Breaking News! Lord Set To Run

[Lost in Manitoba]

People have thrown around Day's name a bit here. Wondering if there was any comments from him about a potential leadership bid? Also, would Day pose more of a threat to Lord or to Harper? Any opinion on that?

[dnsfurlan]

Having said that, Harper does not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the leadership should Lord decide to run.

Everything will be stacked against Harper. The entire establishment will be patently biased towards Lord, he will have the endorsements of Mulroney, Charést, MacKay, Klein, Harris, and a host of other big names.

We will also see Mario Dumont and the ADQ come onside and endorse the CP as a national government.

I'm certain that should Lord run (in which case he WILL win) we will see defections from the BQ, Bachand and Herron will return to the party, and we will have a strong fighting force for the next election in which we will win MANY seats in Québec, at least 40 seats in Ontario, and believe me, we will form a majority government.

Please run Mr. Lord.

I guess this is what's known as dreaming in technicolour.

Let's first have a race before we start going ga-ga over some of the potential candidates.

[Neal.F.]

I've learned a long time ago not to jump abaord anyone's campaign bandwagon until you've had a chance to evaluate all the potential candidates strengths and weaknesses.

There's nothing worsee than signing up with one, and then the one you really want joins later.

[westcoast99]

The process is stacked against a regional candidate

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Neal.F.]

Gugsy, Cool the rhetoric, please. Posts like THAT are exactly what Kinsella and the Liberals want to see more of. IT's no longer "us against them" It's one party now, remember?

Seriously, Stephen Harper may have been a regional candidate in 1993, as was Preston Manning, but both men have matured and developed a national vision.

Don't play into the Liberals hands with their line that the CA is a regional party. At its dissolution, it was no longer so. Hasn't been since the l;ate '90's. No more so than the PCs were regional since the bulk of their caucus came from Atlantic Canada.

If Bernard lord can withstand the logic and intellect of Stepehen Harper, then let him win. If he cannot, then he doesn't deserve it. and vice versa.

It may even be that another candidate will outshine both of them, and the party will be all the richer.

The most important thing, is that at the end of the day, no matter who wins, everyone gets behind him or her.

And the wounds will be much easier to heal, if we talked ideas and policies, rather than ressurrecting Liberal spin and justifying it in the public eye with PC vs CA infighting.

Neither party exists anymore.

[Kiraly]

With respect to vote splitting, it is my undertsanding that the leadership will be decided by preferential ballot.

Vote splitting will not as big an issue as it would using other methods.

[Michael Hardner]

Harper's western separatist associations will be played up by the Liberals next election. By electing Lord, the CPC will nip all of that in the bud and open up Quebec.

We all hear how Harper is intelligent, etc. I'm sure all of the eight opposing party leaders that faced Chretien were too.

Is he electable is the question. Lord has won a few election as a party leader, I believe.

[dnsfurlan]

Is he electable is the question. Lord has won a few election as a party leader, I believe.

In Nova Scotia!

I think Harper is smart enough to fend of criticisms such as the ones outlined. He didn't get merger passed by being a limited ideologue. And he's not Preston Manning. He's already fended off the firewall criticisms. You might have noticed that everyone, indluding the Libs, have failed to use it against him.

As for Lord, why would the new party want to elect Paul Martin Light as their new leader?

Seriously, on Bourque it was reported that the Liberals are really afraid of Lord. Yeah, I bet.

In Lord, they'll have a guy who wants to be Paul Martin but quite isn't, who has no federal experience, who has no organization of his own to speak of, and who IS a regional politician - HELLO, he is premier of a province.

The other day Harper said that people continue to underestimate him . I also think that one big reason many have stayed out of the race is because they saw Harper as too stron a candidate.

So, the media types and the moderate-mongers will tear down any wall to have their Super-Hero Lord come in and swoon his way to the leadership of the new party.

I think Harper will have a few things to say about that. Just my opinion.

[sir_springer]

Harper's western separatist associations will be played up by the Liberals next election. By electing Lord, the CPC will nip all of that in the bud and open up Quebec.

We all hear how Harper is intelligent, etc. I'm sure all of the eight opposing party leaders that faced Chretien were too.

Is he electable is the question. Lord has won a few election as a party leader, I believe.

Separatist associations???

Where the hell did that come from???

I've probably read about as much on Harper, or by Harper, as anyone...and I have yet to read one single word of any kind connecting him to separatism.

Suggesting Alberta adopt the same sort of control over its own affairs as has Quebec enjoyed since forever does NOT equate to endorsing separation.

As for Bernard Lord?

He's got stars in his eyes and sh*t for brains if he thinks he's going to walk into this thing and carry home all the marbles in a cake walk.

Harper represents the new and true face of conservatism, and Lord represents "back to the future".

Is it not plainly clear that the "good ol' boys" club of the Ontario PCs is making a play for control of the new party? And that they see Lord as their last chance for a ticket to ride?

Look at the slate of players involved in this shameless attempt to buy him off: Klein, Harris, Cherest, Mulroney, Hyder. I've listened to all sorts of tripe regarding Bay Street influence and money supposedly behind Harper in bringing about this merger.

Let me clear up that crap for everyone.

There is a power vacuum at the head of this new party.

There are two factions vying for control of it:

1)The "good ol' boys" of the Ontario PCs and their affiliated allies.

2)The CA.

The former represents big business and the status quo of Canadian politics and paternalism.

The latter represents conservative grassroots populism.

As far as I'm concerned, Lord wins this thing...

The "good ol' boys" get the mine.

And we, the grassroots, get the proverbial shaft.

The spirit of the Reform, Manning, and the CA lives on in Harper.

Powerful forces are lining up against him to take back what they think is rightfully theirs.

Wake up people!

This is for keeps, and there's no tomorrow.

[Michael Hardner]

Separatist associations???

Where the hell did that come from???

The firewall comment etc.

I've probably read about as much on Harper, or by Harper, as anyone...and I have yet to read one single word of any kind connecting him to separatism.

Suggesting Alberta adopt the same sort of control over its own affairs as has Quebec enjoyed since forever does NOT equate to endorsing separation.

That's not how it'll play in the east.

As for Bernard Lord?

He's got stars in his eyes and sh*t for brains if he thinks he's going to walk into this thing and carry home all the marbles in a cake walk.

Harper represents the new and true face of conservatism, and Lord represents "back to the future".

Is it not plainly clear that the "good ol' boys" club of the Ontario PCs is making a play for control of the new party? And that they see Lord as their last chance for a ticket to ride?

Why is it that all of this "it's one party now" talks as soon as we start talking about a leader from the east ?

I'll tell you why: because this is the reform party with a few extra gaskets under the hood.

I asked the question on another board - "What Alliance policies would you be willing to compromise in the CPC ?" Over all the posts in that thread, maybe one or two posters offered SOME conditional compromises. Instead, we had the Alliance stalwarts repeating how they will not compromise this or that. etc. etc.

Even if you don't fall into this very gaping hole, the Liberals will be able to point to the CPC and label it as a regional party. If the CPC points to the Liberals as a party of the east, it will only help the Liberals in the east.

It's not fair. It's politics.

Look at the slate of players involved in this shameless attempt to buy him off: Klein, Harris, Cherest, Mulroney, Hyder. I've listened to all sorts of tripe regarding Bay Street influence and money supposedly behind Harper in bringing about this merger.

Let me clear up that crap for everyone.

There is a power vacuum at the head of this new party.

There are two factions vying for control of it:

1)The "good ol' boys" of the Ontario PCs and their affiliated allies.

2)The CA.

The former represents big business and the status quo of Canadian politics and paternalism.

The latter represents conservative grassroots populism.

As far as I'm concerned, Lord wins this thing...

The "good ol' boys" get the mine.

And we, the grassroots, get the proverbial shaft.

The spirit of the Reform, Manning, and the CA lives on in Harper.

Powerful forces are lining up against him to take back what they think is rightfully theirs.

Wake up people!

This is for keeps, and there's no tomorrow.

Klein was a big Alliance hero until he spoke up on Harper's unelectability.

[sir_springer]

Klein has not ever been a big hero of the Reform/CA any more than has Harris...which is pretty much SFA.

Compromise???

Reformers have compromised so much since the earliest days of the United Alternative that, if there were medals for "Best Collective Effort to Kiss One's Own Arse", we'd take them all home in a sweep.

The "firewall" comment don't mean squat. And no one is making a big deal out of it to Harper's face because they're not stupid enough to go there with him. He'd eat them alive.

Yes, we are all too aware of how pure unadulterated crapola regarding the west is presented as the gospel out east, and how they suck it up like pigs at slop fest.

That's their problem, not mine.

Is this the "Reform Party with a few extra gaskets under the hood"?

Hmmm....

Let's see now.

For ten years, the federal PCs have gone from 2 MPs to 20 MPs back down to 12 MPs.

Their membership, during the last leadership race, rocketed from something under 10,000 all the way up to 45,000. WOW!!!

They're aoubt $5 million in the ditch, with no sign of daylight anywhere to be found.

During that same ten year period...

The Reform/CA went from 52 MPs to 63 MPs.

Their membership hit highs close to 300,000 during the Manning/Day race, and 126,000 during the Harper/Day race. It was pushing 90,000 when this all came down.

The CA, in 2002, took in almost three times as much coin as the PCs, from about ten times as many individual contributors...about 95,000 in total.

Now, you tell me...

Do you think CA members have a right to feel like they've got some damn serious investment and say in this new party??? When compared to what damn little was left of the PCs???

And do you think that now, after all of this, we should sit back and allow the "good ol' boys" stage a reverse takeover of the CA and stuff everything we've accomplished up our own asses???

Excuse me for being blunt...

But I didn't just fall of a turnip wagon this morning.

I can see what's going on here.

It's exactly what I figured we'd see, too.

Klein, Harris, et al...

Where were they over the last 5 years???

Nowhere is where, lickin' their bags, and ignoring the whole damn works because they couldn't be bothered. Dissing Manning, snubbing Day, and...of all the unmitigated gall after all he has accomplished to the very end these arseholes were demanding before they'd lower themselves to even talk about involvement...trying to undermine Harper.

Well screw them, and everyone that looks like them.

They want a fight, then we'll give 'em one.

Bring it on, I say!

[Galahad]

I think Harper is smart enough to fend of criticisms. He's already fended off the firewall criticisms. You might have noticed that everyone, indluding the Libs, have failed to use it against him.

I haven't noticed the Liberals criticizing him for his firewall fiasco.

Why should they be wasting that marvelous bomb at a time when there's hardly anything to gain?

Come election time & just in the right time, they'll throw that daisy-cutter right in Mr. Harper's lap, just you wait and see.

But that's only if he wins the leadership, which he won't.

[Michael Hardner]

Klein has not ever been a big hero of the Reform/CA any more than has Harris...which is pretty much SFA.

Hmmm.

Didn't he introduce Stock Day at the 2000 convention, supposedly tilting the support in Stock's favour ?

Compromise???

Reformers have compromised so much since the earliest days of the United Alternative that, if there were medals for "Best Collective Effort to Kiss One's Own Arse", we'd take them all home in a sweep.

Examples, please.

The "firewall" comment don't mean squat. And no one is making a big deal out of it to Harper's face because they're not stupid enough to go there with him. He'd eat them alive.

The attack ads won't be made to Harper's face. They'll play in living rooms in Oshawa. That's a town beside Toronto, by the way.

Yes, we are all too aware of how pure unadulterated crapola regarding the west is presented as the gospel out east, and how they suck it up like pigs at slop fest.

That's their problem, not mine.

I'm beginning to admire this anti-political attitude, actually. It's too bad I don't agree with the ideas behind it.

For ten years, the federal PCs have gone from 2 MPs to 20 MPs back down to 12 MPs.

Their membership, during the last leadership race, rocketed from something under 10,000 all the way up to 45,000. WOW!!!

They're aoubt $5 million in the ditch, with no sign of daylight anywhere to be found.

During that same ten year period...

The Reform/CA went from 52 MPs to 63 MPs.

Their membership hit highs close to 300,000 during the Manning/Day race, and 126,000 during the Harper/Day race. It was pushing 90,000 when this all came down.

The CA, in 2002, took in almost three times as much coin as the PCs, from about ten times as many individual contributors...about 95,000 in total.

Now, you tell me...

Do you think CA members have a right to feel like they've got some damn serious investment and say in this new party??? When compared to what damn little was left of the PCs???

Ok. Then you agree with me that it's the Alliance reborn. Good.

And do you think that now, after all of this, we should sit back and allow the "good ol' boys" stage a reverse takeover of the CA and stuff everything we've accomplished up our own asses???

Excuse me for being blunt...

But I didn't just fall of a turnip wagon this morning.

I can see what's going on here.

It's exactly what I figured we'd see, too.

Klein, Harris, et al...

Where were they over the last 5 years???

Running conservative governments with very effective conservative agendas. They weren't renaming themselves, splitting up into two parties then rejoining, fighting amongst themselves etc.

Nowhere is where, lickin' their bags, and ignoring the whole damn works because they couldn't be bothered. Dissing Manning, snubbing Day, and...of all the unmitigated gall after all he has accomplished to the very end these arseholes were demanding before they'd lower themselves to even talk about involvement...trying to undermine Harper.

Well screw them, and everyone that looks like them.

They want a fight, then we'll give 'em one.

Bring it on, I say!

Ok. When Harper loses, and everybody including most CPC members I read say that he will, will there still be strong support behind him ? Or will he get dumped like Stockwell did ?

I don't agree with the ideas of the new party, but I would like to see it succeed for the good of the federation by dumping it's nationally unpopular west-best and social-bogeyman ideas.

I would also like to see a conservative party that continues to contribute mature and dignified dialogue, unlike some Republican types south of the border. Cheers for that.

If they stick to economics, then they could do well. If they stick to economics and find a leader that is bilingual and conservative, they could win.

[sir_springer]

Hmmm.

Didn't he introduce Stock Day at the 2000 convention, supposedly tilting the support in Stock's favour ?

Yep...and then walked away.

Examples, please.

Membership of the CA undertook to moderate policies, purposefully avoiding controversial issues like abortion and capital punishment. They also endorsed bilingualism and the principle of equalization. And they have repeatedly rejected attempts to introduce policies regarding hardline so-con pet issues.

The attack ads won't be made to Harper's face.  They'll play in living rooms in Oshawa.  That's a town beside Toronto, by the way.

That this dreaded firewall doesn't amount to one iota more than what Quebec already takes for granted means nothing, either. Quebec is one thing, Alberta is entirely another. Quebec has 75 seats...and Alberta doesn't. Quebec means Liberal power...and Alberta means dick to the Liberals.

Don't worry, I understand all too well.

I'm beginning to admire this anti-political attitude, actually.  It's too bad I don't agree with the ideas behind it.

You know I'm right, don't you.

Ok.  Then you agree with me that it's the Alliance reborn.  Good.

What is it about this that rubs you so much? That, at the end of the day, we were still a force, and the PCs were on life support and fading fast? That we defied every pundit through three elections? That the PCs simply could not get it back together again, despite all protestations to the contrary by idiots like Clark et al? That, all said and done, we were relevant, and the PCs obviously were not?

If the shoe was on the other foot...and be honest with me here...would you be worried about a PC takeover??? Of course not. You would think it was merely the way things ought to be, as if it was ordained from on high somewhere. Right? The natural order of things. The west being reminded of its rightful place and all that shtick. Ontario rules, kiss my ass, like it or lump it, and nothing you can do about it, either.

It really seems to eat out a lot of asses out there that the west is still holding some aces in this game, doesn't it???

Running conservative governments with very effective conservative agendas.  They weren't renaming themselves, splitting up into two parties then rejoining, fighting amongst themselves etc.

You think the federal PCs were presenting an effective "conservative" agenda???

Westerners didn't leave the PCs, partner. The PCs left us.

I won't even mention the BLOC, eh?

Ok.  When Harper loses, and everybody including most CPC members I read say that he will, will there still be strong support behind him ?  Or will he get dumped like Stockwell did ?

Harper will be there for the long term.

I don't agree with the ideas of the new party, but I would like to see it succeed for the good of the federation by dumping it's nationally unpopular west-best and social-bogeyman ideas.

Ah, yes. A return to the natural order of things prior to 1993.

Westerners, mind your place in Canada. Don't call us, we'll call you...but keep those cheques coming just the same.

And as for all you social concervative Bible thumpers out there...just shut up, okay. No one cares what you have to say.

And yet you still wonder why the PCs blew all to hell in the first place???

I would also like to see a conservative party that continues to contribute mature and dignified dialogue, unlike some Republican types south of the border.  Cheers for that.

Has anyone been more mature, more professional, or contributed more to dialogue in the last 18 months than the CA, or Harper? Certainly they did so much more than the Liberal Left media wanted to tell Canadians.

If they stick to economics, then they could do well.  If they stick to economics and find a leader that is bilingual and conservative, they could win.

Harper knows more about "conservatism" than the next ten names in federal politics put together that you could post here. And as Harper correctly has observed, if this party merely limits itself to economic issues, it will go nowhere.

[Michael Hardner]

Membership of the CA undertook to moderate policies, purposefully avoiding controversial issues like abortion and capital punishment. They also endorsed bilingualism and the principle of equalization. And they have repeatedly rejected attempts to introduce policies regarding hardline so-con pet issues.

Ok. These are good examples. I learned something.

What is it about this that rubs you so much? That, at the end of the day, we were still a force, and the PCs were on life support and fading fast? That we defied every pundit through three elections? That the PCs simply could not get it back together again, despite all protestations to the contrary by idiots like Clark et al? That, all said and done, we were relevant, and the PCs obviously were not?

If the shoe was on the other foot...and be honest with me here...would you be worried about a PC takeover??? Of course not. You would think it was merely the way things ought to be, as if it was ordained from on high somewhere. Right? The natural order of things. The west being reminded of its rightful place and all that shtick. Ontario rules, kiss my ass, like it or lump it, and nothing you can do about it, either.

It really seems to eat out a lot of asses out there that the west is still holding some aces in this game, doesn't it???

What rubs me is people that refuse to accept reality.

I don't care if it's an Alliance takeover or PC takeover, as long as people call it as it is.

The west holds a lot of high cards, but this is euchre not poker.

You think the federal PCs were presenting an effective "conservative" agenda???

Westerners didn't leave the PCs, partner. The PCs left us.

I won't even mention the BLOC, eh?

I was responding to your "where were Harris and Klein" question. Those two were and are Alliance supporters at heart. Harris even won in Ontario !

Don't be bitter that they can see Harper's political limits.

Harper will be there for the long term.

I was asking if the party will turn on him as they turned on Stock. Harper (or whoever wins the leadership) is going to have his hands full keeping everyone in line before and after the next election.

Ah, yes. A return to the natural order of things prior to 1993.

Westerners, mind your place in Canada. Don't call us, we'll call you...but keep those cheques coming just the same.

And as for all you social concervative Bible thumpers out there...just shut up, okay. No one cares what you have to say.

And yet you still wonder why the PCs blew all to hell in the first place???

I think it was the GST, which Chretien promised to scrap.

Has anyone been more mature, more professional, or contributed more to dialogue in the last 18 months than the CA, or Harper? Certainly they did so much more than the Liberal Left media wanted to tell Canadians.

I have a deep respect for this aspect of the CA campaign so far. I haven't seen any sign of Harper taking the low road and I commend him for that.

If he continues to follow this path, I think it will only improve the coverage that he gets in the media.

...

It's been an interesting ride for the CPC so far. I've seen many political virginities lost on these web boards - when Preston moved into Stornaway, when the Reform MPs accepted their pensions, when Stock got outclassed by Chretien in the election, then dumped. After each incident, I've seen grassroots supporters dismayed, then pragmatic.

But with each battle, and with every casualty, the party learns and matures and compromises a bit more.

An interesting ride...

[Michael Hardner]

I haven't noticed the Liberals criticizing him for his firewall fiasco.

Why should they be wasting that marvelous bomb at a time when there's hardly anything to gain?

Come election time & just in the right time, they'll throw that daisy-cutter right in Mr. Harper's lap, just you wait and see.

But that's only if he wins the leadership, which he won't.

Yes, Gallahad. I was going to post something along these lines.

The Liberals have a stockpile of similar weapons ready to go at a moment's notice. Remember the video of the "racist lecture" - several months old - that surfaced during the 2000 election ?

[westcoast99]

Certainly he's a good man, but he may face some electoral challenges.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Mr. Chater]

And excitement is just what the Doctor ordered. As iron Sharpens iron, so man sharpens his fellow man..... so the Proverb goes.

If Harper wins, he'll deserve it, and will have earned his stripes, and lord, vice versa. Note Klein & Harris were among the delegation that beat a path through the snow to a certain Fredricton doorstep.

As for Quebec, If Lord runs a strong high profile campaign, win or lose, the party will have credibility in Quebec. A Lord victory means more seats, but even a respectable defeat will pay dividends long term.

i don't think that Harper should even bother. I believe that Harper has already killed himself when he was in the Alliance. I believe that if he becomes leader, he will have too much of the Alliance mind with him. Same with Mackay and the conservatives. If this party wants to be anything but successful then you put one of the two former leaders. If you truly want this party to prevail then it is time for a new face. A Lord face.

[Mr. Chater]

Clearly you're all braindead.

If we elect Harper, we will fail. We will win no more than 75 seats.

I want to know why anyone has any faith in this guy.

Certainly he's a good man, but he is completely unelectable.

He will never ever be Prime minister. Martin will tear him a part.

Just read it after my post, couldn't agree more.

[sir_springer]

Like I said...

This is going to come down to:

Bernard Lord, and "back to the future". The return of the CPC to the ways of the PC of old. Eastern domination and support of the status quo of Canadian federalism.

Or...

Stephen Harper, and moving the CPC forward with participatory democracy, true conservative ideals, and reformation of the federal system.

You think Lord could give a rat's ass about Senate reform? Could give a rat's ass about reformation of federalism? Could give a rat's ass about provincial equality? Could give a rat's ass about reforming parliament?

Paul Martin...Mr. Democratic Deficit...isn't going to change anything, that much is already patently clear. Same old Senate crap, same old rules of the game, same old same old. All this crap we're hearing right now is mere fluff for show and tell heading into an election. Liberals will never tolerate actual change to a system that insures that the deck is eternally stacked in favor of Ontario and Quebec.

And neither will a CPC led by Bernard Lord.

I'll tell you what westerners are thinking right now.

They're watching all of this carefully. They're not buying into Paul Martin at all, despite the best efforts of the Liberal Left media to create the illusion otherwise.

They're watching to see what happens to this new CPC.

Is it going to be merely a return to yet another federal party that amounts to nothing more than the Liberals in drag?

Or is it going to be something reflective of where the Reform/CA was trying to get to?

Is it going to be about real change to federalism, and the mechanics of how this country functions?

Or is it going to be a reverse takeover by eastern power, with the inevitable stamping out of everything that is important to westerners?

There is a time bomb ticking away out here.

Expectations of the Martin Liberals are virtually nil.

Expectations of this new party are high.

This new party fails to deliver...

On top of the certain failure of the Martin Liberals to deliver...

The proverbial sh*t is going to hit the fan out here like no one dare even imagine.

The first indication to westerners that we've been had yet again will be the spectre of the elevation of anyone but a westerner, like Stephen Harper, to lead this new party.

Such a spectre is already in the making.

Only a naive fool could miss it.

[Neal.F.]

Springer, note that quite a few western Conservative (since there are no more PC or CA parties) MPs and backroom boys are coming around to Lord as their choice. It was noted this morning that Hal Danchilla and Rod Love are going to support Lord. From among MPs, Jason Kenney and Art Hanger will as well, and so might Stock Day.

I'm going to attempt to dispel misconceptions about Mr. Lord.

New Brunswick is the most socially conservative province in Canada. even more so than Alberta.

At least 8 of 10 federal MPs are considered pro-life, including the NDP's Yvon Godin in Acadie-Bathurst.

Only Domenic Leblanc in Beausejour-Petitcodiac is a known pro-abort. There are a couple of others sitting on th fence.

Lord fought Alan Rock for years as the latter, when he was health minister, tried to pressure New Brunswick into forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions.

Lord also refused Morgentaler permission to open private clinics.

You can see why he is palatable to conservatives right across the country. he supports the right positions, but without coming across as a pentecostal bible-thumper.

He is NOT Paul Martin lite. Let's dispense right away with the myth that easterners are a bunch of flaky socialist liberals.

Let's not forget, he comes from another region in Canada

that feels like it doesn't matter, so many westerners might well identify with him.

ON the other hand, while he must also sell among the Toronto/Montreal crowd, he must not SELL OUT to them.

Perhaps we might finally have a party that learns the lessons of history and tries to govern the country as fairly as possible, without pitting one region against another.

And Senate and electoral reform woulkd be one way fro the boy from New Brunswick to increase the clout of his, and other provinces, within the federation.

[westcoast99]

The Alliance won 25% in 2000.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Gugsy

[Neal.F.]

Unlike Lord, Prentice is an unabashed social liberal. HE believes in gay marriage, legalized pot, and abortion.

But you are right about electability. it is unfortunate that we must consider something so shallow.

Case in point: Adlai Stevenson was twice the Demcratic nominee (sacrificial lamb?) that went up against Eisenhower for the US presidency. It was said of him that he was a brilliant policy wonk, and possibly the most imntelligent man ever to seek the job, but he was unelectable.

[westcoast99]

For too long our parties have been stuck with losers at the helm, with one conservative voice, we could finally win

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[dnsfurlan]

Let's try to get a few facts straight here.

The Alliance won 25% in 2000. Their support has only gone down -- way down -- since Harper became leader.

When Harper took over the party, the Alliance was like 8% nationally as a result of the Day debacle. He has brought them back up to pre-day levels, as well as led the way on merger - so much so that people think its a takoever.

Funny. On the one hand the Alliance is supposed to be so weak under Harper. On the other hand it is so strong that it simply over-powered the haplesss PC Party of Canada.

Furthermore, Harper has focused on exactly what he needs to in a mid-term cycle for a party badly in need of a re-build. That's exactly what he's done - also a small thing known as merger.

I think Harper has accomplished an extraordinary amount in a very short time.

The Alliance has done horribly in every by-election since Harper won the leadership.

They have? There was the one riding in Ontario where the Alliance was third place in the first place anyway. If you go by by-elections, Mario Dumont would now be premier of Quebec.

He may be a principled, intelligent conservative, but he has not proven in anyway that he can win an election.

Neither has Paul Martin.

For that matter, what has Lord proven? He can win an election in a small Canadian province, and almost lose another to a virtual no-name?

In fact, I believe he's proven that he cannot win an election.

As the above clearly shows, I don't think you've done any such thing.

What good is policy when you'll never be able to implement it?

Clearly, Harper is more than about policy. He has turned around the CA, and led the way on merger. He has also been leader of the Official Opposition in parliament, and gotten Martin to develop policiy initiative he's been championing all along. That's why policy matters.

We need someone like Mr. Lord, and if not Lord, then Jim Prentice, to bring fresh ideas and bold leadership to our party.

Harper is a fresh face, for goodness sake. And done a heck of a lot to boot.

Prentice is a novice who is in no position to lead a new national party against Paul Martin.

For that matter, Lord is a novice on the federal stage too.

Look, Lord's greatest contribution to the party is that he will add a legitimate voice to the PC faction, one which Mackay has abandoned because of a lack of credibility.

But so much of the praise of the man I think is hype as opposed to sober analysis.

But that's what leadership races are for, aren't they?