Another poll shows Cons slipping, Liberals gaining. Now even.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Absolutely. But you do admit he's a poor choice for optics? I'm just saying some of the latest CPC decisions really boggle the mind, they are very ugly in the media's eyes and I wonder why they'd play them so close to a big Liberal momentum event?

Depends on whose optics. Love it or hate it there are socons in this country. Mulroney pretty much ignored them which lead to the rise of the Reform. Part of the reason for this appointment could be to throw a bone to that wing of the party.

Ambrose has not been the strongest minister. Her personal choices for senior staff may have been part of the reason.

Who does this choice hurt Normie? You hate the Conservatives even more now. The only people who care about staffer choices are the very politically aware who aren't likely to change their votes.

It might make you loathe Harper more, but it doesn't really hurt the Conservatives politically...

Just to clarify I know he is chief and not d of c, but chiefs do a lot of communications stuff...

[normanchateau]

Who does this choice hurt Normie?

It doesn't hurt me though it might diminish how the Cons are viewed in some people's minds. Not yours though.

I wonder who it would take for you to conclude the "optics" would hurt the party. Charles McVety? Gurmant Grewal?

[Ricki Bobbi]

It doesn't hurt me though it might diminish how the Cons are viewed in some people's minds. Not yours though.

I wonder who it would take for you to conclude the "optics" would hurt the party. Charles McVety? Gurmant Grewal?

Certainly Grewal is a joke. His instability would hurt.

McVety, I don't think he is very well connected in the party.

Harper is continuing to build a big tent Conservative Party. Most Canadians respect freedom of religion in our consitution. Should Christian Canadians have some voice in our country? Obviously not as far as you are concerned.

I know it would be preferable to you if the Government mirrored your political views exactly and dissent was never allowed. Sorry even the Liberals had their share of socon MPs before the last election.

[normanchateau]

It doesn't hurt me though it might diminish how the Cons are viewed in some people's minds. Not yours though.

I wonder who it would take for you to conclude the "optics" would hurt the party. Charles McVety? Gurmant Grewal?

Certainly Grewal is a joke. His instability would hurt.

McVety, I don't think he is very well connected in the party.

Harper is continuing to build a big tent Conservative Party.

Seems like a shrinking so-con tent to me. For example, with 69% of Canadians favouring decriminalization of marijuana (2003 SES Research), and the majority of BQ, Liberal, NDP voters feeling that way and even half of Canadian Alliance voters feeling that way in 2003, why has Harper positioned himself in the so-con tent on this?

Yet in November 2005, when campaigning in Vancouver, Harper felt it necessary to point out that he favoured criminal records for possession of even a few grams of marijuana. Is this CPC policy or just Harper's position?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Seems like a shrinking so-con tent to me. For example, with 69% of Canadians favouring decriminalization of marijuana (2003 SES Research), and the majority of BQ, Liberal, NDP voters feeling that way and even half of Canadian Alliance voters feeling that way in 2003, why has Harper positioned himself in the so-con tent on this?

Yet in November 2005, when campaigning in Vancouver, Harper felt it necessary to point out that he favoured criminal records for possession of even a few grams of marijuana. Is this CPC policy or just Harper's position?

Don't know. It has pretty much fallen off the radar screen as of late. Normie your pet issues, just aren't that important to most Canadians.

The Liberal bill that died on the order paper before the last election went a little far. In it's original form it proposed an OUNCE, that is 28 grams as the benchmark for personal possession.

Is that still Liberal policy?

Seems like more than a 'few grams' of marijuana to me.

[normanchateau]

Seems like a shrinking so-con tent to me. For example, with 69% of Canadians favouring decriminalization of marijuana (2003 SES Research), and the majority of BQ, Liberal, NDP voters feeling that way and even half of Canadian Alliance voters feeling that way in 2003, why has Harper positioned himself in the so-con tent on this?

Yet in November 2005, when campaigning in Vancouver, Harper felt it necessary to point out that he favoured criminal records for possession of even a few grams of marijuana. Is this CPC policy or just Harper's position?

The Liberal bill that died on the order paper before the last election went a little far. In it's original form it proposed an OUNCE, that is 28 grams as the benchmark for personal possession.

Is that still Liberal policy?

Seems like more than a 'few grams' of marijuana to me.

Currently "simple possession" is defined as possession of ANY amount under 30 grams. So if you had one gram in your possession, you would receive a permanent criminal record and potential jail sentence. Harper thinks this is the way it should be even though much of the rest of Canada does not. Nor do the other major political parties. In fact, it would not at all surprise me if half the CPC supporters on this board agreed with decriminalization.

You're absolutely correct that this is not on the radar screen of most voters, myself included. But it's rather strong evidence that Harper is a so-con, not a libertarian. And Canadians tend not to vote for so-cons. Mulroney and Clark were not so-cons.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You're absolutely correct that this is not on the radar screen of most voters, myself included. But it's rather strong evidence that Harper is a so-con, not a libertarian. And Canadians tend not to vote for so-cons. Mulroney and Clark were not so-cons.

Call him a socon all you want. But if you are resorting to using decriminalization of marijuana as a socon issue than your arguments are pretty weak.

"Stephen Harper is *scary* *scary* *scary* because he won't decriminalize pot?" OK, but if that is what you have to use for a criticism of his actions you aren't going to find much electoral success.

[normanchateau]

You're absolutely correct that this is not on the radar screen of most voters, myself included. But it's rather strong evidence that Harper is a so-con, not a libertarian. And Canadians tend not to vote for so-cons. Mulroney and Clark were not so-cons.

Call him a socon all you want. But if you are resorting to using decriminalization of marijuana as a socon issue than your arguments are pretty weak.

OK, so you now acknowledge that Harper's position on this issue makes him a so-con. Good. Being to the right of even his own party pretty well guarantees electoral failure in Canada. Canadians will never give a so-con a majority government.

[gerryhatrick]

But are you actually serious that 6% of CPC supporters have left the party for global warming issues? PLEASE. People didn't vote CPC to change the environment. They knew what Harper and the merry men were going to go with Kyoto... that was never a secret.

The idea that everyone who voted CPC or polls for CPC is accepting of each and everyone of their policies is incorrect. As well, they publicaly backed away from abandoning our Kyoto committments, so not everyone knew it.

It's becoming louder and more obvious that they're not going to honor the treaty, and the last poll of Canadians on Kyoto indicated that 75% (I believe) said they want Canada to meet the targets. So what does that leave for the CPC, 25%? Again, you cannot point at a single issue and definitively say that voters will stick or run based upon that. Chuck Straal is doing it with the CWB, stating that it's his belief people who voted for them supported that move. I'm not so sure.

It is my belief that Kyoto is hurting their numbers now because it's moved much more to the limelight this year and they're taking critisism from all sides.

[Canadian Blue]

It's becoming louder and more obvious that they're not going to honor the treaty, and the last poll of Canadians on Kyoto indicated that 75% (I believe) said they want Canada to meet the targets.

I can also garauntee you that the vast majority of Canadian's are ignorant towards what Kyoto's targets are.

Currently "simple possession" is defined as possession of ANY amount under 30 grams. So if you had one gram in your possession, you would receive a permanent criminal record and potential jail sentence. Harper thinks this is the way it should be even though much of the rest of Canada does not. Nor do the other major political parties. In fact, it would not at all surprise me if half the CPC supporters on this board agreed with decriminalization.

Just because a person is against decriminilization doesn't make them a Socon. Once again I've provided you with statements that have shown Harper wouldn't force a Socon agenda on anyone. Something which you conveniently ignored. As well I'd imagine laws regarding pot would be put to a free vote, as should be the case with any matter of conscious. As well I believe the conservative's main concern with the marijuana bill was more with the amount of pot a person could carry with them. I support legalization, only when everything else is cleared up.

I want to legalize polt. But at the same time I realize, as was pointed in the drug driving laws, that police still may not be able to charge people who have are high and have been driving. We should at the very least wait until we can close any legal loopholes that could cause dangers on our streets. As well we have to consider the US, since if American's disagree with the policy it could lead to a possible negative economic consequences. Personally, people being able to make a steady income is more important then a high school kid smoking pot legally.

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-election2...servative#Issue

[normanchateau]

As well I believe the conservative's main concern with the marijuana bill was more with the amount of pot a person could carry with them.

Do you have evidence for this statement? In particular, that this was Harper's main concern?

[jbg]

Gerry, is there a piece of bad news, half- or fully baked, which you miss?

[gerryhatrick]

Gerry, is there a piece of bad news, half- or fully baked, which you miss?

First, how is this bad news? And second, stow the off-topic personal banter.

[normanchateau]

Gerry, is there a piece of bad news, half- or fully baked, which you miss?

First, how is this bad news? And second, stow the off-topic personal banter.

Yes, unequivocally good news.