A return to sanity: 2007

[jbg]

Martin had little choice after the AG investigation and the previous news. So he pretended to be Mr. Clean and expose the corruption of "the previous regime" - of which he was a major part.

Of course, the "Martin" faction and the "Chrétien" faction of the LPOC had always been at war, and Martin took advantage of the opportunity to "cleanse" the remaining "Chrétien" people after Martin seized leadership and became PM.

[gerryhatrick]

I can understand why Harper supporters would wish to keep talking about something that happened years ago rather than what the present government is doing.

Makes perfect sense.

[jdobbin]

Of course, the "Martin" faction and the "Chrétien" faction of the LPOC had always been at war, and Martin took advantage of the opportunity to "cleanse" the remaining "Chrétien" people after Martin seized leadership and became PM.

A number of people coming up the ranks of the party have no real links to either man now. The country wanted renewal, they'll have party where many of the old war horses are gone.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think it is possible that the Liberal Party will be going to the polls with an appointed leader. The leadership convention may not happen in time. When the fall sitting begins the Conservatives may attempt to set up a confidence vote and blame the fall of government on the opposition for the purpose of gaining a majority. Regardless of what the polls show at this point, Harrper is intenty upon attaining sufficient power to be able to alter the Senate and the Supreme Court and the only way to do that is with a majority government.

All that we have really seen Harper do is set up the provinces to look like fools for not being able to reach a concensus. His power play will be to pit province against province while remaining out of the fray in an attempt to utilize a tactic of justified appeasement in order to acuire a state of solidarity across the land. This will serve to play down any attempt by the opposition to raise specific issues of concern to them by means of doing what is right for the nation. In a sense Harper wants to do some nation building, designed according to his logic and ideals of course. Once again we step into the breech, constitutional reforms are about to be like rubber hitting the road. That will be the only way for Harper to be able to didge the reality of the day, which is his governments lack of social focus. Strange but true, the focus is not on improving the human condition but instead the condition of concentrated power in the federal government.

I believe Harpers goal is to download a lot of power to the provinces to avoid jurisdiction issues and expenses. He wants the feds out of a lot of programs because he thinks it will save the government money. It will too. Of course the citizens will have to pay more and the provinces will be where the battles are. It is a way of eliminating the attack Ottawa syndrome in provincial politics. Give them some power and then play out the rope. Watch them dangle for a while and then step in as the grand man and solve some of the problems by taking back some authority.

[jdobbin]

I think it is possible that the Liberal Party will be going to the polls with an appointed leader. The leadership convention may not happen in time. When the fall sitting begins the Conservatives may attempt to set up a confidence vote and blame the fall of government on the opposition for the purpose of gaining a majority. Regardless of what the polls show at this point, Harrper is intenty upon attaining sufficient power to be able to alter the Senate and the Supreme Court and the only way to do that is with a majority government.

He might try to force an election. I think they prefer to face Graham as interim leader. I wonder what sort of confidence vote he might try. Some people thought it might be the lumber deal but now that industry is not supporting it, the Conservatives might not bring it to a vote.

[Charles Anthony]

Now, I have an other question: what is the major differences between the current Liberal party and the current ruling Conservative party in your opinion?

Sounds like you are setting him up for a trick question. <heh>

The only way it can be a trick question is if:

1) my distinction (Liberals cater to free-loaders) is correct

or

2) there is no difference between the parties

or

3) some other "sanity" about the Liberal party that no wants to admit.

Everybody who supported the corruption in the past Liberal party is certainly corrupt -- in my book, that includes the people who voted for them. I will briefly explain why.

Who in the current Liberal party supported the corruption of the sponsorship scandal? I need names and quotes of what was said.

The people who ran the sponsorship program. Have you forgotten who they are already?

Long before the sponsorship scandal, the federal Liberal party throughout the 1970's nickel-and-dimed some Canadians to buy the votes of other Canadians. Please do not tell me you forget something as divisive as the National Energy Program. Nothing was new in the 1990's except that the abuse of taxpayers and the corruption got worse.

Now, I have an other question: what is the major differences between the current Liberal party and the current ruling Conservative party in your opinion?

In what sense?

Why did you vote Liberal? what do they offer that the current ruling Conservative party does not offer to you?

The current Liberal party, however, is not as corrupt as some might believe. No more corrupt than the Conservatives anyways.

In your opinion, should Canadians treat them as if they had a completely clean slate? In other words, should Canadians completely forget about the Liberal party's past and treat the Liberals as if it was a completely new party?

I do find it ironic though that someone (harper) who focused so much of his platform on ethics & accountability has proven to be less than perfect in that area.

I agree with that criticism.

I believe Harpers goal is to download a lot of power to the provinces to avoid jurisdiction issues and expenses. He wants the feds out of a lot of programs because he thinks it will save the government money.

I hope he does.

[jdobbin]

Charles,

Some of the quotes you attribute to me I think someone else actually said.

[Charles Anthony]

Some of the quotes you attribute to me I think someone else actually said.

SORRY!

I went back and corrected those mistakes!

[jdobbin]

Some of the quotes you attribute to me I think someone else actually said.

SORRY!

I went back and corrected those mistakes!

No problem I did say tricky though. <heh>

[gc1765]

Who in the current Liberal party supported the corruption of the sponsorship scandal? I need names and quotes of what was said.

The people who ran the sponsorship program. Have you forgotten who they are already?

Long before the sponsorship scandal, the federal Liberal party throughout the 1970's nickel-and-dimed some Canadians to buy the votes of other Canadians. Please do not tell me you forget something as divisive as the National Energy Program. Nothing was new in the 1990's except that the abuse of taxpayers and the corruption got worse.

Ok, so who in the current Liberal caucus ran the sponsorship scandal? I was always under the impression that Gagliano was the one running it, but of course he is not a current member. So who are the current members you are speaking of that ran the sponsorship scandal?

I'm too young to remember the National Energy Program except for what I have read about it, but I don't think that's the issue here. Besides, how can the current Liberal party be blamed for something that happened in the 70's?

Now, I have an other question: what is the major differences between the current Liberal party and the current ruling Conservative party in your opinion?

In what sense?

Why did you vote Liberal? what do they offer that the current ruling Conservative party does not offer to you?

Several issues I suppose. Off the top of my head:

1. Liberals would have maintained their tax cut of the lowest income bracket from 16% to 15%, and raising the basic personal exemption. The conservatives promised to raise it back to 16% (though they settled for 15.5%) and lower the basic personal exemption. Instead they would cut the GST, which would not benefit me nearly as much as a reduction in personal income taxes.

2. Same-sex marriage. While I am heterosexual, I still believe in equality and I can not vote for someone who does not believe in equality.

3. Liberals were planning on decriminalizing marijuana, the conservatives put an end to that.

4. The Kelowna accord

Also: The Liberals plan to reduce the debt, Harper being for the Iraq war etc...

There are a few good policies from the Conservatives, especially their plan to give a tax break on bus passes, but most of their policies I disagree with.

The current Liberal party, however, is not as corrupt as some might believe. No more corrupt than the Conservatives anyways.

In your opinion, should Canadians treat them as if they had a completely clean slate? In other words, should Canadians completely forget about the Liberal party's past and treat the Liberals as if it was a completely new party?

If we assume that no-one in the Liberal party was responsible for the sponsorship scandal, then yes I would give them a clean slate. If there is any evidence to suggest that there are current members who were involved in the sponsorship scandal, or even knew about it, then I would say no they do not deserve a clean slate. But so far I have not seen that evidence.

[gerryhatrick]

I think it is possible that the Liberal Party will be going to the polls with an appointed leader. The leadership convention may not happen in time. When the fall sitting begins the Conservatives may attempt to set up a confidence vote and blame the fall of government on the opposition for the purpose of gaining a majority.

You have a poor grasp of politics. The current polls show heavy CPC losses in BC, Quebec, and Ontario.

Nationaly they have drawn even with the Liberals.

There is no way in H they want to go to the polls this year....and in fact Emerson has already this last week said the softwood deal won't go for a vote if industry isn't on board (quite a change of tune from "industry has no veto", don't you think?)

They are backpeddlin' as fast as their little legs can move.

[gerryhatrick]

He might try to force an election. I think they prefer to face Graham as interim leader. I wonder what sort of confidence vote he might try. Some people thought it might be the lumber deal but now that industry is not supporting it, the Conservatives might not bring it to a vote.

The industry was never supporting it. The reason the CPC don't want to make that into a confidence vote is because they know now they have no chance of a majority at this time and might actually lose. Drawing even to a leaderless party is not a good sign.

And remember that the Liberals have a plan to elect a leader on short notice anyway. You miss the mark with the assumption that they would face Graham.

[jdobbin]

And remember that the Liberals have a plan to elect a leader on short notice anyway. You miss the mark with the assumption that they would face Graham.

I said the Conservative want Graham. They are unlikely to get him if there is a snap election.

[Argus]

I think it is possible that the Liberal Party will be going to the polls with an appointed leader. The leadership convention may not happen in time. When the fall sitting begins the Conservatives may attempt to set up a confidence vote and blame the fall of government on the opposition for the purpose of gaining a majority.

You have a poor grasp of politics. The current polls show heavy CPC losses in BC, Quebec, and Ontario.

You mean the current week's poll? In the summer doldrums with no news to speak of but wars? After all the previous polls had shown them higher? Don't get yourself too excited over it.

[gerryhatrick]

And remember that the Liberals have a plan to elect a leader on short notice anyway. You miss the mark with the assumption that they would face Graham.

I said the Conservative want Graham. They are unlikely to get him if there is a snap election.

You said:

"He might try to force an election. I think they prefer to face Graham as interim leader. I wonder what sort of confidence vote he might try."

This pretty clearly means that you think the Conservatives think if they can force an election they'll get what they prefer - facing Graham.

[gerryhatrick]

You mean the current week's poll? In the summer doldrums with no news to speak of but wars? After all the previous polls had shown them higher?

You mean the polls before Harper exposed his US neo-con style of foreign policy over this Mid-East crisis?

Yep, those are the "previous polls" allright.

Polls are a lagging indicator. Harper has taken a significant slide, and on the questions of the Mid-East Canadians are unhappy with him. I expect he will sink further.

There's been plenty of news, btw. In opening his mouth in such a foolish fashion Harper has created his own bad news.

[jdobbin]

You said:

"He might try to force an election. I think they prefer to face Graham as interim leader. I wonder what sort of confidence vote he might try."

This pretty clearly means that you think the Conservatives think if they can force an election they'll get what they prefer - facing Graham.

My mistake. I was thinking they might want to catch the Liberals flatfooted like they did for an early vote. The Liberals have already accelerated the process as you say to ensure that a new leader would be in place if need be.

[cybercoma]

If you don't like Harper's stand on Israel, you can at least respect that he takes a position based on his reasoning and logic, not wetting his finger and sticking it up to see which way will get him the most votes.

That's just more cheap partisan rhetoric. He's not taking a position on reasoning and logic at all, and if you don't think he does his own polling you're living in dreamland.

He might have jumped his polling based on some Rovian advice about gaining the Jewish vote. Unfortunately for him Jews don't make up the majority of Canadians.

Or he could be genuinely opposed to terrorism....but that answer would be too obvious.

[gerryhatrick]

I was thinking they might want to catch the Liberals flatfooted like they did for an early vote. The Liberals have already accelerated the process as you say to ensure that a new leader would be in place if need be.

Very true.

And if a leaderless party can draw even with this horrid CPC government then it doesn't take much imagination to see what a some leadership will do.

[gerryhatrick]

Or he could be genuinely opposed to terrorism....but that answer would be too obvious.

The old "T" card. That's all there is in the view-finder of neo-cons in Canada, USA, and Israel.

Reality is not quite that simple though. The vast majority of this nation of 4 million that's being destroyed are not terrorists.

As well, the amount of terrorism coming out of Hezbollah has been pretty scant for quite a while.

[Leader Circle]

Or he could be genuinely opposed to terrorism....but that answer would be too obvious.

The old "T" card. That's all there is in the view-finder of neo-cons in Canada, USA, and Israel.

Reality is not quite that simple though. The vast majority of this nation of 4 million that's being destroyed are not terrorists.

As well, the amount of terrorism coming out of Hezbollah has been pretty scant for quite a while.

It will be so great to see you after Harper wins his majority and you poor lefties have to crawl back into the hole you came form!

[sharkman]

I was thinking they might want to catch the Liberals flatfooted like they did for an early vote. The Liberals have already accelerated the process as you say to ensure that a new leader would be in place if need be.

Very true.

And if a leaderless party can draw even with this horrid CPC government then it doesn't take much imagination to see what a some leadership will do.

It seems you are quite encouraged about these poll results, but you need to keep focused on more than just one thing to have an accurate idea of what may come.

On voting day, people will be considering much more than just Harper's stance on Israel's war. They will consider taxes, education, economy and hospitals, to name a few. I know you don't believe it, but this 'horrid' government has been getting passing marks and stands a decent chance of a majority. They are just not scary like many of the left kept shrieking.

[Argus]

You mean the current week's poll? In the summer doldrums with no news to speak of but wars? After all the previous polls had shown them higher?

You mean the polls before Harper exposed his US neo-con style of foreign policy over this Mid-East crisis?

Wow. Sounds horrible. What does this uh, "Us neo-con style of foreign policy" consist of?

Supporting Israel? Wow! How shocking!

Polls are a lagging indicator. Harper has taken a significant slide, and on the questions of the Mid-East Canadians are unhappy with him. I expect he will sink further.

Or will rise again in another month. Canadians have no vital foreign interests at stake in the middle east conflict . As for Afghanistan - the Conservatives have not done anything there except support troops sent there by the Liberals.

[Argus]

The vast majority of this nation of 4 million that's being destroyed are not terrorists.

Lebanon is not being destroyed. Who was it posted that item from the reporter in Lebanon, talking about how, if you look at the tv shows, you'd think all of Lebanon looked like Dresden in 1945, but that, in actuality, aside from a few small areas, mainly in the south and south beirut, the country is untouched.

As well, the amount of terrorism coming out of Hezbollah has been pretty scant for quite a while.

Yeah, I love this attitude. Hey, it's only a LITTLE terrorism! Besides, they have brownish skins! We need to cut them some slack! It's not like they're white! We shouldn't hold them to our standards!

No, that's not what you said, but it's what the attitude of leftists who hate Israel is all about.

I also love the attitude, so common in the Muslim world, that the incidental deaths of civilians in Israeli attacks ar an absolute outrage, murder, gross war crimes - and then the same people cheer Hezbollah and call them heros, and donate money to them, and beam with approval every time a rocket kills some Jews. I mean, Hezbollah is actually TRYING to kill civilians, yet they are heros throughout Lebanon and the Arab world, while the dirty Jews are evil for accidentally killing civilians.

[jdobbin]

It seems you are quite encouraged about these poll results, but you need to keep focused on more than just one thing to have an accurate idea of what may come.

On voting day, people will be considering much more than just Harper's stance on Israel's war. They will consider taxes, education, economy and hospitals, to name a few. I know you don't believe it, but this 'horrid' government has been getting passing marks and stands a decent chance of a majority. They are just not scary like many of the left kept shrieking.

Yes, they will be focused on more than just the war. They'll focus on the gun law, they'll focus on gay marriage, they'll focus on equalization.

These issues will win more votes in the Alberta heartland but lose votes where he needs them the most...Quebec and the Martimes.