Jump to content

Conservative Party Leadership


Recommended Posts

One of the main reasons the national press were so upset with Belinda's entry yesterday, is that she didn't trip up.

Once again today, Belinda faced the press concerning Health Care issues, and did not trip up.

All the press want is a story to make headlines.

Conservatives should be delighted with all this free publicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One of the main reasons the national press were so upset with Belinda's entry yesterday, is that she didn't trip up.

Please. That's a very knee-jerk response.

And it doesn't take a partisan to obvserve that she did indeed trip up on a number of occasions. Whether she can improve on the performance is at issue.

She stood their blank-faced while someone had to fix the teleprompter. A more skilled politico would have filled the time with some playful banter. I've seen Joe Clark do it in person.

She seemed stumped on a few questions, not having anything to say for a few seconds - politicians simply don't do this.

Her speech was flat and not very well written. She failed to give pause and emphasis in order for the crowd to jump in. And, by the end of the speech, the place was sapped of much of its energy.

She also completely blew the question on Iraq. If she gave that kind of an answer in a national debate it would have been headlines for an entire week.

So this notion that she didn't trip up is just not supported by what actually happened. What lays ahead may be more important, yes.

For the people who want to see Belinda win this race, I at least hope that at some point they make sure they ask themselves the question of whether she is truly prepared to take this party into a national election, or if she has enough time to do so.

I guess all I'm asking for is a little less hype, and a little more scrutiny. That' all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's been in public life for about two seconds. She hasn't had any time to waffle.

Seems to me, it's alot easier to waffle on an issue, especially in your first appearance, than to make a stand. If she has the courage to make a stand on an issue as controversial as that, first time out, I think she can only get stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dnsfurlan.....Would you mind stating some concrete policy that Belinda mentioned that you disagreed with, apart from the same-sex issue, which quite frankly, most Canadians are tired of hearing about.

I read your most recent message a few times, and for some reason, couldn't find any specific policy differences with Belinda, that you appear to be so concerned about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My stance on Belinda: SHE HAS VIRTUALLY NO QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE JOB!

Doesn't matter what her policy positions are if she can't sell them to the public as a credible national leader.

And, regarding patience, that's exactly what I'm asking for.

Some of you think that patience means waiting for that moment when Belinda proves to us she is ready for the job.

My definition of patience includes not going ga-ga over her candidacy because she looks good on camera and adopts a stand you find favourable on some paricular pet-issue.

My definition is the safe one. Your definition, one that seems to include caving into the hope, could lead this new Conservative Party down the path of Joke-City.

A reality-check might be in order.

I'm fully willing to see what she has. But we have to see what she has before knowing what she has.

People have already supported her 100% without any of this happening yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How's this for being "bothered" by Belinda's positions?

1. Belinda is not fluent in Canada's official languages. That's a real handicap for the new re-constituted PC party's image if she is chosen as leader. Having a tutor for the next few months may help her with a vacation to Paris for a week, but it isn't going to play too well with Quebecers. Nor will it shake the image that the lefties claim hurts the PC/CA party being viewed as only representing the West.

2. Saying she will throw more taxpayer money at the black hole called socialized medicine is not very novel in terms of problem solving, making hard decisions to have a health care system that's good for sick people not just for bragging rights.

3. Don't underestimate the legalizing gay marriage issue with the general population. Maybe you think there has been too much said, because you don't want that can of worms re-opened because you favour gay marriage. Don't assume the electorate shares your view. How is Stroner's view any different than Joe Clark's, whose socially liberal views almost torpedoed the PC party?

4. That she would like to build up the military and give more money to a failing health care system, but still give some income tax deductions for mortgage interest equals pipe dreams. You can't spend more and take money away from the Treasury, without people like me wondering. about Stroner's sincerity..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dnsfurlan.....you remind of the journalists who don't like the colour of her hair, or whatever.

Her policies are out there for all to see.

Let's have some sort of political debate with substance, instead of this ridiculous ChARACTER ASSINATION. No wonder Liberals always win.

:lol:

Don't you read my posts? If you had you wouldn't be criticizing me with an unsubstantiated characterization.

Here it is again for you: SHE HAS NO POLITICAL EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER!

What is it about this statement you don't get?

I'm sorry if I'm raining on the hopes of your dream candidate. But it IS substance that I'm worried about here.

Policy positions are important. But in a leadership contest, how can you possibly ignore who it is that is providing those policiy positions.

You seem to want to ignore her qualifications for leadership. I don't. And I hope the Conservative Party membership doesn't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That she would like to build up the military and give more money to a failing health care system, but still give some income tax deductions for mortgage interest equals pipe dreams. You can't spend more and take money away from the Treasury, without people like me wondering. about Stroner's sincerity..

Well, yes you can.

History has shown that tax cuts can have a stimulative effect on the economy, resulting in a net increase in tax revenues.

A similar analogy would be a budget for a business. Yes, you can try to reduce costs. And you can charge more for your product and service to generate more revenue.

But the latter tactic can actually serve to reduce sales and revenues.

Putting more money in the economy and in people's pockets can make people happy, and can put more money in cash registers, which means more money for Mr. Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen up, a lack lustre limp wristed approach that Belinda is planning is not effective. She said SOME tax deductible portion of mortagage interest may be deductible. She's not contemplating bold action that will put big bucks in consumers' pockets.

And the money she's throwing at a broken medicare system will not generate new jobs, new growth. You've got lots of physician jobs open...but you have no warm qualified bodies who want to do the job in a socialized medicine environment. Hospitals have been run to the ground, costly equipment like MRI machines are lacking. The system she is broke. Adding money to build another super bureaucracy as envisioned by Romanowski will do nothing to create meaningful jobs. And in fact that bureaucracy may drive the few remaining physicians over the deep end with more nosy rosey silly servant interference.

Money to the military...I don't know about firing up the Canadian economy, pal. It may fire up France's economy though because that's where the money for military equipment will be directed. LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not I think Ms. Stronach should be leader of the federal Conservatives, she does for the race what needed to be done. Which is, bring in a star candidate to get media attention.

I actually think that she may not be the woman for the job. Quite frankly, she doesn't have the experience. What she should do, and I've posted to this before, is run for a seat in the upcoming election, regardless of the outcome of the leadership race. Especially if she loses. This will fuel debate as to whether she will run again next time, and keep the spotlight directly on the Conservative Party.

Whether she wins or not is not the important issue. The important issue is raising their profile and convincing voters that the party isn't dead yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether she wins or not is not the important issue. The important issue is raising their profile and convincing voters that the party isn't dead yet.

I agree with that. My only concern is that this initial hyping turns out to bolster a candidacy into the leadership of this party when the substance isn't there.

The media is already hyping her up. I suggest members of the party, or prospective members, let them do a lot of that stuff, and stick to some more sober scrutiny of our candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dnsfurlan and udawg,

I am not sure if I agree with this sentiment:

Whether she wins or not is not the important issue. The important issue is raising their profile and convincing voters that the party isn't dead yet.

To a limited degree, perhaps it's good that there is a flurry of media coverage for a week or two re: PC leadership candidates.

But media coverage is not a problem for the PC party. Keep in mind that it was only 6 months ago that the PC party had the first leadership convention, that ended up in a Brittany Spears type annulment. I think flaky or inexperienced candidates and the attendent media coverage can re-affirm the image of the PC's chasing their tails around in circles...sorry, but the McKay-Orchard event doesn't give the PC party high marks for looking like a party ready to govern.

Belinda in my opinion is another Joe Who. And doting as much as the media are doing because of the glamour factor[i think it's more her wealth than her beauty]will just make the PC party seem...well...kind of frivolous, not to be taken seriously...and in platform not too different from the more experienced LPOC.

So the voters may say to themselves, forget all this flighty nonsense...better the devil known than the devil unknown, if you catch my drift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the voters may say to themselves, forget all this flighty nonsense...better the devil known than the devil unknown, if you catch my drift.

Sure, which is why I almost hope that Clement wins the leadership. Voters in Ontario know him, he could quite conceivably lead the party to a very strong opposition government. The perception, true or not, is that the Alliance has rubbed off on Harper a little too much; voters in the East may not trust him. And B.S. doesn't have the experience. So while she lends some glamour to the race, if Clement were to win, the Conservatives would have both their known element, with the media attention to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dnsfurlan said to Morgan:

This is not the PC Party. This is the Conservative Party. Let's try to remember that.

Oops. Thanks for the reminder. To tell you the truth, it must be the media fixation/adoration of Red Tory Stronan that makes me slip with the PC label. She would do as much harm as leader of the conservatives as Joe Who did to the PC's, IMO, by representing the conservatives as a diluted version of the governing party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, why do I see another seperation within 2 years? :huh:

I don't know. Maybe you like dreaming or something. :lol:

This party, for better or worse, is what they have right now.

It took a lot to break it in the first place.

It took a lot to put it back together again.

These kinds of things don't happen every other year.

All the important players are committed.

Only thing that remains is the shape the new party takes in future years, not whether it continues to exist, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dreaming? lol I support the new party. I just fear that the differences between the radical faction in the Alliance and the moderates of the former PC may be too great to overcome.

If they CAN overcome their differences, however, the new party will emerge as the strongest in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...