Karlheinz Schreiber

[normanchateau]

Karlheinz Schreiber is known for more than just his gift of $300,000 directly to Brian Mulroney. In 2004 He was ordered extradited to Germany for tax evasion, bribery and fraud. But he appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court was expected to rule Nov. 16th but instead requested additional information from his lawyers:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...c24&k=77532

It seems as though either lying Peter MacKay or his father, or both, are for some bizarre reason keen to help out multimillionaire Karlheinz. I suppose he needs the help given his contributions to previous Conservatives.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...orce_login=true

[scribblet]

What's your point?

[cybercoma]

What's your point?

Guilty until proven innocent.

[scribblet]

What's your point?

Guilty until proven innocent.

I don't see what it has to do with Peter Mackay, or the fact that his constituents are able to use his office fax machine.

[cybercoma]

I don't see what it has to do with Peter Mackay, or the fact that his constituents are able to use his office fax machine.

Peter MacKay is a dog and should apologize to Canada for whoring out his fax machine.

[watching&waiting]

This is what makes your day a worthy thing? Do you really think that this issue will grow legs and run, or are you just throwing it out as something to smear people with, that has nothing based in fact. Surely we can find some better things to debate then this.

[normanchateau]

Do you really think that this issue will grow legs and run,

It depends in part on whether Canadians see Karlheinz linked ONLY with the former Conservatives and not the current Conservatives. The current Conservatives prefer that Canadians view any reference to former Conservatives as old news and therefore not a fair subject for discussion.

Will this issue do Peter MacKay more damage than his comments about Belinda? No.

Is this worse than him publicly telling Alexa McDonough to get back to her knitting? No.

Is this worse than his deal with, then subsequent betrayal of David Orchard? No.

Will Peter MacKay be able to step in as the new leader when Harper loses the next election? That's for the Conservatives to decide. Perhaps they view MacKay as the epitome of Conservative values.

[Drea]

Perhaps they view MacKay as the epitome of Conservative values.

Whining little man who is searching, searching so hard for a woman to take care of him - maybe he should stop looking at career women (like Belinda) and go for the waitress at the corner cafe. She'd probably be more than happy to take care of him in a wifely role.

[Canadian Blue]

I doubt Mackay would run for the federal leadership. I have a feeling it might be Benard Lord...

But Benard Lord is a SoCon considering New Brunswicks position on abortion.

[normanchateau]

I doubt Mackay would run for the federal leadership.

Because he couldn't win or because he's not interested in the job?

[August1991]

Here's a little fact I didn't know about who vouched for Schreiber:

RCMP arrested him in Toronto on Sept. 2, 1999, at the request of German authorities. He was released on bail several days later after former Tory cabinet minister Elmer MacKay and former Liberal cabinet minister Marc Lalonde each offered $100,000 sureties.

CBC

I think Schreiber is an example of German (European) politics and he translates badly into the Canadian political scene. If I'm right, Schreiber certainly walked on both sides of the street.

Incidentally, there's a long thread here about Mulroney and Schreiber.

[normanchateau]

What's your point?

Here it is:

http://devin-maxwell.blogspot.com/2006/11/...s-big-deal.html

[Canadian Blue]

Thanks for the blog.......

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Nov 17 2006, 10:27 AM)

I doubt Mackay would run for the federal leadership.

Because he couldn't win or because he's not interested in the job?

I'd say non-interest, and who knows how this remark about Stronach could hurt him.

I think maybe Jim Prentice, Jim Flahrety [not sure if I spelt the name right], Tony Clement, maybe Danny Williams, and Rona Ambrose, would run. I like Prentice, he's a social moderate, and I think he could do alot of good for the country.

But that is still quite a ways away, and I don't imagine the conservatives will be dumping Harper anytime soon as he has proven to be extremely effective during elections.

[normanchateau]

Thanks for the blog.......

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Nov 17 2006, 10:27 AM)

I doubt Mackay would run for the federal leadership.

Because he couldn't win or because he's not interested in the job?

I'd say non-interest, and who knows how this remark about Stronach could hurt him.

I think maybe Jim Prentice, Jim Flahrety [not sure if I spelt the name right], Tony Clement, maybe Danny Williams, and Rona Ambrose, would run. I like Prentice, he's a social moderate, and I think he could do alot of good for the country.

Somehow I know this will come back to haunt me but...I also think Jim Prentice would be a good choice.

[Canadian Blue]

Jim Prentice would be good for a number of reasons. First off, he is from Alberta and IF the tories lose the election once again Alberta will be pissed off, and rightfully so. Second he is a social moderate, and also a fiscal conservative. Despite your disagreement with social conservatism, any conservative leader needs to be able to get their support in order to win government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Prentice

He ran in the 2003 Progressive Conservative leadership election to support the "United Alternative" proposal to merge the PC party with the Canadian Alliance. He was seen by many as an alternative to the "status quo" candidate and front runner Peter MacKay. A basic platform of Prentice's campaign was that "no one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family." Prentice entered the 2003 convention day with some momentum after delivering a passionate speech to the assembled delegates that encouraged Tories to be proud of their accomplishments despite recent setbacks and that recalled the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers who fought bravely in the battle of Passchendale. He also unexpectedly received the support of a fellow leadership challenger who withdrew early. Prentice ultimately emerged in second-place on the fourth ballot to the eventual winner MacKay. Many political pundits noted that while Prentice was ultimately defeated in the final ballot, he had the surprising ability to draw support from both the social conservative and Red Tory candidates who contested the race, after they were officially knocked off in the first and second ballots respectively. Consistent with his cooperative positions during the leadership race, Prentice was an ardent supporter of the merger endorsed by both the CA and PC parties in December 2003 that formed the new Conservative Party of Canada.

Prentice was the first declared candidate for the leadership of the new Conservative Party, announcing his run on December 7, 2003, the day after the new party was ratified by members of the PC Party. Prentice began his campaign in Calgary and toured parts of Ontario, specifically visiting Kingston, Ontario, the hometown of the first Canadian Conservative Leader Sir John A. Macdonald and also the city where one of his daughters attends Queen's University. However, he withdrew from the race on January 12, 2004, citing difficulty in raising new funds less than a year after his unsuccessful first leadership bid.

I think I would have actually supported Prentice if he decided to stay in the running for the leadership of the Conservative party. But Harper's allright, he's impressed me more then our previous leaders for the past 25 years.

[normanchateau]

Despite your disagreement with social conservatism, any conservative leader needs to be able to get their support in order to win government.

Where else would the so-cons park their vote? Surely not the Liberals, NDP, BQ or Greens. And they're smart enough not to waste their vote on the Christian Heritage Party. I believe a Conservative leader is more likely to get elected if he's not a social conservative. Then he can pull in votes that otherwise might go Liberal. That's the key to winning a Conservative majority. However much you like Harper, his so-con aura will forever prevent him from winning a majority. In your heart of hearts, you must know that.

[Canadian Blue]

Where else would the so-cons park their vote? Surely not the Liberals, NDP, BQ or Greens. And they're smart enough not to waste their vote on the Christian Heritage Party. I believe a Conservative leader is more likely to get elected if he's not a social conservative. Then he can pull in votes that otherwise might go Liberal. That's the key to winning a Conservative majority. However much you like Harper, his so-con aura will forever prevent him from winning a majority. In your heart of hearts, you must know that.

To answer that question, another party. If the conservatives were to not consider a middle ground on social issues to appeal to social conservatives and social progressives the Conservatives will go nowhere. Look at the past 50 years in Canadian politics. The majority has been Liberal rule, the reason why was the Conservative's weren't even really united back then as Social Credit was able to siphon away enough votes from the Conservatives. As well if your idea of a social conservative is someone opposed to gay marriage, and is against marijuana, then that could be around 30% of Canadian's atleast.

Once again, the Social Conservative vote would go for a different party all together. The reason why the PC's were virtually destroyed was because they came off as Liberal lite.

Even on social issues, Canadian's are divided, why should social conservatives not be heard if they can make valid arguments.

Personally I support SSM, and even legalizing marijuana when it is possible to do so, however I also recognize that in order for democracy to be fully functioning the views of social conservatives, as well as social progressives have to be heard.

[normanchateau]

To answer that question, another party. If the conservatives were to not consider a middle ground on social issues to appeal to social conservatives and social progressives the Conservatives will go nowhere. Look at the past 50 years in Canadian politics. The majority has been Liberal rule, the reason why was the Conservative's weren't even really united back then as Social Credit was able to siphon away enough votes from the Conservatives. As well if your idea of a social conservative is someone opposed to gay marriage, and is against marijuana, then that could be around 30% of Canadian's atleast.

Once again, the Social Conservative vote would go for a different party all together. The reason why the PC's were virtually destroyed was because they came off as Liberal lite.

Even on social issues, Canadian's are divided, why should social conservatives not be heard if they can make valid arguments.

Personally I support SSM, and even legalizing marijuana when it is possible to do so, however I also recognize that in order for democracy to be fully functioning the views of social conservatives, as well as social progressives have to be heard.

OK, there is validity to your argument. But to what degree should a party support the wishes of their most extreme supporters? I'm referring here to the most extreme social conservatives, not all social conservatives.

Let's take marijuana decriminalization for example. In 2003, support for decriminalization was polled according to party preference. A majority of those supporting the Liberals, NDP and BQ supported decriminalization. Even among Canadian Alliance voters, 50% supported decriminalization. Stockwell Day even supported it.

It would seem to me that on this issue (and I'm using it only as an example to make my point), Stephen Harper would not lose the social conservative vote if he favoured decriminalization. And the Conservatives might even win some votes from those who view them as less social conservative. I would think that only an extreme social conservative would abandon the Conservatives if they favoured decriminalization. Note that I'm not even referring to legalization, which the Greens are quietly promoting, but merely decriminalization.

[Canadian Blue]

Marijuana decriminalization isn't an example of "extreme social conservatism".

It would seem to me that on this issue (and I'm using it only as an example to make my point), Stephen Harper would not lose the social conservative vote if he favoured decriminalization. And the Conservatives might even win some votes from those who view them as less social conservative. I would think that only an extreme social conservative would abandon the Conservatives if they favoured decriminalization. Note that I'm not even referring to legalization, which the Greens are quietly promoting, but merely decriminalization.

I don't believe the policy was based on appeasing the social conservatives. The social conservatives were more appeased by the fact that same sex marriage would be put to a vote again, which it will be and probably be defeated. Same with abortion, the only reason socon's support the conservatives over the Liberal's is because conservatives will allow a free vote on abortion. Harper has yet to support a pro-life position, and I doubt he will in the future.

I'm not even 100% sure why the Conservatives got rid of decriminalization of marijuana. I doubt it would be to remain in power since you pointed out they would lose votes on that issue. I think it may have had more to do with pressure from the US as that has to be considered whether we like it or not since our economy is linked to the US.

I support legalization, but not if its going to hurt the economy. I'm fairly liberal on social issues, but I can see the concerns socon's have regarding issues ranging from same sex marriage, hate speech, abortion, euthanaisa, and marijuana.

On issues regarding prayer in school and abstinence programs, I would consider those as positions of extreme social conservatives.

The most extreme social conservatives are probably Tim Lahaye, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and to some extent James Dobson. I rarely support them because they view the bible as black and white and rarely acknowledge that their can be debate on social issues.

However Harper isn't anywhere close to Day's social conservatism. Day wanted to get a few books out of education system for references to sex and obscene language. If you look at Harper's previous record he doesn't have the typical "socon" values. As well he hasn't made any "extreme religious" comments yet.

[scribblet]

I don't see what it has to do with Peter Mackay, or the fact that his constituents are able to use his office fax machine.

Peter MacKay is a dog and should apologize to Canada for whoring out his fax machine.

Whoops okay, now I get it

Fortunately Harper is NOT a so-con he has always been a fiscal conservative.

Martin scraped by with the minority by managing to convince Canadians that the conservatives are scary social conservatives, it barely worked last time, this time we know it won't work. the 'scary so-con agenda' doesn't cut it anymore.

Wiikki says that (quick someone go edit it now) Prime Minister Stephen Harper is known as an avid fiscal conservative - and William Johnson, author of Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, said "While the Reform Party had a strong social conservative streak Harper personally is not a social conservative."

Stockwell Day is a strong social conservative, and a nitwit, someone I could never support as a leader, although he has done well in his current position.

[normanchateau]

Stockwell Day is a strong social conservative, and a nitwit, someone I could never support as a leader, although he has done well in his current position.

Current position as nitwit? Or current position as Minister of Public Safety?

[jbg]

But that is still quite a ways away, and I don't imagine the conservatives will be dumping Harper anytime soon as he has proven to be extremely effective during elections.

King led, I think, from 1921 trhough 1949 or thereabouts, all but 4 years of them as PM. Harper's pretty young, remember.

[Saturn]

Here's a little fact I didn't know about who vouched for Schreiber:

RCMP arrested him in Toronto on Sept. 2, 1999, at the request of German authorities. He was released on bail several days later after former Tory cabinet minister Elmer MacKay and former Liberal cabinet minister Marc Lalonde each offered $100,000 sureties.

CBC

I think Schreiber is an example of German (European) politics and he translates badly into the Canadian political scene. If I'm right, Schreiber certainly walked on both sides of the street.

Incidentally, there's a long thread here about Mulroney and Schreiber.

Appears that with the foreign minister's help he will be around for quite some time...