ball game. Harper can only hope that the Liberal civil war continues.

Perhaps statments like that are the issue?

[sage]

Scriblett you're right, the liberal use of the term "zealot" is not appropriate.

As a Tory supporter though I have difficulty with candidates whose primary qualification to represent our interests is a belief in one religion or another. There are certain persons (mostly Tories, though not exclusively) whose judgments are made primarily on religious considerations. These are the people that concern me.

I believe Norman's point was that when someone is running on the basis of their anti-abortion and anti-SSM views as their main reason they should be elected, it scares people and I agree. Thankfully these people have generally been kept in check.

[scribblet]

Scriblett you're right, the liberal use of the term "zealot" is not appropriate.

As a Tory supporter though I have difficulty with candidates whose primary qualification to represent our interests is a belief in one religion or another. There are certain persons (mostly Tories, though not exclusively) whose judgments are made primarily on religious considerations. These are the people that concern me.

I believe Norman's point was that when someone is running on the basis of their anti-abortion and anti-SSM views as their main reason they should be elected, it scares people and I agree. Thankfully these people have generally been kept in check.

I would still like to know what a zealot is, or what anyone who uses that term really means, and who is really a religious zealot. This term as you say is inappropriate and is really used to manipulate and scare people. I know many people who are against SSM and abortion for that matter and are certainly not religious zealots, hell some have never set foot in a church for decades.

These religious people do have a right to run for office, and I doubt that these are the only two issues they care about, and certainly Harper isn't running on anti-abortion - SSM yes, but one doesn't have to be a religious anything to be against that. Don't forget, its pretty well a 50 50 split on these issues, so many voters want someone who represents their views.

I'm not entirely sure what is really wanted here, are people saying that only atheists should run for office, or is it only Christians who shouldn't run for office? What about Muslims, their religion is most definitly anti SSM/homosexuality, are they considered religious zealots, or again, does this only apply to Christians? Or, are they saying people who are anti-abortion/SSM shouldn't run for office? This is a very slippery slope when we start to define who and who should not be able to participate in a democracy.

Most, if not the majority of people have some sort of religious belief, and necessarily Christian, as far as I'm concerned this 'religious zealot' thing is a crock, it is disengenuous in the least, and attempt to stiffle opposition and debate. Harper is no 'religious zealot' , but if someone repeats it often enough it becomes 'fact'. Goebels would be proud eh .

cheers

cheers

[kimmy]

Ontario just doesn't want to vote for a western party.

I had been a little skeptical of this idea, and the playing of the supposed "Alberta card" by Hargrove, Martin, and Duceppe.

However, I spent a little time browsing over at Babble this morning and was, indeed, taken aback by the amount of anti-Alberta bile I saw. There does indeed seem to be a sense among some of the "progressives" that a hostile foreign power has staged a political coup in Canada. I was of course expecting to see hyperbole about "neocons" and an "agenda of hate" and so on, with the Babblers being what they are. But I was quite unprepared for words like "Almericans" and the sheer amount of anger directed not just at Harper but at *this province.* I don't assume that these people represent all "progressives" or all Ontarions, but that element was certainly in evidence in what I read there this morning.

-k

[tml12]

Ontario just doesn't want to vote for a western party.

I had been a little skeptical of this idea, and the playing of the supposed "Alberta card" by Hargrove, Martin, and Duceppe.

However, I spent a little time browsing over at Babble this morning and was, indeed, taken aback by the amount of anti-Alberta bile I saw. There does indeed seem to be a sense among some of the "progressives" that a hostile foreign power has staged a political coup in Canada. I was of course expecting to see hyperbole about "neocons" and an "agenda of hate" and so on, with the Babblers being what they are. But I was quite unprepared for words like "Almericans" and the sheer amount of anger directed not just at Harper but at *this province.* I don't assume that these people represent all "progressives" or all Ontarions, but that element was certainly in evidence in what I read there this morning.

-k

Ontario, especially Toronto, buys into every Joe Canadian lie the pre-merger Molson and the Liberal Party feeds them.

As for Atlantic Canada, I think Harper's "entitlement" comment sums it up well.

I think it is about time the west has a chance to govern, I have lived her in the East all my life and I think, with the country as it is now, we need to see the west give federalism a chance.

[sage]

I would still like to know what a zealot is, or what anyone who uses that term really means, and who is really a religious zealot. This term as you say is inappropriate and is really used to manipulate and scare people.

I'm not sure, but if you asked those who refuse to vote for the Tories due to their social conservatism I think they would refer to the candidate in the last election from Northern BC who went off at the mouth about the notwithstanding clause and SSM.

This is a very slippery slope when we start to define who and who should not be able to participate in a democracy.

We do this every election.

[normanchateau]

I believe Norman's point was that when someone is running on the basis of their anti-abortion and anti-SSM views as their main reason they should be elected, it scares people and I agree. Thankfully these people have generally been kept in check.

That is indeed my point but let me throw in a qualifier. Not all such candidates actually acknowledge that this is the main reason that they should be elected. So while the three in BC who went down to defeat, i.e., Darrel Reid, Cindy Silver and John Weston, all had well-publicized links or previous employment with anti-abortion and anti-homosexual groups, they didn't claim that this was why they were running for the CPC. But as long as some voters perceive their motives as such, their chances of election are diminished. All three of those ridings

had an excellent chance of being captured by CPC if they had run more moderate candidates.

they didn't actually state