Mackay Backs Merger

[Kiraly]

Gugsy...

...I will not stop saying it because it could not be more true.

The CBC is most definitely biased against more conservative elements.

Just scan some of their headlines in the last few days.

For instance, there is talk of a possible merger with the progressives and the Alliance. CBC headline:

"Unite the Right Talks a Waste of Time".

During the last election campaign, the CBC aired a half hour program dedicated to ridiculing Stockwell Day and his beliefs. The guest on this show concluded that someone who believed in such things would not be a wise choice to run the country.

I don't remember seeing the leaders of the other parties having their belief systems analyzed on national television.

Another example of shoddy Canadian reporting occurred yesterday. A gay couple was denied entry into the U.S. for refusing to fill out the proper paperwork as required by U.S. Customs.

CBC Headline: Canadian gay couple barred from U.S.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/18/gay_customs030918

These are just a few of the many examples of left wing bias in our media.

I am quite surprised that you would actually deny that it exists. Even among my liberal friends, they acknowledge at the very least that much of the media and the CBC in particular is sympathetic to the liberal ideology.

[westcoast99]

A Canadian gay couple WERE barred from the US. How is this biased?

And also, that headline about Uniting the Right was a quote from David Orchard. I fail to see how it's biased.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Kiraly]

You are not pickin' up what I'm puttin' down, are you?

The bias is in the what and the how of what they are reporting

Of all the things to report regarding the merger, the CBC opts to quote David Orchard.

The first thing the reader hears about a potential merger is that it doomed to fail. This is a bias in what they are reporting. Not much of what is said deals with the potential merger. I haven't found any other articles about the subject. Although, I did see three of their political analyists on television also say that this could not possibly succeed.

Secondly, the gay couple was not permitted to enter the U.S. without completing the forms required by U.S. Customs. They were asked to fill out the forms...

....they refused. They were not barred, they chose not to comply with the laws of the country.

Again the reader reads the headline, and thinks that the U.S. didn't permit them into the country because they were a gay couple. This is misleading.

Still don't see a problem?

Are you kidding about Mulroney? I don't remember ever hearing of a right-wing bias when Mulroney was in power.

I do remember the daily reporting of the Airbus scandal.

I remember the relentless accusations of kickbacks, misappropriation of parliamentary budgets, government contracts and other favours to corporate supporters of the party, and a large number of patronage appointments.

Much of this of course was very true, which is why I turned my attention to the then flegling Reform party.

The media were so effective that the progressive went from government to two seats.

However, what I've written above can also be attributed to the current federal liberal government.

Their is no outcry. The left wing media spends more time criticising the official opposition or the American government then they do Chretien or Martin. If the media had used the same venomous zeal in attacking the liberals I doubt Cretien would have been prime minister for over ten years.

..but then they would be attacking their own.

[dnsfurlan]

There is nothing that can go wrong with this merger. If the two-parties merge, they will get the votes. And that will lead to a Conservative government, or at the very least, a Liberal minority.

I would have to disagree with this assertion. Because of the very small amount of time involved in putting in place a credible political entity to challenge an already established juggernaut, there is plenty that can go wrong. Its one reason why I think we would just be better off endorsing Harper as leader, changing the name of the Alliance to the Conservative party, and have everyone rally around this new conservative party. I know it wouldn't make a lot of PCs happy, but if Mulroney and the boys would endorse such a party it would save us all a lot of hassle. Disgruntled PCers wouldn't have much power left anyway. As absurd as this idea is, logistically it could work out much better. Actually, now that I think of it, maybe thats whats happening anyway with these talks.

QUOTE (dnsfurlan @ Sep 19 2003, 08:38 AM)

How in the world did you become a candidate for office? Is PEI that small a region of this country? 18 year olds who can't carry themselves in a debate. Can't PEI do better? 

You're not serious are you?

What do you mean?

CBC is not left-wing biased. Stop saying that, I am sick and tired of hearing it. They and CTV are the 2 reliable news providers in this country.

Gugsy, how in the world can you actually believe something like this? I don't want to go into all the details, but how can you watch either the CBC or CTV and not see how liberal they are in their coverage? They are CLASSICALY liberal in the way they deliver news coverage. I bet you there is not a principled conservative amongst the whole bunch of them. I am flabbergasted at your observation. Speechless. Dumbfounded. I still can't believe it...

[dnsfurlan]

Bernard Lord supports Tory/Alliance talks

This is an interesting development. It wasn't all that long ago that Lord was making the Alliance sound as though it were the next coming of the party with the swaztikas.

This is yet another development which raises questions about what is really going on here.

It seems the political momentum for this is VERY STRONG! Something is up. In fact, I'm not sure which way is up or down anymore.

[Kiraly]

You're not serious are you?

What do you mean?

I was questioning whether this person seriously ran for office.

With arguments like those presented today, I'd think that he/she would not last long in a political debate with other candidates.

[Kiraly]

Bernard Lord supports Tory/Alliance talks

This is an interesting development. It wasn't all that long ago that Lord was making the Alliance sound as though it were the next coming of the party with the swaztikas.

This is yet another development which raises questions about what is really going on here.

It seems the political momentum for this is VERY STRONG! Something is up. In fact, I'm not sure which way is up or down anymore.

Hmmmm.....

...I wonder...

...will the progressives admit they were full of crap for demonizing the Alliance?

Seems like a remarkable about-face.

[dnsfurlan]

I was questioning whether this person seriously ran for office.

You bet.

I don't want to make this personal. But the electoral ambitions of the person in question have already been established. I only brought it up because I couldn't believe just how weak and even insulting the arguments were coming from someone seeking a position of political respect in their community.

[westcoast99]

New poll released shows the PC's at 19% and the Alliance at 13% and Liberals at 46%.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Cameron]

It's a very edgy time. All we can do is hope that the two parties can come up with an alternative to the Liberals. Other wise we are in for another long-haul of lies and deceit. Not good. I don't know if this country can take another four years of Liberal rule.

I know I can't.

Good to see the PC's at 19 isn't it Gugsy

[Alliance Fanatic]

Which poll pegged the Alliance at 13%, and the Tories at 19%. The only three polls which are really worth looking at are ipsos-reid, compass, and environics. EKOS is simply a CBC sponsored leftist poll which is always out of step with the public. SES is more supportive of PC's.

It does not matter what the polls say as of now, what matters is what happens during an election. I dont think Mackay will do well he keeps on flip flopping. I know the CBC will do everything to demonize the Alliance, they did a pretty negative special on Stephen Harper. Its hard to say what could happen.

I'd say if their was no united right it would probably look like this.

PC's-20% -no real gains

CA- 20% -no eastern breakthrough

LIB's-45%

BQ-5%

NDP-5%

Most people will realize Jack Layton is a major league A-hole.

With a United Right an election could look like this

CO-45%

LIB-35%

BQ-5%

NDP-5%

GR-10%

[Cameron]

CO-45%

LIB-35%

BQ-5%

NDP-5%

GR-10%

What the hell is GR?

[Mr. Chater]

There is nothing that can go wrong with this merger. If the two-parties merge, they will get the votes. And that will lead to a Conservative government, or at the very least, a Liberal minority.

I would have to disagree with this assertion. Because of the very small amount of time involved in putting in place a credible political entity to challenge an already established juggernaut, there is plenty that can go wrong. Its one reason why I think we would just be better off endorsing Harper as leader, changing the name of the Alliance to the Conservative party, and have everyone rally around this new conservative party. I know it wouldn't make a lot of PCs happy, but if Mulroney and the boys would endorse such a party it would save us all a lot of hassle. Disgruntled PCers wouldn't have much power left anyway. As absurd as this idea is, logistically it could work out much better. Actually, now that I think of it, maybe thats whats happening anyway with these talks.

QUOTE (dnsfurlan @ Sep 19 2003, 08:38 AM)

How in the world did you become a candidate for office? Is PEI that small a region of this country? 18 year olds who can't carry themselves in a debate. Can't PEI do better? 

You're not serious are you?

What do you mean?

CBC is not left-wing biased. Stop saying that, I am sick and tired of hearing it. They and CTV are the 2 reliable news providers in this country.

Gugsy, how in the world can you actually believe something like this? I don't want to go into all the details, but how can you watch either the CBC or CTV and not see how liberal they are in their coverage? They are CLASSICALY liberal in the way they deliver news coverage. I bet you there is not a principled conservative amongst the whole bunch of them. I am flabbergasted at your observation. Speechless. Dumbfounded. I still can't believe it...

hmmm, i don't know....I don't know if Harper should Leader "The Conservative Party". He lost many or the Maritimes votes, etc. Because of his stupidity. Coming down to PEI and Nova Scotia saying to their faces that "You are always on welfare, you should work harder, you don't work hard enough." Which i think is not a good thing to say. Stephen Harper has made many mistakes, and making him leader of TCP (The conservative party) COULD be yet another mistake. I'm not saying Mackay should be Leading the party, but i'm just saying i don't know about Harper.

[westcoast99]

Good to see the PC's at 19 isn't it Gugsy

It's encouraging for a pre-election poll, but I would much rather see a United Conservative party.

19% is not going to remove the Liberals from power.

[theWatcher]

The reason why the Liberals would fear a united conservative party is that it makes it extremely easy to boot them out of office.

There was a 61% turnout in the last election. An awefull lot of people just stayed at home because they felt that the Liberals would win no matter what.

Then the people that actually bothered to go out and vote end up splitting their votes between two parties and the Liberals come up the middle and win.

It's a lot easier to sweep the trash out when you have a single united alternative.

[Alliance Fanatic]

GR is green party.

Secondly the only people who will decide whether to merger or not is the PC's, Alliance members have already made up thier minds and want a merger. PC's still have to make a decision, I hope the PC members apply some pressure in order to get a merger going.

[dnsfurlan]

I don't know if Harper should Leader "The Conservative Party". He lost many or the Maritimes votes, etc. Because of his stupidity. Coming down to PEI and Nova Scotia saying to their faces that "You are always on welfare, you should work harder, you don't work hard enough." Which i think is not a good thing to say. Stephen Harper has made many mistakes, and making him leader of TCP (The conservative party) COULD be yet another mistake

I don't think Harper ever said those things. What he did say, and then immediately back away from, was that Atlantic Canada has developed an attitude of dependency on other parts of Canada. Whatever you think of those comments, wouldn't everyone agree that that region of Canada would be better off if it did could emerge from being one of the have-not regions of the country? The current status-quo can't be seen as satisfactory, can it? People in the region surely must want that. Other Canadians want to see that too. Harper perhaps could have been more diplomatic about it. But the response to it wasn't very dimplomatic either.

As for the issue of who should be leader of any new conservative party, the only reason I might be inclined to endorse Harper is because I don't think anyone else is nearly as ready for the job. And, I don't think he carries the kind of religious conservative image that Manning and Day both seemed to have. At least in the media, he is seen as a "non-scary" guy. He speaks fluent french. He has an excellent grasp of all the national issues. He has been preparing for the next election for the past two years. In other words, I don't think anyone else is as qualified for the job as he is at this particular point in time.

I don't think Mike Harris is well-suited for the job. His act became tired in Ontario. Its one of the reasons he left Office. Would he have traction in other parts of the country? He doesn't speak french. And I'm not sure how ready he is to be a national leader. Does he know all of the issues? Does he have a vision for Canada beyond the taking of conservative positions on all the issues?

The only other obvious candidate is Bernard Lord. But I have my doubts about him too. Sure, he would certainly come acrosss as a moderate. But is that enough? The fact that he let that young punk liberal demagogue the issue of insurance rates in the last provincial elections was not a terrific display of political acumen on Lord's part.

Are there other obvious contenders for the job? I'm not so sure. Of course, with a new party representing a big-tent conservative movment once again, who knows who could come out of the woodwork.

One note: the success rate of party leaders who have put their own leadership on the line has been zero. Joe Clark, Preston Manning, and Stockwell Day all lost their bids to re-affirm their place as leader of their movements. So, I wonder what that says about Stephen Harper's chances at the new job. Which raises the question of why he suggested the merger in the first place.

I think there are many questions that remain unanswered. Sometimes, things aren't always what they appear to be.

[dnsfurlan]

I just wanted to comment on one more item:

Good to see the PC's at 19 isn't it Gugsy

Think about that for a moment.

Even if you accept those numbers, PC-19%, CA-13%, which I don't, the key to any election is making those numbers move up when it matters most. And the question you have to ask yourselves is what party will be in a better position to make those numbers move when it counts.

We all know that a successful election campaign takes an awful lot of effort and strategy long before the writ is dropped. This has to be taken into consideration when looking at any of the current numbers.

As Rick Anderson has pointed out, the history of almost every election involves some kind of movement not predicted by the polls. This has been shown time and time again.

And what parties can capitalize on such dynamic electoral factors?

I think that is something to be asked when looking at that 19% figure. And wouldn't that figure look much more promising if, for example, you had Bernard Lord or Mike Harris as your leader with two years of experience already at the healm of the party?

The challenge for Mackay, by most analyses, is the monumental task of getting himself and the party in shape in time for the next election. Surprisingly, I have even heard some media 'pundits' predict only two or three seets for the Tories in the next election. I think thats a bit silly. But their analyses is probably based on the political realities facing the PCs in a spring election.

Of course, there are challenges for all the parties - even the Liberals, lets not forget. But 19% doesn't mean much unless its backed up with some hard political capital. Does Mackay have it?