# What was your price Stronach??????



## Prariedawg (17 May 2005)

Spoiled brat belinda stronach has sold out to the devil,What was her price ????Was her integrity worth it?She had the potential to be part of something great and now shes just a joke.Anyone see the press conference,the reporters laughed in Martians face when he said it wasnt about thursdays vote.I am sick to my stomach after seeing such blatent pandering for personal gain.And she is supposed to be trusted with implementing the gomery inquiry after she sold her morals to the highest bidder.Instead of deciding the country could benifit from ousting a corrupt goverment she has slipped into bed with them for whatever gain they offered her and a cabinet post.There is a word for girls like that,I wont use it in here though.


----------



## rcr (17 May 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/17/stronach-liberals050517.html

This is digusting and a shame indeed.  I'm shaking my fist.  Now both Kilgour and Cadman will have to side with the Conservatives on Thursday's vote to win, and I couldn't care less for the prior.


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2005)

"The Woman Who Would Be Prime Minister" is probably what her ego is telling her.  She comes out of nowhere to run for the Conservative Leadership and lost.  Now she crosses the floor to sit in the 'corrupt' Liberal Cabinet.  Where is there any hope of a Credible Government in this country?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 May 2005)

Good riddance; I feel bad for those Conservatives who voted for her, though.

Hopefully they'll get the chance to take her seat from her after Thursday, eh.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (17 May 2005)

I'm almost sick to my stomach at the thought that she *may* have handed the fiberals a fighting chance at winning the non-confidence vote on Thursday.  I sure do hope she gets tossed out on her ear during the next election - any politician crossing over in this kind of context to sit with a corrupt, desperate govt, and to head the department of boondoggles to boot, deserves nothing less than to be sent into the political wilderness for the rest of her life.

I weep for my country  :'(  If I wanted to live in a banana republic I'd move to the island of Dominica - at least there the weather is great and the scuba diving excellent.


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2005)

Let's see:

Paul Martin + Canadian Steamship

Belinda Stronach + Magma

Is there a pattern of old money running together here?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 May 2005)

I wonder what long-time Liberal stalwarts like Bonnie Brown (Oakville), Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph) and Karen Redman (Kitchener) think about Belinda jumping straight into a seat at the cabinet table?

Also, what about perennial Liberal rebels like Roger Gallaway (Sarnia) and Pat O'Brien (London)?  They, both, have good reason to feel betrayed by Martin.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 May 2005)

That was my thought too, Edward. There has to be some very disgruntled Liberal members right now who are not terribly happy about being sold out.


----------



## Slim (17 May 2005)

I just saw Steven Harper give a press conference on losing Belinda to the Fiberals.

He certainly didn't do here any favours, did he?! But then, I guess she doesn't really deserve any better...

Slim


----------



## mo-litia (17 May 2005)

Perhaps we can get Ralph Klein to lead the Bloc since parties apparently don't mean much to partisan politicans.


----------



## larry Strong (17 May 2005)

"Only in Canada eh! Pity"


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 May 2005)

http://www.belinda.ca/default2.asp

LOL - she hasn't updated her site in a day or two...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 May 2005)

Prariedawg said:
			
		

> Spoiled brat belinda stronach has sold out to the devil,What was her price ????Was her integrity worth it?She had the potential to be part of something great and now shes just a joke.Anyone see the press conference,the reporters laughed in Martians face when he said it wasnt about thursdays vote.I am sick to my stomach after seeing such blatent pandering for personal gain.And she is supposed to be trusted with implementing the gomery inquiry after she sold her morals to the highest bidder.Instead of deciding the country could benifit from ousting a corrupt goverment she has slipped into bed with them for whatever gain they offered her and a cabinet post.There is a word for girls like that,I wont use it in here though.



I'm officially going to be sick....



M.    :rage:


----------



## Pencil Tech (17 May 2005)

Mo-Litia I think you're on to something there. That would explain why I was having trouble telling Stephen Harper apart from his new pal, former Communist Workers Party man Gilles Duceppe. That might also explain why Stronach crossed the floor, and why, despite the sponsorship scandal, Canadians aren't demanding an election - with such a pathetic alternative.


----------



## scm77 (17 May 2005)

You can watch a video of Martin and Stronachs statements here.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/17/stronach-liberals050517.html

(look in the top right-hand corner under "CBC Newsworld Coverage").  

In Paul Martins statement, the reporters laugh at him around 2 minutes and 30 seconds into it after he says this won't alter Thursdays vote.  :


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (17 May 2005)

Well now she can say she has dabbled in both the 'world's oldest professions'. Politician and that other one that was alluded to by the thread starter :.


----------



## karl28 (17 May 2005)

Man oh man I actually used to like her ,well not any more . I wonder what was her asking price ?


----------



## Blue Max (17 May 2005)

The amount of credibility circulating around Ottawa is diminishing about as quickly as a sunset. Next time our MP's stand up to talk in parliament they might as well turn around and drop their pants, because from what I can make of it most of them are already talking out of their ***.    :rage: :crybaby:

Is their no hope for sane LEADERSHIP in this country? :-\


----------



## Horse_Soldier (17 May 2005)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> Is their no hope for sane LEADERSHIP in this country? :-\


Obviously not, seeing that the leader of the opposition is behaving in no more statesmanlike fashion than the PM - talk about missed opportunities - and no one in the realm of politics is actually noticing that the people are sick to their stomachs.


----------



## RCA (17 May 2005)

If people are so sick to there stomachs, get out there and do something. Bitching and moaning gets no where. I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate and saying there are going to run to make things different or getting more involved with the process. Any one can armchair quarterback, but I don't see anyone even attempting to get in the game.

If you think a banana republic is better, then move there. Ask the guys who have been to Haiti, parts of Africa or Afghanistan, to see which they prefer. This country continues to have one of the best standards of living in the world, regardless of all the chicken littles out there proclaiming the sky's falling. It isn't. I don't see a change to that, as we continue on inspite of what stripe we of gov't we have.


----------



## gate_guard (17 May 2005)

I know there's a few Stronach fan's on this board, if only cause she's pretty hot for a politician (eh, Infanteer?). So what do you think? Personally I think it's a sad day for the Conservatives because aside from it's bad timing, she was definitely a rising star with the Conservatives.

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116339348919_111748548?hub=topstories#


----------



## y2kroachman (17 May 2005)

but shutting your mouth and taking it doesnt solve anything either


----------



## wotan (17 May 2005)

Ok, Belinda's hot, no argument there.

  Yeah, I would have liked to have seen her become, in a few years time, Conservative leader.  She is basically a political neophyte that has crossed over from business to politics.  She needs experience and a better vision of her political platform to have become Conservative leader, but I think that would have developed in time.  However, she obviously lacks ethics, so the party is probably better of without her.

  And as for the Liberals, they should watch out.  Apparently they have a barracuda in their midst that has her eye on the brass ring currently held in the hands of Mr. Dithers zombie.


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2005)

I wonder what is the lesser of two evils:

1. Her vote carries the day and allows the Liberals to continue in power with the corruption scandle still hovering around and tainting all their actions.
2. The Liberal party disintigrates with a three sided civil war as Cretienistas and Martinites fight it out, with disgruntled backbenchers seeing their chances for advancement dashed by yet another opportunistic and unscrupulous weasel coming out with their knives. 

OP Parliament ROTO 0 anyone?

(edited for spelling)


----------



## DJ (17 May 2005)

"If you think a banana republic is better, then move there. Ask the guys who have been to Haiti, parts of Africa or Afghanistan, to see which they prefer. This country continues to have one of the best standards of living in the world, regardless of all the chicken littles out there proclaiming the sky's falling. It isn't. I don't see a change to that, as we continue on inspite of what stripe we of gov't we have."


Well put.  I was watching the news the other night and they had an interview with a guy who was so angry with the system that he was seriously looking to emigrate.  He said that he was contemplating buying property in the US or Mexico.......wtf??!!!  Mexico!!!!??? 

DJ

edit:  quoting


----------



## pbi (17 May 2005)

Ahh, well: politicians.

I am reminded of Groucho Marx:


"_These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others_...."


Cheers.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (17 May 2005)

RCA said:
			
		

> If people are so sick to there stomachs, get out there and do something. Bitching and moaning gets no where. I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate and saying there are going to run to make things different or getting more involved with the process. Any one can armchair quarterback, but I don't see anyone even attempting to get in the game.
> 
> If you think a banana republic is better, then move there. Ask the guys who have been to Haiti, parts of Africa or Afghanistan, to see which they prefer. This country continues to have one of the best standards of living in the world, regardless of all the chicken littles out there proclaiming the sky's falling. It isn't. I don't see a change to that, as we continue on inspite of what stripe we of gov't we have.



Last time I checked we did get involved in the process. We vote. Not everyone is cut out to be a politician or lobbyist. Every Canadian Citizen, however, has a right to representation in government. Further, we are well within our rights to demand a certain standard of deportment from our representatives. One shouldn't confuse anger and disappointment aimed at our elected representatives with bitching about the system. The system itself works just fine. There will be an election and those elected will be held to account (or not) as the voters see fit. In the meantime the behaviour of many MPs is nothing short of disgraceful and Canadians have every right to be angry with them and demand better.


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2005)

RCA said:
			
		

> If people are so sick to there stomachs, get out there and do something. Bitching and moaning gets no where. I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate and saying there are going to run to make things different or getting more involved with the process. Any one can armchair quarterback, but I don't see anyone even attempting to get in the game.



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30544.105.html



> My own thoughts as to how to make real changes to Canada would be to concentrate on the cities. Civic government has the potential to be the nexus of a political revolution. In my home city of London, city council spends like Liberals and has given us a combined 13% tax hike in the last two years alone. If the right sort of people could be elected with the drive to commit to deep spending cuts and tax roll backs, millions (I estimate up to $100 million, one Adscam) could be released back into the productive economy in London alone. Imagine if major urban centres started going this way in response to high tax bills; the Canadian economy would receive a real boost, with perhaps billions of dollars returned to the productive economy, and the taxpayers would be able to see without any shadow of a doubt this is entirely due to local politicians and has nothing to do with the provincial or federal levels of government.
> 
> After a while, the same taxpayers might decide this same program of deep spending cuts can be applied to the other levels of government as well.......



Which is why I will concentrate on civic politics. Next election: Nov 2006 for London ON.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (17 May 2005)

RCA said:
			
		

> This country continues to have one of the best standards of living in the world, regardless of all the chicken littles out there proclaiming the sky's falling. It isn't. I don't see a change to that, as we continue on inspite of what stripe we of gov't we have.



/sarcasm on
Canada: love it or leave it
/sarcasm off

Sixteen years of working in the bowels of the federal Govt, in uniform and out, have definitely soured me on how this country is run (and being run into the ground).   Once you see sausage being made, you kind of lose the appetite.   And that is the last I shall contribute to this thread, as I can already see it spiralling out of control.   Enjoy watching the antics in the media over the next 24 hours.   It's the next best thing to the Stanley Cup playoffs   ;D


----------



## SeanNewman (17 May 2005)

As members of the military, it's not our job to gripe about the government.   It's our job to do what the government (our boss, as elected representatives of the people) tells us to do.

If you are wearing the uniform, it is your duty to support the party in power.   You get your one vote's say as a Canadian, and that's it.   If we wake up tomorrow and the Bloc gets 99% of the vote, (or the Communist Party, Marijuana Party, Marxist, whatever), you have the choice to either do your job and stay, or VR.

My $0.02


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 May 2005)

If you are wearing the uniform, your job is to support lawful authority, not the party in power.


----------



## S McKee (17 May 2005)

SeanNewman said:
			
		

> As members of the military, it's not our job to gripe about the government.   It's our job to do what the government (our boss, as elected representatives of the people) tells us to do.
> 
> If you are wearing the uniform, it is your duty to support the party in power.   You get your one vote's say as a Canadian, and that's it.   If we wake up tomorrow and the Bloc gets 99% of the vote, (or the Communist Party, Marijuana Party, Marxist, whatever), you have the choice to either do your job and stay, or VR.
> 
> My $0.02



It's not our job to support the politcal party in power and we are not mindless storm-troopers who are paid to carry out the whims and wishes of what ever politcal party happens to be in power. The last time I checked, we (members of the CF) have as much right as anyone else to gripe about a political party, this is democracy after all.


----------



## RCA (17 May 2005)

As A-Majoor so aptly stated (although not the first), all politics are local.


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 May 2005)

SeanNewman said:
			
		

> As members of the military, it's not our job to gripe about the government.  It's our job to do what the government (our boss, as elected representatives of the people) tells us to do.
> 
> If you are wearing the uniform, it is your duty to support the party in power.  You get your one vote's say as a Canadian, and that's it.  If we wake up tomorrow and the Bloc gets 99% of the vote, (or the Communist Party, Marijuana Party, Marxist, whatever), you have the choice to either do your job and stay, or VR.
> 
> My $0.02



Read your Oath of allegiance/solemn affirmation and show me where it says the government of Canada. It doesn't you did not nor do you swear to serve the government you swear your oath to the Queen, her heirs and successors according to Law.

The ideal of the apolitical military is under challenge from our very own charter of rights and freedoms which contradicts  QR&O's because it guarantees 





> "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.


 As a matter of fact I have a letter here from the current Minister of National Defence stating that as long as I do not participate in political activities while in uniform I can belong to and assist in campaigns for whomever I choose.

The fact that we are soldiers does not mean that we have to divorce ourselves from the democratic rights that we are guaranteed. the job title is soldier not sheep.


----------



## atticus (17 May 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> http://www.belinda.ca/default2.asp
> 
> LOL - she hasn't updated her site in a day or two...



Its not even showing anything other than the splash page. 

This is just so wrong, its different when an MP becomes an independant, but this is being a traitor. Is minister of human resources and skills development a good job? Maybe she was bribed; but I do agree with Harper as I think this is all about ambitions and doing anything to attain goals.


----------



## Fideo (17 May 2005)

I'm not in the CF..but I do hope to be selected to be in the presence of you fine man and women....I believe the only say you have is in your voting as a Canadian Citizen.  I was born under a formal democracy that believes in voting...however God help you if you vote for the wrong party and they found out...you will quickly disappear without any trace....no one will know you even existed. I came to this country knowing it was a true democracy where one can vote and voice his opinion without fear of mysterious disappearance or unexplainable death. Part of my decision to join was to maintain that exact freedom we so often, specially youngsters take for granted. Therefore, I respect everyones opinion and for mine: Belinda Stronach crossed the floor because she had conflict of interests with Harper.i.e same sex marriage. Secondly, I believe that her choice is a moral one because she obviously knows that the Liberals still require a seat plus the house tie breaker..it was a conscious choice not one of power unlike oh a little Conservative by the name of Harper who's hidden agenda isn't so hidden to one that is educated and reads. I hope you can smell the Referendum in the air in the Conservatives and Bloc Alliance. I cant even fathom a Quebec separation...in an International stage we will look like tools better used for raking leafs. I'm sure however that each one of you has his-her opinion based of their own social status and I respect that. I never saw a proper leadership in Harper...plus he is not a peoples prime minister and what Canadians I feel need is another Trudeau, or Clark or Pearson.The funniest thing I think is that a lot of Newmarket just crossed the floor with her.


----------



## c1984ml (17 May 2005)

> Harper who's hidden agenda isn't so hidden to one that is educated and reads



So if you have found the agenda, it really isn't secret, is it?


----------



## canadianblue (17 May 2005)

> Harper who's hidden agenda isn't so hidden to one that is educated and reads. I hope you can smell the Referendum in the air in the Conservatives and Bloc Alliance. I cant even fathom a Quebec separation...in an International stage we will look like tools better used for raking leafs. I'm sure however that each one of you has his-her opinion based of their own social status and I respect that. I never saw a proper leadership in Harper...plus he is not a peoples prime minister and what Canadians I feel need is another Trudeau, or Clark or Pearson.



Sorry but I'm one of those uneducated types that don't read :

If Quebec seperates, they probably will because of a liberal majority. Think about it, the majority of quebecois support the Bloc, and as I see it the conservatives can help Quebec get what they want without seperation. Were as with the Liberals seperation would be more of an option for Quebecors as I see it.


----------



## Fideo (17 May 2005)

c1984ml said:
			
		

> So if you have found the agenda, it really isn't secret, is it?



EXACTLY why I vote red :-*



			
				Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> Sorry but I'm one of those uneducated types that don't read :
> 
> If Quebec seperates, they probably will because of a liberal majority. Think about it, the majority of quebecois support the Bloc, and as I see it the conservatives can help Quebec get what they want without seperation. Were as with the Liberals seperation would be more of an option for Quebecors as I see it.



My mistake for putting that sentence in bro...I didnt mean that you werent educated.The way I see your sentence I see your point and the Federal Liberals are to blame for the last poll they took which was of Quebecers at 54 percent in favor of a referendum. Now if the Conservatives and the Bloc win the election that will give major power to the Bloc . Ofcourse we know what the Bloc objective is on the matter of a referendum. Plus I believe that regardless on wether the new budget was written on a knapkin...I still believe it will better all provinces and Canadians as a whole. Cheers.


----------



## canadianblue (17 May 2005)

I wouldn't really want another Trudeau to become PM, if you think the military is in a bad state now, then just wait if somebody similar to him takes over. I would prefer PM's such as Pearson, Borden, Laurier, McDonald. It seemed that back in those day politicians had more integrity, and put the country first, that might just be me though. As well if the conservatives are more for giving the provinces more power then I think we'll see fewer people in Quebec supporting seperatism. 

Can you tell us what the hidden agenda is though, people will throw that term around and not back it up.

Cheers


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 May 2005)

>I believe that her choice is a moral one

So her jumping the queue to a cabinet minister's appointment ahead of all the other long-term loyal sitting Liberal MPs was a reward for her moral stance and not the enticement that sealed a sordid deal, eh?  It's good to know that people permitted to vote are so wise in the ways of the world.


----------



## Infanteer (17 May 2005)

Ok people, I took the time to clean this one up - keep it clean and add something to the discussion; if you are here to basically slander a political figure, we're not interested.

If this thread continues to look like a washroom stall (and Whiskey keeps having to interject with legal advice), I'll take the whole thing down.

Infanteer, who could care less what Belinda does because he doesn't like parties anyways....


----------



## Britney Spears (17 May 2005)

I heard Ms. Stronach explain herself on the radio today and I am quite satisfied with her explanation. I don't like parties either and I think it's great that she could be so non-partisan about the whole affair. I also believe her choice was a moral one, since I find the conservative anti-gay social agenda distasteful. Good on her for standing by her principles.


----------



## Infanteer (17 May 2005)

To expound upon what Britney has just shared, it would be hypocritical of me to argue that Belinda is a hoser for going to the Liberal Party while Kilgour was taking the moral high-road for abandoning ship - I am not a fan of any of the Parties - too much Groupthink involved.  For me to to scream murder because she left one crappy party for another one would be silly.

Although I still remain suspect that Ms Stronach's motives are not altruistic, she is a Member of Parliament and not an automaton of (insert your Party of the Day here) - she made her decision and the people of Newmarket-Aurora will decide at some point whether their representative was doing a good job of representing their interests.  Here it comes again, my favorite Edmund Burke quote; I'm sure you can stick "Conservative Party of Canada" somewhere in there with "advocates and agencies"....

_"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.  You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but is a member of Parliament."_


----------



## Infanteer (17 May 2005)

Perhaps we could change the title to "What did Stronach cost the Conservatives?"

The plot thickens....

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30822.0.html


----------



## JBP (17 May 2005)

While I am all for someone who is sticking to their principals and keeping with thier own morals, what she did makes her _look_ like she has no morals or principals. Most people like consistency, overall. What she did was kind of like being a scab, she crossed the picket line.... I don't disagree or agree with what she did, and she did have her own reasons apparently (and I agree on the same-sex issue) because I've never voted for the Conservatives or the Liberals, I think they're both... Well...  :-\ Poop for the most part...

Since the last major election I've been trying to find a particular party that mostly suits my fancy. I found one I *thought* was good, the Canadian Action Party... But I read, and read, through much of thier ideas and proposed changes and major issues... They're simply not realistic, and they'd get us into a whole heap of crap on the world stage and especially with the USA...   Can't have that can we... 

I think I'll simply vote Green Party again!  ;D J/K, I'm honestly not yet sure who I'll vote for this time around...

PS> Iif you (whoever is reading this) isn't happy with the major parties, simply don't vote for them! Vote for someone new, or don't vote at all. You don't HAVE to vote for the major parties just because... If enough people start voting in other areas, they will seriously notice the loss and become more accountable for thier actions over time. I will not vote for anyone "just because", that most certainly screws us all over in the long run...


----------



## onecat (17 May 2005)

Voting Green would be a good choice, maybe they will actually get a seat or two this time around.  Although I will most likely have to vote conservative, because the lie-berals need to be booted out of vote.

As for belinda, it's all greed on her party.  Paul offered her something in turn her support on thursday and she took.  If she was really worried about Quebec nationalism, she would of stayed where she was.  The rise in Quebec nationalism is directly related to the Liberal party.


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2005)

Fideo said:
			
		

> EXACTLY why I vote red :-*
> ........... Now if the Conservatives and the Bloc win the election that will give major power to the Bloc . Ofcourse we know what the Bloc objective is on the matter of a referendum. Plus I believe that regardless on wether the new budget was written on a knapkin...I still believe it will better all provinces and Canadians as a whole.



I wonder if you read what you wrote in the last couple posts of yours?   You seem to contradict yourself in your reasons for coming to Canada and a "free" vote if you only see the Liberals as the only alternative.   You have put yourself back into your "One Party Democracy" that you said you have left, and now made it Canada.   Thanks a whole bunch for that!    ???

I can't see your logic of the Bloc gaining much more power than they have now, as they are not a "National" Party, but only a "Regional" Party, with no hopes of ever gaining a majority in Parliament.   The Conservatives, on the other hand, are a National Party, with candidates in all Provinces and Territories, and could form a majority government if so elected.   The Liberals have no major power base in Quebec, so they face no real loses there, but perhaps the Conservatives can make some inroads there and work on change.   

At the looks of things, some people are accusing others of faults they themselves hold.   People acting like sheep and believing all the fearmongering of the corrupt Liberals are leading us down a very slippery slope.   Yes you can vote, or not vote, for whomever you choose in Canada, but if you truly want change, you may have to 'bit the bullet' and vote for change, not spoil a ballot, not vote for a 'Protest' Party, not vote for a "Regional' Party, nor vote for a "Fringe' Party, BUT VOTE  for the OPPOSITION PARTY.   Your chance to step up to bat is coming..........


----------



## jmacleod (17 May 2005)

Just heard Harry Connick Junior sing the old Irving Berlin classic "Why Don't You Change Partners
and Dance With Me" - lady like Belinda is entitled to change partners, and dance with whomever
turns her on - Peter MacKay will become part of her historic past I would think (she would be
better off dancing with his father, the Honorable Elmer). MacLeod


----------



## Britney Spears (17 May 2005)

> what she did makes her look like she has no morals or principals. Most people like consistency, overall.



This is one of those Karl Rove style talking points that pisses me off to no end. Why the hell is "Consistency" a good thing? Should I vote for a candidate to prepare us for a war with the Soviet Union? Completely ridiculous, but CONSISTENT for the last 15 years, which is apparently a great thing right? During the last US pres. campaign, every time I hear someone call John Kerry a "flip flopper" I feel the urge to double tap him. Yes, the man changes his opinion. anyone with half a brain would, because THE WORLD DOESN'T STAY THE SAME!.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 May 2005)

> BUT VOTE  for the OPPOSITION PARTY.  Your chance to step up to bat is coming..........



That's the problem George, no one likes the opposition party, so why should we vote for a party we don't like? This is why I found news of Stronach's defection so encouraging. At last, We've finally got the socially progressive, fiscally conservative, good looking minister into the goverment, and all without a single cent wasted in another useless election.  This is a great thing folks.


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> That's the problem George, no one likes the opposition party, so why should we vote for a party we don't like? This is why I found news of Stronach's defection so encouraging. At last, We've finally got the socially progressive, fiscally conservative, good looking minister into the goverment, and all without a single cent wasted in another useless election.   This is a great thing folks.



Unfortunately, this attitude, right or wrong, will guarantee that the corrupt party that has been ruling this country for the past decade, will continue to do so for another decade, further entrenching themselves.  That is why I say "bit the bullet", bring about change, if it is good then we truly win.  If it is bad; well we have four years of crap and then vote them out again, as opposed to twenty plus years of Liberal crap.  The system needs to be 'shocked' back into shape.  We know Mr Dithers won't/can't do it.


----------



## Acorn (18 May 2005)

A great thing? Like she'll be allowed to speak her mind?

I don't fault her with voting with her feet, but I do question the timing. If I were inclined to see hidden agenda's I'd suggest that she did it at a time when the maximum media benefit would accrue. I would say that's not as much an indication of principle as ambition.

I do agree with Britney Spears (another BS, what's up with that   ;D). Why does politics prevent one from changing one's mind?

Hell, I, a staunch Conservative voter (who once even voted Alliance), am thinking of voting Green, just because I'm so pissed off at the bovine excreta currently passing for Parliament. I'd vote Rino if they came back.

Actually, I have recently come to the conclusion that the best result for Canada would be a Conservative minority with an NDP balance of power.

Acorn


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 May 2005)

All of you saying she has the right to change her mind are missing one thing, she changed for her own power game.
Not long ago she wanted to be head of a party, this would make one think she so strongly believed in that party's policys that she wanted to run the ship. Well, what policys have changed so dramacticly since that day,....none. 
If this was about what you believed in, then just actually get up on your hind legs and vote against your party, isn't that one of the Tories principles? More open voting? Because to be truthful, I really don't want an election right now, I wish all this money promising had never happened.

The whole thing smells and not because I'm more Conservative than Liberal but the reward for selling your principle, shouldn't just standing up for your principle have been enough?


----------



## Britney Spears (18 May 2005)

I've been following the discussion on some other boards, and here's some points which have been brought up:

If Stronach were an oppurtunist, her best course of action would have been to stay conservative and win an easy re-election in her riding. With this defection she now faces a much more difficult campaign, and an election is still lickely to come within the next 6 month, even if it doesn't happen right now.

When Stronach joined the Conservative party, it was newly formed and without much of an agenda at all.In recent times it has become increasingly apparent that Stronach's liberal social platform was at odds with Harper's vision for the conservatives. It could be said that Stronach first signed up with the Conservatives in order to get her political career going, before she could make a serious stand on principles. Also, she believes that the new budget will be beneficial to her riding.

Apparently, her defection didn't suprise anyone who had actually been following her career more closely than I (I was too busy rolling around naked with glee in my retroactive pay raise.....).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 May 2005)

That still does not answer my question.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 May 2005)

> That still does not answer my question.



Well, I suppose there's a difference between standing up for the principle, and actually doing something useful.....

When she signed up, the Conservatives were still trying to recreate the glory of the old PC party, which apparently stood for everything we now hold dear., she didn't like the way the Conservative party was going, so she voted with her feet. Is that so hard to believe?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 May 2005)

Oop's you missed it again.......[aww come on]...........I'm not ragging on her decision to bolt, I'm ragging on the decision to bolt " oh lookie what I got, I'm a minister"

.....are you trying to say that the Liberal party is so thin with quality that there is no one who has been a faithful member for years that shouldn't have got the job?


----------



## Britney Spears (18 May 2005)

> Oop's you missed it again.......[aww come on]...........I'm not ragging on her decision to bolt, I'm ragging on the decision to bolt " oh lookie what I got, I'm a minister"



And my question, then, would be "Why not?"



> .....are you trying to say that the Liberal party is so thin with quality that there is no one who has been a faithful member for years that shouldn't have got the job?




HAHAHAHAHA....

I'm not intimately familiar with the inner workings of the liberal party (living out here in the west and all). You want me to do a search on  "the Liberals" "Quality" "Faithfulness" and "Should have gotten the job"? Apparently lots of folks on these very forums have a lot to say about that......


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> If Stronach were an oppurtunist, her best course of action would have been to stay conservative and win an easy re-election in her riding. With this defection she now faces a much more difficult campaign, and an election is still lickely to come within the next 6 month, even if it doesn't happen right now.



She barely won in a long time Liberal riding.   The Liberals there are dancing with glee tonight.   I'd say it was an opportunist move to keep her seat in the next election.   Not bad move at all.....First day in the new Party and already in Cabinet.... :


----------



## Britney Spears (18 May 2005)

> She barely won in a long time Liberal riding.  The Liberals there are dancing with glee tonight.  I'd say it was an opportunist move to keep her seat in the next election.  Not bad move at all.....First day in the new Party and already in Cabinet.... Roll Eyes



Seen,  I stand corrected. Thank you. 

OTOH, I suppose if the last election was so close, then switching sides does not give her any advantage either? Not with the Adscam and all that anyway.....


----------



## canadianblue (18 May 2005)

If Stronach truly believed that the party was making a turn for the worse, why not bolt earlier instead of a few days before a major vote. As well I believe some conservative members were allowed free votes on the same sex issue. If Stronach isn't an oppurtunist then why would she only bolt after being bribed with a cabinet position. 



> When she signed up, the Conservatives were still trying to recreate the glory of the old PC party, which apparently stood for everything we now hold dear., she didn't like the way the Conservative party was going, so she voted with her feet. Is that so hard to believe?



Well, she should have bolted earlier, as well I don't really believe anything she has said as she is a proven liar, and stabbed all of her former friends in the back. A few days earlier she was attending pro-conservative rallies, and rallying the troops. Then some Liberals bribed her with a new cabinet post, as well as the possibility of becoming leader and she is now fully supportive of the liberals. On same sex marriage, the conservatives supported civil union's which isn't that extreme. 

But in the end it will never matter, as I think that the Liberal's will be elected for the next century no matter what. As long as they have Ontario and a few seats outside of Ontario they will win.


----------



## larry Strong (18 May 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> As long as they have Ontario and a few seats outside of Ontario they will win.



In the end that might be all they have to govern, besides that east coast.


----------



## The_Falcon (18 May 2005)

Peter Mansbridge in an interview with Stonach tonight high-lighted the fact that in all votes in the last couple of weeks inlcuding the Conservatives "confidence" motion, she voted to bring down the liberals, plus she had very few kind things to say about the budget, and she attended rallies over the weekend for the Conservatives.  Now all of a sudden she jumps ship, and is immediately given a ministerial portfolio, because of her morals?  BS!! (and I am not referring to her intials)  Its pure political opportunism at its worst.  Anyone who can't see that is blind.  I hope she is quickly turfed during the next election.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 May 2005)

The CPC position on same-sex marriage should be treated by a voter as a test of common sense and the ability to think in depth.

If the CPC wins a majority, they sure aren't going to do it purely on the basis of seats won west of Ontario.   If the CPC wins a minority it is going to depend on the support of either Bloc, Liberal, or NDP members (probably in that order) to support any legislation, regardless whether it is a government or private bill.

Now, some questions:

1) Are the Bloc going to support a CPC bill against SSM?
2) The Liberals?
3) NDP?
4) Conservatives elected east of Manitoba?

The pragmatic truth is that the anti-SSM wing of the CPC has no real hope of passing the bill it would like to pass under any conceivable configuration or circumstances, save one - a truly free vote, with the very iffy caveat that the MPs actually reflect the will of the estimated 51% or 52% of Canadians who are against SSM.   I suppose that MPs aren't going to actually be in a hurry to counteract what the provinces have already set in motion.  [And there is also the Senate to be taken into account.  No guesses where the dominant political sympathies in that body lie.]

There are many issues on the federal table with which a voter should be preoccupied, and anti-SSM bills are not one of them.   The supposed prejudices of "conservatives" are an excuse, not a reason.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 May 2005)

> The supposed prejudices of "conservatives" are an excuse, not a reason.



I was using SSM as a catch all for the broadly socially reactionary atmosphere of the conservative party as a whole. Regardless of the technicalities of the actually legislation. The vast majority of voters are not going to be affected in the slightest by any kind of SSM legislation, anti or otherwise, so it is a touchstone of the party's social platform.


----------



## xFusilier (18 May 2005)

No one is asking though, why is it that...a star member of the opposition, which is supposedly the government in waiting, given the present political climate would cross the floor: because simply put if we were to have a general election tommorrow we would still have a Liberal government.  The CPC has done a piss poor job of representing itself as an alternative to the Liberal Party.  When else in Canada, would there be any doubt that a government which used public funds to enrich its friends and allies, would be out on its ear.  The Liberal government has failed Canada, IMHO so has the Conservative Party.

Make no doubt about it  Belinda Stronach just played Jesus to Paul Martins Lazarus.  Martin will now go down as the man who beat the rap....he gave the Tories no other choice than to put up or shut up, a situation that has largely been abetted by Harpers sabre rattling.  The smart play would have been to bide ones time, vote on the budget, deal with SSM in a way that minimized it as an election issue, and then if once the Gormery Inquiry is tabled (which could only help the opposition) Martin did not call a general election as he promised to do...have a confidence motion, which the NDP and the Bloc would have also voted for...thus eliminating the possible election issue of Harper being in league with the seperatists.  All this is for naught however, Harper is a dead man.  He has lost face to Martin and he will in all likelyhood loose the next general election as well as the leadership of his party.  Lesson to be learned...it is the voters to the Left of the Tory political spectrum that one has to court not the ones to the right...maybe next time they'll elect a leader that understands this.


----------



## Dare (18 May 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> No one is asking though, why is it that...a star member of the opposition, which is supposedly the government in waiting, given the present political climate would cross the floor: because simply put if we were to have a general election tommorrow we would still have a Liberal government.  The CPC has done a piss poor job of representing itself as an alternative to the Liberal Party.  When else in Canada, would there be any doubt that a government which used public funds to enrich its friends and allies, would be out on its ear.  The Liberal government has failed Canada, IMHO so has the Conservative Party.
> 
> Make no doubt about it  Belinda Stronach just played Jesus to Paul Martins Lazarus.  Martin will now go down as the man who beat the rap....he gave the Tories no other choice than to put up or shut up, a situation that has largely been abetted by Harpers sabre rattling.  The smart play would have been to bide ones time, vote on the budget, deal with SSM in a way that minimized it as an election issue, and then if once the Gormery Inquiry is tabled (which could only help the opposition) Martin did not call a general election as he promised to do...have a confidence motion, which the NDP and the Bloc would have also voted for...thus eliminating the possible election issue of Harper being in league with the seperatists.  All this is for naught however, Harper is a dead man.  He has lost face to Martin and he will in all likelyhood loose the next general election as well as the leadership of his party.  Lesson to be learned...it is the voters to the Left of the Tory political spectrum that one has to court not the ones to the right...maybe next time they'll elect a leader that understands this.


It is Conservative Liberal (and NDP for that matter (yes, they exist  )) voters that the Conservatives need to court. Not the left. Otherwise they simply become another Liberal party (another party divided amongst drastically different ideals). Sure they need a "big tent", but they must not compromise on their foundings. The Conservatives could easily out do the Liberal party if they had any marketting sense. The media is not their friend and they have to realize that and work with it, as the Bush administration did, in order to win. They don't get their message out effectively and are always a few steps behind the public debate. Which all stems from being too timid and decentralized. I suspect this election things will be far different than previous elections. They've learned some key lessons. Namely, what not to do in the week before the election and who not to listen to for advice.. as for losing face, this isn't Imperialist Japan. Our politicians lose face every day they yell like monkeys in Parliament. It doesn't seem to bother them then, why would it be any different now. They'll carry on, and from what I have seen, Harper is still a good choice, but time only time will tell.


----------



## JBP (18 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> This is one of those Karl Rove style talking points that pisses me off to no end. Why the hell is "Consistency" a good thing? Should I vote for a candidate to prepare us for a war with the Soviet Union? Completely ridiculous, but CONSISTENT for the last 15 years, which is apparently a great thing right? During the last US pres. campaign, every time I hear someone call John Kerry a "flip flopper" I feel the urge to double tap him. Yes, the man changes his opinion. anyone with half a brain would, because THE WORLD DOESN'T STAY THE SAME!.



Well, if you read my post, I said "most" people like consistency "overall", not "I" like it... Hence why I posted I don't disagree or agree with her move or motives... 

And it's true that most people like consistency, look at the way our world is run... How do you get a higher credit score? _consistent_ credit accounts in good standing, consistent address and job for 3+ years minimum. How do you gain someone's trust? _Consistently_ proving to someone you're reliable and they can count on you. For most people, they gain emotional and social recognition for the length of time they stick to thier guns and do thier thing in a _consistent_ manner. Terry Fox? Imagine what his legacy would have been like if he said, "Ahhh crap, this is rediculous, let's try something else! It's too hard to run all the way across Canada...".. I know that's comparing apples to oranges, but I just use it to expose my point more openly...

So, again, whose voting Green Party?   .... Just kidding.... Again... Still working on which party I'll vote for...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I was using SSM as a catch all for the broadly socially reactionary atmosphere of the conservative party as a whole. Regardless of the technicalities of the actually legislation. The vast majority of voters are not going to be affected in the slightest by any kind of SSM legislation, anti or otherwise, so it is a touchstone of the party's social platform.



Reactionary?  The Conservatives are trying to maintain the status quo - it is the Liberals who are jumping at every new social cause like a dog chases after a bone.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 May 2005)

Michael,

What do you have against dogs? Canines give their loyalty openly and without reservation, a quality that is demonstrably lacking in the Liberal Party of Canada.


----------



## SeanNewman (18 May 2005)

This if for those who challenged my post on page 3:

Yes, we swear our oath/affirmation to the Queen, but are you honestly going to tell me that if the queen dies you will lay down your arms?  If the governor general goes down, are you quitting?

Give me a break.

"The Queen" does not mean Ezlizabeth II, "The Queen" means all that Canada stands for, in which people cast votes, and as such, the party in power = what the people wanted = that's your boss = it's your duty to support them.

Saying that you have civie-power to cast your vote and complain about the gov't is not true (or perhaps a half-truth).  You have a right to vote, and you have basic human rights, but never forget *service before self*.


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2005)

SeanNewman said:
			
		

> ........, and as such, the party in power = what the people wanted = that's your boss = it's your duty to support them.



NO!

I do not serve the Party in Power.   I server the Government of Canada, lead (Influenced) by the Party in Power.   There is a big difference.


----------



## 2 Cdo (18 May 2005)

Exactly, remember a politcian by any other name is still a power grubbing, self centered leach. They only exist to fatten their own wallets, in some cases courtesy of daddy, at the publics expense.

As for telling people that they have no right to complain because they serve in the military is asinine. Didn't the nazis try blind obedience once as an excuse?


----------



## Lance Wiebe (18 May 2005)

Well, I think that Belinda will make a fine Liberal.

She has demonstrated a complete lack of integrity, loyalty and honesty.  

Ergo, she'll fit in fine with Martin's crowd.  Good riddance to her.


----------



## Gunnar (18 May 2005)

I've seen that a lot lately...the crypto-Liberals are leaving the party.  It's as if they suddenly learned the concept of integrity, or Conservatism, and they don't like it.

For years, the PC's (also known as Liberals with blue ties) campaigned on the same soft, centrist, anything-is-negotiable approach as the Liberals.  This lost them conservative votes--because when there's no difference between either party, you vote for the guy you think won't mess things up TOO badly....except that you see them as all the same...hell, for years they were...

Now that the Conservatives actually have a platform again, people are suspicious.  What's this "accomplishing things" agenda?  How do we know you aren't the same old same old?  Why should be believe that?  They've been trained for years that politics doesn't matter...so while they continue to vote (and you have to wonder why), they vote for what makes them feel comfortable...simple, understandably corrupt Liberals...

Personally, I don't get it.

A man in a bar sidles up to an attractive woman.  It's obvious he'd like to take her home with him.  He introduces himself, is charming...he chats nicely with the woman.  However, every time the woman gets up from the table to go to the washroom, he rummages through her purse for money, and buys another round of drinks.  Eventually, the "free" drinks catch up with the woman, and her inebriation overpowers her good sense, and she goes to a motel with the guy.

The next morning she wakes up alone, in a place she doesn't recognize.  She's been used for someone else's purposes, has a terrible hangover, and doesn't have enough money in her purse to get home.  She has to pay for the motel room on her credit card, and then she has to walk across town in yesterday's clothes to work overtime at her job.  Overtime hours she didn't want to take, in order to be able to pay the rent because there's no more money in her purse...and she's still been used.

What do you think about the guy who did this?  A guy who'd use a woman's own money as a means of exploiting her?  Would you count him as the greatest friend this woman ever had?  Would you advise the woman to write down his phone number in case she wanted to date him again?  

You would if you were Canadian.  The woman is the Canadian Taxpayer.  The man is Paul Martin.  

Think about it.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 May 2005)

Intelligere said:
			
		

> I disagree, SeanNewman.  My oath is to EIIR, btgoG, etc.  No more, no less.  That shouldn't and can't be "translated" into what you believe "Canada stands for".



In response to 2CDO, it would appear Intelligere feels about his oath the same way too many felt about 

_I swear by God, this Holy Oath, that I will give unlimited obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and People, Adolf Hitler, and as a brave soldier will stake my life for this oath at any time._

Obedience to Hitler by name.  Not the ideals of Germany, God or Man, but to Hitler.  Not a great situation that had some pretty desperate consequences.


----------



## LowRider (18 May 2005)

The events of the past few weeks are a prime example of why we are doomed to a Liberal Dictatorship.
Martin has been galavanting around the Country throwing bribes at everyone and their dog in order to hold onto power.
The Liberals have a powerful propaganda machine in the CBC.How else could they be involved in the largest political scandal in Canadian history,and end up making the Conservatives look like the bad guys?
It's ironic how they portray Harper as villan who would destroy Canada,when in reality it is the Liberals who will destroy this country if they manage to get reelected.If we do go to the polls this summer the BQ will surely gain seats in Quebec,and if the Liberals get Elected there will be a referendum,and Quebec will seperate.it's possible Alberta may be next.
Bottom line.The Liberals are like a scoolyard bully,If you don't stand up for yourself they will keep taking your lunchmoney.


----------



## SeanNewman (18 May 2005)

Two things:
1.   Service before self.
2.   Ours is not to reason why...

You don't have to agree with who leads the country, but it's your duty as a SERVICE member to do what they say.   You have your vote (self), but if the rest of the people puts a certain party in power that you don't like, your "self" pipers down and you do what you're told, or you hand in your uniform.

A civie can have their vote and then gripe about the winner until the cows come home, but that does not change the fact that you signed up to serve for this country.   That is reflected by the laws and wishes of the party in power.

Nobody forced you into this job.   If you want to moan and complain about people in government, quit your job and become a reporter.   I choose to support my chain of command from the top to the bottom.   

Griping solves nothing, and the squeaky wheel at the end of the day just sounds like it's whining.


----------



## Fideo (18 May 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I wonder if you read what you wrote in the last couple posts of yours?  You seem to contradict yourself in your reasons for coming to Canada and a "free" vote if you only see the Liberals as the only alternative.  You have put yourself back into your "One Party Democracy" that you said you have left, and now made it Canada.  Thanks a whole bunch for that!   ???
> 
> I can't see your logic of the Bloc gaining much more power than they have now, as they are not a "National" Party, but only a "Regional" Party, with no hopes of ever gaining a majority in Parliament.  The Conservatives, on the other hand, are a National Party, with candidates in all Provinces and Territories, and could form a majority government if so elected.  The Liberals have no major power base in Quebec, so they face no real loses there, but perhaps the Conservatives can make some inroads there and work on change.
> 
> At the looks of things, some people are accusing others of faults they themselves hold.  People acting like sheep and believing all the fearmongering of the corrupt Liberals are leading us down a very slippery slope.  Yes you can vote, or not vote, for whomever you choose in Canada, but if you truly want change, you may have to 'bit the bullet' and vote for change, not spoil a ballot, not vote for a 'Protest' Party, not vote for a "Regional' Party, nor vote for a "Fringe' Party, BUT VOTE  for the OPPOSITION PARTY.  Your chance to step up to bat is coming..........



OK George..I believe in more than a one Party Democracy let me just state that. I just don't believe in a full RIGHT Conservative party. Hence the word PROGRESSIVE. Thats another reason why I think stronach crossed the floor....she still is a Progressive candidate...A reason why many voters lost faith in the PROGRESSIVE Conservative is because they lost exactly that major element in their platform. Sorry, if we were to base stronachs decision on ambition I believe in that....in that she has the ambition to make a positive change for Canadians.....not side with the Bloc to win the majority and become the new Prime Minister. I don't believe the Bloc has a major power outlook...sorry if you misunderstood me...they do however hold much more power and if we looked at a referendum right now..guess what...we would be looking at a separated Canada. Thats why I still believe Stronachs decision was a moral one. She still understands that her party might loose and she still jumped....you gotta commend her courage and boldness. I'm 25 years old and I don't have all the answers in the world George...just my opinion. I came here alone with a translator when I was 9 years old while my parents mopped floors and served tables for a living here waiting for me...and I'm damn proud to be Canadian and enjoy the freedom both of us have to discuss politics without someone holding a gun to our head and telling us to vote for a single party. Neither am I telling you to vote a certain direction....just why I'm voting Red. I still don't understand why your thanking me when you still have as much a voice in a ballot as I do. As for you stating that a (spoiled Ballot) is a ballot that chooses no change....to me a spoiled ballot is an empty ballot...which is unfortunate for a lot of Canadians my age who choose not to vote. (Ill leave it at that....good times though  ) Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2005)

Gunnar

Good Post.

SeanNewman 



> Two things:
> 1.  Service before self.
> 2.  Ours is not to reason why...



You are one warped puppy.  





> I choose to support my chain of command from the top to the bottom.



This in no way leads us to serve the Party in Power.  Our Commander in Chief is the Governor General, not the Prime Minister.  You are starting to sound like a fool in service of Paul Martin.  You seem to fall into the category that Michael Dorosh stated:





> "I swear by God, this Holy Oath, that I will give unlimited obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and People, Adolf Hitler, and as a brave soldier will stake my life for this oath at any time.
> 
> Obedience to Hitler by name.  Not the ideals of Germany, God or Man, but to Hitler."



You definitely need some reflection on what your Oath really means.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 May 2005)

Quote,
_but it's your duty as a SERVICE member to do what they say._

Now thats the silliest thing I've read today [the day is still young though], you really should study the meaning of a "lawful order"
I'm sure you can find some QR@O's somewhere.


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2005)

Fideo 

I look at a spoiled ballot, a refusal to exercise your right to vote, or a vote for a Fringe Party as only a Protest, but mostly as a Vote for the Lieberals.   If you truly don't want a Lieberal Government, then you must vote them out.   There is only one way to do that and it is to vote for the Party that is most likely to be able to gain a Majority in Parliament and defeat them.   A vote for the Green Party or the Rhino Party will not accomplish that.   An unwillingness to exercise your franchise to vote, states to me that you are happy with the corrupt Government as it is.   A spoiled Ballot is just that, apathetic acceptance of the ruling party and a useless form of protest, as who knows what you truly are protesting - you have no press to state your grievance.

I am sure that there are many things in the Lieberal Platform that many Lieberal Supporters don't agree with, yet still will support the Lieberal Party, in much the same way as a Hockey Fan will continue to support his team, even though he dislikes a certain player or two.   What amazes me, is that the Canadian Electorate, will then look at the Conservatives, pick one item of their Platform that they dislike and then condemn the whole Conservative Party.   What a contradiction of logic.   The Canadian Electorate are truly SHEEP.

We have to bite the bullet sometime, and vote the corrupt out, or be content to get the shaft.


----------



## TCBF (18 May 2005)

Interesting thread.   I always thought that the old PCs and the Libs were two halves of the same party, and elections merely indicated a possible shift change with everyone getting new curtains and carpets.   I thought the Reform/Alliance merger with the PCs was prob engineered by the Liberals to water down the ethical and moral assets of 'Reform'.   I thought the PCs would have been a much better fit with the Liberals - both parties being leftist/corrupt/old-Canada moneyed organizations.   Now, I suppose, some of the Limosine Liberals may see the doctrinal writing on the walls of a true-blue CPC, and realize their future is elsewhere.   This is a short term gain for the Libs, but long term will ensure better doctrinal purity in the CPC.
 Essentially, I cannot condemn Ms Stronach for her decision.   In fact, I aplaud it - she has come out of the political closet, and followed her heart.   Timing?   These things happen when they happen.   Her constituents will let her know what they think when the time comes.

As for her future in cabinet, we all know the poor dear is daddy's girl, and verbally one on one at the table with Landslide Annie, or any other notable ruling female...   well, let's just say she makes good cannon fodder when expendable material may come in handy.   Which it will. Rest assured she has been given responsibilities with a lot of skeletons in the closet, shoes waiting to drop, etc.

A win-win situation all around.

But now the REAL issue: We all know that politics makes strange bed-fellows, but do bed-fellows not also make strange politics?    Did Mr. Mackay cross the line some how?   Turn the uptown girl into a downtown girl?


----------



## Britney Spears (18 May 2005)

> What amazes me, is that the Canadian Electorate, will then look at the Conservatives, pick one item of their Platform that they dislike and then condemn the whole Conservative Party.



Or maybe, just maybe, that one issue is the one that Canadians actually give two licks about? If the Conservatives want to expand their support base, they will have to embrace a more liberal social agenda. Asking Canadians in the east to become more conservative has so far proven insufficient.


----------



## TCBF (18 May 2005)

'Or maybe, just maybe, that one issue is the one that Canadians actually give two licks about?'

If they accept an open agenda of   massive corruption and a parallel government over central Canadian agitprop media rumours of a 'hidden agenda' then we will truly become a sub-arctic banana republic.   Another ten years - twenty, tops -   of this and a few people will stop voting and start shooting. 

 I do not relish the thought of funding my retirement by sitting in my wheelchair and selling wood carvings of polar bears to Nigerian and Malaysian peacekeepers on the streets of Edmonton. ;D


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Or maybe, just maybe, that one issue is the one that Canadians actually give two licks about? If the Conservatives want to expand their support base, they will have to embrace a more liberal social agenda. Asking Canadians in the east to become more conservative has so far proven insufficient.



And they are willing to put up with a similar policy of the Lieberals and keep that foul taste in their mouths..........


----------



## Britney Spears (18 May 2005)

> I do not relish the thought of funding my retirement by sitting in my wheelchair and selling wood carvings of polar bears to Nigerian and Malaysian peacekeepers on the streets of Edmonton. Grin




Why, what happened to initiative? If you can't beat them, start your own I say. Start burying caches of Kalashnikovs right now, and when the time comes, gather the veterans from the Regimental Association, call them "Tom's Polar Bears",  sieze the base,  promote yourself to Colonel and declare the independence of the Republic of Alberta (You know the drill). What are the boy out east going to do? They have no tanks.......

And then you can outlaw SSM too.  



> And they are willing to put up with a similar policy of the Lieberals and keep that foul taste in their mouths..........



Well, that is not decided yet, we shall have to see.......


----------



## TCBF (18 May 2005)

"Why, what happened to initiative? If you can't beat them, start your own I say. Start burying caches of Kalashnikovs right now, and when the time comes, gather the veterans from the Regimental Association, call them "Tom's Polar Bears",  sieze the base,  promote yourself to Colonel and declare the independence of the Republic of Alberta (You know the drill). What are the boy out east going to do? They have no tanks......."

- Dear me , Britney, that's all a bit reactionary for my taste.

"And then you can outlaw SSM too. "

-What have you got against SSM?  What's the big deal?  Democracy has been hijacked, the  LPC has staged a palace coup without anyone figuring it out, and you get excited about a few sodomists getting married?  Don't we all have bigger fish to fry here?  Like the future of our country?


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2005)

SeanNewman said:
			
		

> Yes, we swear our oath/affirmation to the Queen, but are you honestly going to tell me that if the queen dies you will lay down your arms?  If the governor general goes down, are you quitting?



Actually, we do not swear a personal oath to HRH Elizabeth II, but to "Her Majesty the Queen, her Lawful Heirs and Successors", or words to that effect. The Queen represents us all as Head of State, and the Government (in theory anyway) proposes legislation for Royal Assent (although it is centuries old practice that HM no longer intervenes directly in the day to day affairs of the State, and accepts the advice of the Government of the day).

The big problem, which has been alluded to in many threads is the Government no longer represents the people in any real sense, and the structure has been perverted to such an extent that there is no longer any practical way to sweep an openly corrupt and ineffective government from office. (The only half way promising sign is the open laughter at Paul Martin's press conference welcoming Ms Stronich to the party and handing her the 29 pieces of silver). A "Maple Leaf" revolution along the lines of Lebanon's "Cedar Revolution" or the Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" seems very unlikely (Canadian seem willing to tolerate almost any outrage against their dignity and pocketbooks), and I am sure none of us want to go down the other road. Welfare Fascism is now the order of the day, and it is the most insidious form of Socialism yet invented. We need to demonstrate a more effective form of government in the streets of our municipalities to teach the voters there are other models and structures, or get our Green Cards.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 May 2005)

> -What have you got against SSM?  What's the big deal?  Democracy has been hijacked, the  LPC has staged a palace coup without anyone figuring it out, and you get excited about a few sodomists getting married?  Don't we all have bigger fish to fry here?  Like the future of our country?



Tell that to the Conservatives. I suppose we should be glad that we're not tearing the country apart because someone on the other side of the world flushed a book down the toilet?

Strange, every thread I touch seems to eventually turn into a debate on gay marriage.....


----------



## vr (18 May 2005)

et tu Brenda


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Strange, every thread I touch seems to eventually turn into a debate on gay marriage.....



Well....some of us have been keeping our hands off that.....and looking at other areas of concern......however, "Allegiance to the Ruling Party" is wearing a bit thin.   :


----------



## TCBF (18 May 2005)

"Tell that to the Conservatives."

-I think people have. They seem to be focused on bringing down the guvmint over Gomery, not SSM.

But to avoid Gomery, some folks keep inserting the LPC agitprop about 'hidden agendas'...

"Strange, every thread I touch seems to eventually turn into a debate on gay marriage....."

- My case in point.


----------



## Reccesoldier (18 May 2005)

SeanNewman said:
			
		

> This if for those who challenged my post on page 3:
> 
> Yes, we swear our oath/affirmation to the Queen, but are you honestly going to tell me that if the queen dies you will lay down your arms?  If the governor general goes down, are you quitting?
> 
> ...





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> NO!
> 
> I do not serve the Party in Power.  I server the Government of Canada, lead (Influenced) by the Party in Power.  There is a big difference.



I don't think I could have said it any better than that. 

Thanks George.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (18 May 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Tell that to the Conservatives."
> 
> -I think people have. They seem to be focused on bringing down the guvmint over Gomery, not SSM.
> 
> ...



I can't believe how stupid you'd have to be to buy into a myth about a 'hidden agenda'. It's amounts to accusing someone of secretly plotting to do something, but does not allow the person any room to address the claim because the agenda is 'hidden'. It's a baseless accusation intended to scare the stupid.


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2005)

Pte. Gaisford said:
			
		

> ..... It's a baseless accusation intended to scare the stupid.



Ah! Ha!.......Now we are getting somewhere.   :


----------



## beach_bum (18 May 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Actually, we do not swear a personal oath to HRH Elizabeth II, but to "Her Majesty the Queen, her Lawful Heirs and Successors", or words to that effect. The Queen represents us all as Head of State, and the Government (in theory anyway) proposes legislation for Royal Assent (although it is centuries old practice that HM no longer intervenes directly in the day to day affairs of the State, and accepts the advice of the Government of the day).



I was pretty sure that on the Oath it actually has the Queen by name.  It's been a couple of years since I worked in recruiting so I could be wrong.


----------



## canadianblue (18 May 2005)

I thought that it was an oath to protect the people of Canada, not the Federal Liberals. Theirs a big difference. As well the majority of people didn't elect the Liberals, only about 36%. What about the other 64%. 

Here's what I think, the Reform party should start up again, and we elect a Reform government .

Actaully, nevermind I'm daydreaming again.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 May 2005)

Couldn't resist sticking some old threads here.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16444.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2885.0.html


----------



## Danjanou (18 May 2005)

Back to the title of this thread. I think it's clear what the price was. It also appears inflation has gone up again. Wasn't it the last time only 30 pieces of silver?

Actually if I was Smiling Jack Layton Patron Saint of the Soundbite I'd be a little ticked off. Five billion in assorted budget goodies give or take a million  (and what's a misplaced million or two to this Government) to buy off his whole caucus, versus a five billion (again give or take a million) Government portfolio to play with for one vote. 

I guess Baby Doc Martin has been reading his Orwell â Å“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal...â ? :

Hey even Kilgour was satisfied with a couple of million in aid and old military equipment and a rifle company.

hey though these are Liberal promises, not like thay actually intend to come through with them now is it. :


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 May 2005)

>The Queen" does not mean Ezlizabeth II,

I don't remember any explanatory clauses to that effect.  One possibility the oath as it currently is written leaves open is that the CF would be the final guarantor of Canada in the event the government in Parliament overstepped its lawful and conventional bounds.  I'm not sure legal opinion backs that up; it's probably a useful issue to explore and resolve.

The old PC and the current Liberals are two sides of the same establishment coin.  As one might expect, those who seek power gravitate to where it can be found.  For Liberals and old-style PC enthusiasts to babble on about each others' corrupt behaviour in the past and present is merely to point the finger at themselves, but in differently-hued political attire.  To vote for the Liberals as they are currently constituted, or to propose to vote for Tories closer to the political centre is to support that establishment.  That establishment, or at least the system by which it perpetuates itself, is what needs to be gutted.  Canadians might actually have to take a chance on regionally-aligned parties - the Bloc, the Reform/Alliance wing of the new CPC - to permanently dismantle some of the modern apparatus of the current Canadian federal state in order to close some of the windows of abuse.

I suppose I value my political freedoms more highly than social ones, because the former are necessary to the latter.


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2005)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Back to the title of this thread. I think it's clear what the price was. It also appears inflation has gone up again. Wasn't it the last time only 30 pieces of silver?
> 
> Actually if I was Smiling Jack Layton Patron Saint of the Soundbite I'd be a little ticked off. Five billion in assorted budget goodies give or take a million  (and what's a misplaced million or two to this Government) to buy off his whole caucus, versus a five billion (again give or take a million) Government portfolio to play with for one vote.
> 
> ...



Now if Mr Dithers was to offer the CF $5 billion for our votes, I would like to see it in cash or a certified cheque...


----------



## scm77 (18 May 2005)

Perhaps Belinda Stronach isn't the only Conservative MP the Liberals tried to buy.  

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=af217b54-ccb2-4ace-a78e-86e868503f91



> OTTAWA (CP) -- Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal says the Liberals offered him a diplomatic post or a Senate seat for his wife in return for scratching his crucial budget vote.
> 
> The MP from Surrey, B.C., whose wife Nina is also a Tory MP, alleges he made an audio recording of the offer from Liberal cabinet minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy, Prime Minister Paul Martin's chief of staff.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tpr.Orange (18 May 2005)

Arg this really is a ball breaker..looks like the 2 independents are going to be a split and that means the speaker has the deciding vote and he is a liberal....


ARG

What is Canada doing, voting liberal is like cutting off your own legs :crybaby:


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 May 2005)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> I was pretty sure that on the Oath it actually has the Queen by name.  It's been a couple of years since I worked in recruiting so I could be wrong.



You are in fact correct. I just checked my solemn affirmation and my wifes oath of allegiance.


----------



## danielbouchard (19 May 2005)

Miss Stronach, patriotic, hahahaha , its joke, the power its the real factor !!!  :rage: :rage: 
Liberal gouvernement = professional thieft group oups sorry  :-X

My vote its for u mister Harper  . Harper and McKay have real conviction and value! not u miss Stronach.


----------



## Kunu (19 May 2005)

> Perhaps Belinda Stronach isn't the only Conservative MP the Liberals tried to buy.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050503.wmark0503/BNStory/National/

Let's not forget Inky Mark in addition to Mr. and Mrs. Grewal.   Now, what I find curious is that this (older) article indicates four MPs, and assuming Peter MacKay's surprise at Stronach's defection is genuine (which I believe), would imply that there is at least one other Tory whom the Liberals have tried to grease.


----------



## canadianblue (19 May 2005)

According to the Liberal's Inky Mark is to far down the gene pool for their liking whatever the hell that means.


----------



## Kunu (19 May 2005)

> According to the Liberal's Inky Mark is to far down the gene pool for their liking whatever the hell that means.



They were supposedly offering him a senate position, which would have removed him from the House, not added him to the Liberal roster.


----------



## canadianblue (19 May 2005)

When Inky Mark came forward with the allegations, that was the response from the Liberals. I haven't seen these kindof deals being made with the conservatives towards liberal MP's though correct me if I'm wrong. It seems as though if the conservatives want to gain power, they want to do it democratically, you know, not bribing other people to coming over to the otherside.


----------



## Slim (19 May 2005)

I saw an interview with Steve mckay today...Either its the best acting job ever or he is really hurting over loosing this woman!


----------



## George Wallace (19 May 2005)

Who's Steve McKay?

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/News/2005/05/18/1044622-sun.html

Wed, May 18, 2005 


Lovers in dangerous time

'He's not in a good place right now'

By MARIA McCLINTOCK, Parliamentary Bureau

   
 Canada's hottest political pair may be heading for Splitsville. 

News that former Tory MP Belinda Stronach was jumping ship to get into bed with the Grits came as a shock to everyone -- including her lover, Tory Deputy Leader Peter MacKay. 

Sources told the Sun MacKay had no clue Stronach was considering a bolt and he didn't know until Stronach told him yesterday morning. 

"He's not in a good place right now," said one of MacKay's close friends. 

While all indications are the relationship is heading for the rocks, there was no definitive word on the status of it last night. Stronach refused to discuss the matter. 

After getting the news just before Stronach went on national TV to announce the decision, MacKay called Tory Leader Stephen Harper and then hopped on a flight to Nova Scotia, where he was met at the airport by his father Elmer. 

NO INTERVIEWS 

A normally media-friendly MP, MacKay was mum yesterday. It's not known when he'll return to the Commons. 

While Parliament Hill was buzzing with Stronach's defection, many were openly wondering how Mac-Kay was taking the news. 

"If she has such a high opinion of Peter MacKay, I would venture today after my discussion with him, she has an awfully tough way of conveying that to him," said Harper. 

"I think Peter's taking this pretty hard, as you can imagine." 

Conservative Senator Marjory LeBreton said she feels "very badly" for MacKay, who was feeling the sting of betrayal on both personal and political levels. 

"He spent a lot of political capital to get the two parties together and worked very hard to bring a lot of people along, and for her to do that to him, to me, is an unforgivable act on a human scale," she said. 

MacKay spokesman Michael Bailey would offer little comment other than to say MacKay will not follow Stronach to the Liberals. 

"He is not going to cross the floor," Bailey said. 

maria.mcclintock@tor.sunpub.com 

http://www.canoe.ca/OttawaSun/dewar.html


----------



## GrimRX (19 May 2005)

Curious, all this attack on her character.

When that other Conservative MP crossed the floor about 2 years ago, was there this much condemnation?


----------



## canadianblue (19 May 2005)

I believe that MP didn't get bribed into doing it, and didn't do it a few days before an important vote. As well she changed her attitude completely in less then a few days. It's seen as the fact that she only switched due to the fact she was offered a comfy government position.


----------



## GrimRX (19 May 2005)

And it had nothing to do with her values on gay marriages, abortions, etc?

How do we know that other man didn't cross the floor because he was offered a deal?   There was nothing like this kind of media and political scrutiny on the other guy.  I remember that something like the harshest language used on him was "turncoat".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 May 2005)

Has she said she changed her mind on those?

...the whole stench isn't that she crossed the floor, its the cabinet post reward.


----------



## George Wallace (19 May 2005)

So now we have news that she is saying her defection had the blessings of Brian Mulroney.  I see a pattern emerging - she will fit in well in the LIE Camp.


----------



## Gunnar (19 May 2005)

The Liberal's present predicament helps the BQ, the Quebec nationalist separatist party.  It also foments discord in the west.  The Lieberals tried to buy Quebec (who typically vote Liberal, or for liberal-type parties such as the BQ and PQ). (Brief Canada lesson:  BQ - Bloq Quebecois - nationalist Federal Quebec party, only runs and is elected in Quebec, could never be a federal government.  PQ - Parti Quebecois - nationalist provincial party which has been elected in Quebec on a number of occasions).

Thing is, if you want a strong federal gov't who keeps the provinces in their place (so you can spend scads of cash on social programs), you need the Lieberals.  The Conservatives (for whom Quebeckers don't vote) actually would have a better platform to stop separatism:  more provincial autonomy, which is what Alberta and Quebec have always wanted.

The Lieberal position is that the Conservatives, by allying with the BQ, would eliminate real federal representation of Quebec, which would lead to separation.  However, what the Conservatives have done is ally with the BQ in parliament, in order to defeat the corrupt government.  It's not like they've divvyed up the country or anything.  Even if the BQ were to win every seat in Quebec, they couldn't be more than "holder of the balance of power" federally....and there are still more federalists in all parties combined....

Stronach said a lot of things...then she crossed the floor.  "National Unity" has been the Lieberals rallying cry for years, and its wearing a little thin.  In a way, I'm glad she left.  The Lieberal party is a good place to collect all the politicians who can be bought, lack integrity, vision, and intelligence.  Keep them out of my party, thank you.


----------



## Gunnar (19 May 2005)

> Curious, all this attack on her character.
> 
> When that other Conservative MP crossed the floor about 2 years ago, was there this much condemnation?



No, but that was largely because it was a matter of housecleaning.   A few people up and decided that the Conservative party was not to their liking, having been Progressive Conservatives for so long...

Did those Conservative MP's campaign to be the LEADER of the party?
Did those Conservative MP's wait until the eve of an important vote to blade their former party in the back?
Did those Conservative MP's give the leader of their former party 20 minutes of warning?
Did those Conservative MP's get a cushy cabinet position as a result?

It's about integrity.   Other MP's crossed the floor because their old party was no longer supporting the principles they supported....Belinda walked into this one with both eyes open, said she supported Conservative principles so much she was prepared to lead the party, then decided that if she couldn't lead the party, she was gonna leave and take a big fat cabinet position into the bargain--in a party whose stated political postion is supposed to be diametrically opposed to the one she held previously.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 May 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> No, but that was largely because it was a matter of housecleaning.   A few people up and decided that the Conservative party was not to their liking, having been Progressive Conservatives for so long...
> 
> Did those Conservative MP's campaign to be the LEADER of the party?
> Did those Conservative MP's wait until the eve of an important vote to blade their former party in the back?
> ...



Don't forget what she did to her boyfriend....also a member of the Conservative Caucus


----------



## Marty (19 May 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Don't forget what she did to her boyfriend....also a member of the Conservative Caucus



Wow saw him (Peter MacKay ) on the news last night at his Fathers farm ..........he looked gutted , showed some class though , I think he will make a good PM someday.


----------



## Zipper (19 May 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> in a party whose stated political postion is supposed to be diametrically opposed to the one she held previously.



Since when are the various parties diametrically opposed? Yes they have different ideas of how to do things, but to be diametrically opposed is a little harder then what is actually there.



			
				Marty said:
			
		

> (Peter MacKay ) on the news last night at his Fathers farm ..........he looked gutted , showed some class though , I think he will make a good PM someday.



I think I would agree with you there. I'm was not happy when he decided to not to run for the leadership. I think he would have brought a much greater support base from central Canada if he had won.


----------



## TCBF (19 May 2005)

"I think I would agree with you there. I'm was not happy when he decided to not to run for the leadership. I think he would have brought a much greater support base from central Canada if he had won."

- I concur.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 May 2005)

As an English fellow here at my civvie job tells me - the farthest right party in Canada would be positively liberal in a British context.  The two parties are close on a lot of issues - health care is obviously the priority for Canadians.  The Conservatives profess to want small government, the Liberals obviously prefer large government.  That outlook affects their decisions otherwise.


----------



## Pencil Tech (19 May 2005)

Peter Mackay? How quickly they forget. Doesn't anybody remember the last federal PC leadership convention when to get David Orchard's support and delegates, and thus win the leadership of the party, he very publicly signed an agreement with Orchard swearing that he would NEVER entertain any merger with the Canadian Alliance. As soon as he won the leadership he immediately went back on his word started merger talks with the Alliance. Never missed a beat. Now everybody feels sorry for him because of Belinda Stronach. What goes around comes around. As far as I'm concerned this is like almost divine retribution for his dishonesty and total lack of integrity. The "I' word again.


----------



## TCBF (19 May 2005)

" Doesn't anybody remember the last federal PC leadership convention..."

- Nope.  That's a million years ago in politics.


----------



## a_majoor (19 May 2005)

Some more analysis from the Belmont club. It is terrible that we have to go to US blog sites to get information these days:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/05/great-white-north-drama-surrounding.html



> Thursday, May 19, 2005
> 
> The Great White North
> 
> ...



The idea that we are victims of a constitutional coup is bad enough, but the thought that only a _radical_ solution exists is even worse.

If there is hope, as the last paragraph suggests, then it is certainly a long term prospect. Political science characterizes "Brokerage" parties like the Liberals as being the sign of a weak or immature democracy, and suggests they eventually are left behind as the electorate and democratic systems evolve and mature, but do we really see any signs of that? Based on the various scandles revealed since 1993, how is it possible the Liberals still lead in the polls?

Last link to Mark Steyn:

http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=23

Read em and weep


----------



## Zipper (20 May 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Some more analysis from the Belmont club. It is terrible that we have to go to US blog sites to get information these days:



Because that seems to be the only info you desire to hear and/or listen too.



> If there is hope, as the last paragraph suggests, then it is certainly a long term prospect. Political science characterizes "Brokerage" parties like the Liberals as being the sign of a weak or immature democracy, and suggests they eventually are left behind as the electorate and democratic systems evolve and mature, but do we really see any signs of that?



I don't think so. If by brokerage you mean a party needs to broker deals with other parties in order to stay in power, then we would see that as the system in any country that has more then 2 party rule. In fact, democracies that are far older then the US have worked on that system for quite some time. Although you could also say the US works on a similar system, except instead of parties jocking for position, its special interest groups with lots of cash that are.



> Based on the various scandals revealed since 1993, how is it possible the Liberals still lead in the polls?



Simple. Very few people like Harper and the newest incarnation of the Alliance, nor do they wish to go further left to the NDP and really put the country in a tail spin. Canadians have always liked balance, or at least as close to center as possable. Annoying? Yep. But there it is. 

So until the conservatives move closer (not all the way) to what the old PC party was like (just right of center), then you will probably see the Liberal's continuing to be in power. I just wished they be quicker about it.


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2005)

I used to like Steyn, but now I find him to be too much of a chicken-little.  Sure, there are politically ugly parts of the last week (Stronach, buying members, "points of procedure") but there are also some good points (Cadman acting as a representative, government actually working and serving Canada, vigorous and sincere debate on the floor).

Canada will survive this, like we've survived political crisis in the past.  During the this week, I've watched political crisis in Parliament and voted in a provincial election - we're alot better off than some of these states like Russia where members are getting into fist fights in the Duma or like Afghanistan or Bosnia where Canadian soldiers have to patrol polling stations (BTDT myself) to make sure that citizens don't off eachother.


----------



## George Wallace (20 May 2005)

Peter Worthington has an interesting look at the Defections from the Conservative over the years and lately.  A couple of interesting points - ain't hindsight great!

http://www.torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2005/05/20/pf-1048134.html

May 20, 2005 

Tory turncoats nothing new 
By PETER WORTHINGTON

It's now three days since Belinda Stronach immortalized herself in the gallery of political duplicity -- or integrity, depending on viewpoint. 

Her defection from the Conservatives, whom she once hoped to lead, to join the Liberals, whom she recently despised, is a delicious example of opportunism disguised as principles. 

It's fair to say the nation is mesmerized by the sheer audacity embodied in Belinda's defection and betrayal -- not only of her party and her presumed lover, but also the constituents who voted for her. 

Personally, while surprised that she jumped ship, I'm not as appalled as some. Belinda was never very convincing that she had a clue about politics or the world beyond the borders of Magna International. 

What she had was money and chutzpah. Why else would someone with so few credentials feel she could -- and should -- lead a political party? 

While tacky and transparent, it's not Belinda's jumping ship to become the Liberal minister of human resources that's so intriguing; it's the Conservative party that seems to invite such defections from failed leadership aspirants.  
Scott Brison presented himself at the 2003 Conservative leadership convention  as the one who could unify and revive the party, and be the scourge of Liberals! When the party rejected his assessment of himself he joined the Liberals and became minister of public works -- and point man to snipe at Conservatives. 

In 2000, when Keith Martin failed  to convince members of the Canadian Alliance that he should be leader, he switched to the Liberals and today is parliamentary secretary to the defence minister and a defender of second-hand British submarines that leak underwater. 

Back in 1976, the ultra-rightwing Jack Horner  couldn't persuade Tory delegates that he should succeed Robert Stanfield as leader (Horner came fourth in a field of 11 candidates). What did he do? Why, he switched to the Liberals and became Pierre Trudeau's minister of industry. 

When Horner crossed the floor, that marvellous, vitriolic renegade John Diefenbaker quipped that the IQ in both parties had suddenly risen. 

Oh, for a Dief to remark on Belinda! 

Of course, treachery even more repugnant than Belinda's was Lucien Bouchard's 1988 betrayal  of his friend and mentor Brian Mulroney, the prime minister who had persuaded him to join the Tories as a cabinet minister and be his Quebec lieutenant. 

Bouchard rewarded his friend and party by quitting the Tories to start the Bloc Quebecois, then left the Bloc to lead the Parti Quebecois and become premier of the province. 

Belinda says she switched to the Liberals to save Canada from an unholy alliance of Conservatives and the Bloc. 

Horsefeathers. 

It's the Liberals who have made the Bloc a viable threat to Confederation. The Bloc can't get many more seats than they have now. 

They too have had a bellyful of Liberal corruption. 

Belinda's decision is akin to joining a mafia that governs by intimidation, deceit and malice when it can't get its way by bribery and blackmail. But she calls it acting on principles and ethics. Some "ethics." Tony Soprano ethics. 

Look how she sandbagged that poor twit, Peter MacKay, who didn't deserve humiliation. Still, better that MacKay find out sooner rather than later the character of his ex-lady friend. 

Looking back, there's little in this whole scenario that's noble or principled -- but gosh it's fun to see the squirming. 

Belinda may have been too smart by half. Had she stuck around, and had the Conservatives lost the next election, it'd likely goodbye Harper. Then, bizarre as it seems, Belinda would have been a leading contender for leader.  
There's no way that cutthroat Liberals will sanction Belinda becoming their leader when Martin is put to pasture. Tougher than Conservatives, Liberal insiders will chew her up. 

Still, Belinda has added spice to our politics. By comparison, Benedict Arnold was a putz.


----------



## a_majoor (20 May 2005)

Zipper, you wonder why I like getting my information from US Blog sites like Instapundit or "Captain Ed Morrisy"? This is what Canada's MSM feeds us:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000244.html



> May 10, 2005
> Media bias?
> 
> CBC - House passes motion calling on Liberals to resign - The House passed a motion that opposition parties claim should topple the government ïÂ¿Â½ but the Liberals have dismissed it as nothing more than a procedural matter.
> ...



Many of the headlines and stories spin things so the _Liberals_ are the aggivated party, and it is somehow wrong or even immoral to attempt to remove an inept and corrupt sitting government. IF you are content to sit by while they rob you, then that is your choice. IF you want to lift the veil and see what is going on, then widening your information horizons is now only a Google away.


----------



## Zipper (20 May 2005)

Good post GW, as always.  

Worthy would make his dad proud I think.

Majoor - Your correct. And by reading other takes on news worthy items, you can get a different spin on things and thus read between the lines. But I guess its similiar to those papers showing biased views on things and you calling foul, that you also show a distinct bias that needs to be called out from time to time so as to allow people to read between the lines for themselves. 

So keep doing what your doing as it brings a different insight into the picture. Making people think is a good thing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 May 2005)

Worthington points out a common theme that should concern some people: ambitious politicians (federal, provincial) thwarted in their bids for advancement gravitate toward the Liberal Party.

I am not particularly interested in being governed by people whose primary motivation is self-aggrandizement, any more than I would care to be led by them on military operations.


----------



## jmacleod (21 May 2005)

Actually from a political perspective, the appointment of the Hon. Belinda Stronach MP, PC to
the Liberal government Cabinet is a well thought out and shrewd political move. Liberal strategists
will be focused on Minister Stronach and grooming her as a leadership contender to replace
Martin, who has become expendable. The Liberal minority government is focused on calling
a general election in 2005, or very early 2006. They will win the election and form a majority
government. This will lead to severe consternation in the Conservative Party of course, and
once the Liberals have a majority, they will do to Layton what they did earlier in political history
to Lewis - once they are not needed, the NDP will be particularly useless in the parliamentry
and government forum. The Hon. Belinda Stronach MP, PC could (think about it) become leader
of the Liberal Party - there is a severe shortage of leadership candidates, Manning and Tobin
are out, Rock will probably not run, and McKenna will keep his options open. The momentum
which will be generated by the Hon Senator Hillary Clinton (Dem.NY) as she seeks a Presidential
candidate nomination will spin off into Canada - theme? "strong, smart women should lead"
Frank Stronach, the billionaire immigrant machinist's daughter, might be a Prime MInister. MacLeod


----------



## pronto (21 May 2005)

Interesting thoughts Mr. McLeod!. However Manley is just waiting in the wings. I spoke with him a few weeks ago, and although coy, I got the impression he was biding his time. I don't think the Liberals are ready for a woman leader. If they were - Anne McLellan would be their candidate. She is very articulate, has good western contacts, and never forget - she is from Nova Scotia (our favourite province).

Scott Brison (Kings-Hants) is another contender - he was a walk-on when with the conservatives too!. 

Lastly, she has not got the contacts into the establishment like the others. She inherited a company from her father (and she HAS done a good journeywoman's job keeping it out of trouble), but even Frank cannot buy entrance into the club. She needs old montreal or old Toronto contacts. 

I think Tobin may surprise you and me and everyone else. He, like Brutus, is an ambitious man!

The Liberals learned well from Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives... If you are going down anyway, pick a loser (Kim Campbell) as a lightning rod, and strategise for another election - or the one after that. Belinda may be a good choice as the Liberals' Kim Campbell

Ouch! That hurts


----------



## jmacleod (21 May 2005)

My late sister went to University with MacLellan who is from Port Medway NS. She in fact is detested
in the Liberal Caucus, responsible for the Firearms Registry Debacle and frequently referred to as
"the Witch of the North" - does not matter however, she will not be relected in Tory land.We all
know John Manley, good man, but preceived as dull - which he is. Manley would be better off out
of politics. Brian Tobin's star has gone out - if you can, find out why PM Chretien fired him (one
of Chretien's favourites). Tobin however is one of the people Mr. Frank Stronach, a major contributor
to PM Martin's campaign would have talked to about the future of the Hon. Belinda Stronach PC, MP 
Minister, Government of Canada; not bad for an immigrant machinist's daughter. Hon Kim Campbell
former Prime Minister, was done in by fellow Tories, which is their greatest weakness, destroying
talent (like Martin, Brison, Stronach etc.) Liberals will go to the polls late 2005, or early 2006, they
will form a Majority government - Harper, unfortunately for him will have to deal with his caucus,
and his real worst enemy, Ralph (just call me Ralphie) Kline - my thought for today. MacLeod


----------



## pronto (21 May 2005)

Listen up folks - JMacleod is correct, and has a nice grasp of the political field! Manlely is pretty bright in the brain department, but god almighty right some dull.


----------



## jmacleod (22 May 2005)

Reply to Pronto: My late mother's family (Williams-Young) came from Ireland to the Eastern Shore of
Nova Scotia in 1819. The Irish Roman Catholics, Baptists, Adventists etc., all unacceptable to the
NS Tory establishment of 1860's Nova Scotia formed the Liberal Party, which became very powerful
because there were a lot more immigrants then Tories. The familiy produced two MP's and a Senator
-a book was written about the Williams family (A Family of Sea Captains) by a Professor at Dalhousie
University and his wife. We grew up in a political environment, and understand the Party as opposed
to the Politicians; the politicians come and go, the Party goes on. Premier John Savage, a very good
family doctor, great sense of humor, smart and well educated, never understood the Party's motivations
and was forced to resign. The difference in the Liberal Party and all other Canadian political parties is
that the Liberals never loose sight of the ultimate goal, winning the election. PM Trudeau understood
this - learned a great deal from Senator Keith Davey, Toronto, "the rainmaker" and Norman MacLeod
President of the Party when PET was PM. One aspect of the current leadership, is that the PMO
staff, the assistants, flunkies, door openers etc., are not really part of the Party establishment, which
means that Martin's tenure will be short lived. Honorable Belinda Stronach MP, PC is going into the
learning process as I write this; she is campaigning in Labrador NF - let's see what happens there.
MacLeod


----------



## pronto (22 May 2005)

wow -from now on all political questions (espc. NS and the maritimes) go to JMcLeod! My wife went to school with the Savage kids, and agrees with your point - he definitely didn't understand the party - and he was a fine man. She remembers him fondly. interestingly though - some of the flunkys, politicos etc. who are NOT around Paul Martin were seen recently (by me) with John Manley... I really think he is (as Monty Python says) not dead yet!

You make a very good point for all to consider - never lose sight of the party when discussing politicians. Likewise - never lose sight of the bottom line/business when looking at transnationals. 

I think Belinda belongs in the Liberal party. It is a better home for her - do you know if her handlers are party establishment? That would give a hint as to party needs.

Cheers for all the great info.


----------



## jmacleod (22 May 2005)

Reply to Pronto:  actually all of Belinda Stronach handlers were/are Tories, but the Stronach
family are Liberals, Frank Stronach was a Liberal candidate when PET was PM. She will get advice
from people like Senator George Baker, Kevin Alward (in NF) plus Senator Jim Cowan, and Wilfred
Moore in NS, the Peterson's guys in Ontario, etc., - essentially Party people, and Chretien people
in Quebec. If I was advising her crew, I would have a chat with James Carville Democratic Party
strategist as well as the people around Senator Hillary Clinton. The next election as I see it will
be focused on the 30-40 age group (and younger), particularly women. You notice the number
of letters from women in the national media, appalled at the name calling and nasty remarks directed
against the Hon Belinda Stronach MP, who see her as a young, smart, strong and attractive women.
She made a switch - as I reported earlier, heard Harry Connick Jr. singing an old Irving Berlin song
the other night; "Why Don't You Change Partners and Dance With Me" - thats what people do
from time to time, change partners. MacLeod


----------



## Zipper (23 May 2005)

I'm not going to refute any of the points but one, as it seems someone has the inside track on a lot of info.

I wouldn't count MacLellan out yet. She may or may not run for any type of leadership race. But as someone who lives in her riding (and not a Liberal), she is well thought of and respected. So although her races are tight, this riding is has quite a solid liberal base, considering a Liberal won the provincial seat and an NDP came in 2nd. An dat jus ain't herd of 'n Albertie... ;D


----------



## Slim (23 May 2005)

*Tories' bitter words scored*

http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Canada/2005/05/23/1052281.html

OTTAWA -- Belinda Stronach says some of the personal attacks mounted against her for defecting to the federal Liberals are a disgrace and a new low in Canadian politics. 

"It's very interesting to me, in moments like this, how partisan people become," Stronach said yesterday on CTV's Question Period. 

"There were a lot of negative comments made, and I find that disgraceful, quite frankly." 

Stronach, who ran unsuccessfully for the Tory leadership last year, abandoned the party last week to sit in Prime Minister Paul Martin's cabinet and prop up his government in a budget vote. 

She said she made the move out of concern that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper wasn't doing enough to bring the party into the moderate mainstream and was too cosy with the separatist Bloc Quebecois. 

But Stronach, now the human resources minister, was accused by Tory critics of selling out for her own political advantage -- or worse. 

Alberta MLA Tony Abbott said she was "whoring herself out for power," while former Ontario cabinet minister Bob Runciman called her an "attractive dipstick." 

Stronach said she was also upset by the tendency of the news media to focus on the break-up of her romance with deputy Tory Leader Peter MacKay, rather than the political reasons for her move. 

"I think it's a shame that so much attention has been put on my personal life," she told CTV. As for the partisan attacks, Stronach said they're an example of what's wrong with politics and called for a return to civility in public life. 

Tory officials have pointed out that she jumped to the Liberals the day before a deadline to pay $379,000 that they say she owes from her leadership campaign. 

Stronach said she wants an independent arbitrator to review the matter to make sure the rules are being fairly applied. She won't pay unless there is a review, she said.


----------



## jmacleod (23 May 2005)

Liberal Cabinet Minister, lawyer, and All-Star hocky player, Hon Ken Dryden, MP PC spoke to the
Liberal Caucus last Thursday; he is reported as saying; "if the game is worth playing, it is worth
winning" - Liberal politics and Hockey have that in common - winning. I believe MP Stronach
picked the winning team - got a call from a friend in Toronto yesterday, asking about a suitable
Conservative replacement for Hon. Stephen Harper MP - I lot of us admire Harper, a smart, articulate
and serious player, would make an excellent PM in our opinion. Tories should stick with Harper,
and depart from their nasty habit of destroying their leaders - PM Diefenbaker was terminated
by Progressive Conservatives, not Liberals of the period. The result of the by-election in Labrador
NF tomorrow will prove to be a benchmark I would think. MacLeod


----------



## pronto (23 May 2005)

Just a quick note - Harper, unlike Mulroney, has no ties to business. Although he is intelligent and serious, Bay street doesn't like him, and they don't like the chances. I have heard that Maurice Strong has dismissed him as unlikely. That's the kiss of death... Demarais hasn't said anything about him and neither has Pelideau (either one of them). I think we can count him out, but tommow's by-election will be interesting. Even more interesting will be the Marlene Catteral replacement in Ottawa-Nepean.

Cheers


----------



## jmacleod (23 May 2005)

Agreed - interesting point about Catteral, you are right. If Harper goes, who can lead the Conserrvatives
- Toronto friends talk about John Tory - do not known anything about him however. In NB they
talk about Premier Bernard Lord, an enigma in my opinion, in the local (Irving owned) media, who
appear to support him for whatever reason. MacLeod


----------



## pronto (23 May 2005)

O JMacLeod.... You are gonna love this.... There is still a HUGE draft Harris movement on Bay Street... Mike Harris could be a credible Harper replacement, but only if he stops playing coy and goes for it. He is a pretty decent manager, and has some good ties to the establishment. Plays a wicked game of golf too...

John Tory is old , established name. He could go all the way too. The problem is the party seems to feel they need eastern ontario or Quebec again... They know they need Ontario. A regional rump is nowhere to be in this day and age, and that's basically what Harper has. Tory may be a good candidate, but the party wants a barbell with heavyweights on both ends - that would be Tory in Queen's Park, and Harris in 24 Sussex.

Cheers!


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2005)

Very interesting inside analysis, it seems we are developing our own political intelligence bureau. 

The question is becoming: If the Liberals are focused only on winning elections, how will it be possible to put an alternative government in place? My own thoughts are on a long term "grassroots" kind of process, based on tapping into "Tax Fatigue" at the municipal level, but this is the work of a generation.

The Liberals have a huge lead due to their lock on the MSM, access to government money and the ability to attract anyone without morals or scruples. (I would have thought this would lead to a lot of infighting, but it seems they have the internal cohesion of a Mafia Family).

The Conservatives have some good ideas, but seem to have a difficult time articulating them to the public. The other parties appeal to a very narrow segment of the electorate (and are splitting the left wing vote BTW). What is to be done?


----------



## canadianblue (23 May 2005)

Harper would be a good PM, however because of this percieved scariness about him he likely won't win. It's unfortunate, strangely enough we've found a person who originally came from a middle class background, worked his way up to the opposition, yet is now deemed unfit for the highest position in the land. I think that Harper has always tried to showcase what the policies have been of the party, however the media seems to care more about slandering him more then anything else. I don't think John Tory or Benard Lord will make a better PM then Harper, and I don't even think Harris would be able to. In my own opinion the party should stick with Harper, do their best at winning the next election and go from their. 

As well remember what happened when the Canadian Alliance chose to dump its former leader for somebody with more charisma and less experience, I forget what happened to them.


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> The people are not always right (especially in Canada), but thats what a democracy is all about.



Haha, Edmund Burke would have something to say about that - but then again, that is why he lost his seat.

On a serious note, this is a pretty important question.   Is it the job of our Representatives to go to Parliament to *represent our wishes* by doing what the constituents say need to be done?   Or is it the job of our Representatives to go to Parliament to *represent us* in getting into the details of politics and using their judgement to come to the rational decision on what is best for both his constituents and the country as a whole?   A strong case can probably be made for both.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (23 May 2005)

Her price may be presiding over the end of the Liberals - you may remember Barbara Frum of the CBC - her son David wrote a book on an insider`s view of the First US Administration - he`s a right winger - but aren`t we all who can`t stand the Cdn version of Blonde Ambition?

Anyway - he suggests that if it was true that Voters did not want elections then it was good tactics to force and election and bury the Conservative..... but since this did not happen - maybe it happened for a reason - as in Hang on and hope things improve for the Libranos 

Draw your own conclusions - http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22545,filter.all/pub_detail.asp


----------



## jmacleod (23 May 2005)

My personal opinion is that the Conservatives will stay with Harper. His major problem is with the
Toronto and Ottawa media, and their preceived attitude that they know what is best for the
political future of the country. I have watched Harper work a crowd in NB, and was quite impressed,
-he will make a substantial PM. But the Tories need a change in their strategy, focused on contact
- Keith Davey talked the reluctant Trudeau, a very private person, into becoming an political event,
(and Trudeau grew to love it). I cannot see former Premier Mike Harris in another political role, and
he still must deal with Ipperwash and it's consequences. And then there is PM Martin. His biggest
mistake in my opinion was in creating Gomery. Former PM Jean Chretien, despite reports to the
contrary is highly thought of in the Party he served for so many years, trusted and mentored by
Michell Sharp and PET. The Sponsorship Program, an incredibly stupid and ill conceived event was
created by MP's who owed their careers to Chretien, and betrayed him substantially, and they should be punished. I suggested to one of them (a lawyer used to be) to buy a copy of Poppels Manual of
Criminal Procedure, Canada. MacLeod


----------



## ArmyRick (23 May 2005)

Belinda Stronach, you had a duty to your constituents and they voted for one for many reasons BUT first and foremost you were voted because you were a conservative (I used to live in your riding and I know the people of that area). Nice betrayal.

If any is beleiving fairy tales that we vote MPs for who they are and not what party they represent, wake up!

CANADIAN LIBERALS ARE CORRUPT !!!


----------



## pronto (23 May 2005)

wow - go away for a few hours, and some really insightful opinions arise... Thanks everyone, lots of fodder for thought.  

I have always subscribed to the "You tell us about you, then we decide if we like you, then you go to Ottawa, and vote on our behalf... You don't need to check with us on every vote, just represent us...." approach. This was the approach which worked until the advent of mass communications.... now of course, with the media's prompting, ('cause they love a scandal, and love to think of themselves as another arm of the government).... we have a movement to "check with the constituants before every vote"... 

This is an interesting conumdrum. While I don't think a check every vote is appropriate, there are some which do seem to need a constituency view. (Let's not even go into the party whip forcing caucus to vote the party line...)

A lot of the party faithful to whom I speak feel that now that Mitchell Sharp and PET are gone,  Jean Chretien should shut up and siddown... They are pretty annoyed at Eddie Goldenberg and Jean Chretien's dealings with Paul Martin when Jean Chretien embarked on his 14 month "long goodbye"...
.
Mr. MacLeod (comme d'habitude) has a very astute point (mutal admiration society meeting starts at 21:00 EST). We really have to keep the media's role in this in our focus. I heard a media type say just the other day "never argue with someone who buys their ink by the barrel" Now, I don't know about you guys, but that seems to me to be a very, very thinly disguised threat. "Don't fu&k with me, or I'll smear you in my paper". Wow, doesn't THAT just effectively put a scare into the average person, stop all debate, and wind up the party?

Interesting thought about Ipperwash. That, surprisingly, is playing less and less in the media lately. I wonder if they have decided that now that they have eviscerated Stephen Harper a few times, they'll play Keith Davey and play up Michael Harris? I smell something like that...

Harper does indeed work a crowd very nicely. But, and this is a big "but"... if the media don't like you, or have decided to bring you down, then down you come. Remember Stanfield? Lord - that man could really work a room nicely. But he dropped the football (anyone remember THAT picture), and the media decided that he had to go. (Dalton Camp  didn't help, did he?)... I fear that the same situation will occur with Mr. Harper. I think we all have to really watch this closely.

Cheers all!


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2005)

The Swiss have an interesting solution to the representatives conundrum, if their representatives won't advocate something, then the people may petition the government to consider and enact a piece of legislation. Unlike Canada, if a citizens petition meets certain conditions (i.e. number of signatures and I think has to represent a certain number of Cantons as well), then it has the force of law, the legislature cannot ignore it.

The Americans also keep things inthe centre with their Electoral college system. It is possible to have more votes, but if the votes are narrowly concentrated (i.e. the "Blue" states), the electoral college gives weight to the candidate who carries a broader cross section of the population (the "Red" states are not only more numerous, but cover the physical and social cross sectionof the US as well, meaning rural, urban, northen, southern, rich and poor voters have (or feel they have) their interests best represented by the President of the United States).

Canada should adopt some of these simple refinements to the electoral system (referendums and voter recall are other possible mechanisms) to make our system more responsive and accountable.


----------



## canadianblue (23 May 2005)

Stockwell Day and the Canadian Alliance advocated the same policies many of you refer to and they were called fascists and hate mongers. I doubt we'll ever see anything in that nature for a long time based on Canadian's reaction to having the ability to take a direct part in the decision making process.


----------



## TCBF (23 May 2005)

Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 15:58:16 -0600 (CST)
From: 
Subject: Names

Peter Mackay should have checked out babynamesworld.com before he hooked up with Stronach. The website for prospective parents allows you to search the original meaning of Names. When you enter the name BELINDA it returns of Spanish and Italian origin and its meaning "BEAUTIFUL SNAKE"


----------



## TCBF (25 May 2005)

From another site:

"Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:43:49 -0600 (CST)
From: 
Subject: Help Punt The Traitress

I received this from my riding association - yes,
B*****a was my MP, but now she's just a lieberal.

If you have any spare cash left over from other worthy
causes, consider tossing it our way. It'll gleefully
get put to good use.

----

************************************** 
ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF NEWMARKET-AURORA

Dear friends,

Recently, our Member of Parliament, Belinda Stronach,
abandoned her constituents and fellow conservative
members to join Paul Martin's corrupt Liberal
government. The initial shock of her defection has
quickly grown into a groundswell of anger, disgust and
complete betrayal by supporters who gave their money
and time to her election campaign, and by the citizens
of Newmarket-Aurora who entrusted her with their vote.
 Those of us who had worked hard for Ms. Stronach
under the Conservative Party banner feel slighted and
abandoned and are left with an enormous challenge
ahead. 

On a national scale, her actions have only served to
fuel the ever-growing cynicism developed by Canadians
over the eleven years of corrupt and arrogant Liberal
rule. All of this at a time when the political future
of Canada has never been more important!!

It is essential that in Newmarket-Aurora, we show the
country that crass personal ambition IS NOT rewarded.
If Ms. Stronach is re-elected as a Liberal then there
will be no telling how low the political standards in
this country will sink. We, our families and friends,
all deserve so much better.

We must elect a true Conservative candidate who will
put constituents ahead of personal ambition and who
will defeat Belinda Stronach in the next federal
election.

We are therefore respectfully asking for your
financial support. Any amount, large or small, will be
most appreciated, and will help us elect a true
conservative member of parliament.  Most importantly,
you will be helping us to send a powerful message to
the country and the world, that integrity does matter
and politicians that abandon their constituents will
not be re-elected.   

In order to receive a tax receipt for your donation
please ensure that you send your complete name and
address. Cheques should be made payable to CPC
Newmarket-Aurora and should be forwarded to:

CPC Newmarket - Aurora Electoral District Association
P.O. Box 71515
Aurora, Ontario, L4G 6S9

Thank you for your quick response, as time is of the
essence. We appreciate your consideration and thank
you in advance for your time.

Regards,

Lindsay Mason
VP Fund Raising"

------------------------------


----------



## redleafjumper (25 May 2005)

Apparently even billionnaires have their price.  Harper spemt a lot of political capital over the vote in the house.  It is now more important than ever to ensure that Ms. Stronach's treachery is soundly punished.


----------



## TCBF (30 May 2005)

From the 29 May 2005 Ottawa Citizen:

*************************************

Stronach leaves many in her dust
Hundreds of supporters, campaign volunteers, advisers
and others were left in the MP's wake as she swept
across the floor, writes Norma Greenaway.
  
Norma Greenaway  
The Ottawa Citizen 

Sunday, May 29, 2005

CREDIT: Tom Hanson, The Canadian Press 
Belinda Stronach shocked the political scene on
Parliament Hill on May 17 when she announced she was
leaving the Conservative party for the Liberals and
also nailed down a cabinet post as minister of human
resources. 

Fresh from an evening pep talk to Conservative
candidates, Bob Dechert settled in for a scotch and
soda at the Delta Hotel bar in downtown Ottawa. Within
minutes, he was face to face with the elegant Belinda
Stronach, who, he recalls, was gliding through the bar
in full schmooze mode.

Mr. Dechert, who had recently won the Conservative
nomination in the Toronto-area riding of
Mississauga-Erindale, was keen to talk to Ms.
Stronach. After all, she had written him an e-mail,
congratulating him on his nomination. "Let me know if
I can be helpful to you," she wrote on May 5. "I am
pretty good at knocking on doors by now."

It was Friday, May 13, less than a week before the
crucial budget vote in the Commons that most people
expected would trigger an election. As he relives the
encounter with Ms. Stronach, one can almost hear the
steam coming out of Mr. Dechert's ears.

"Look, she lied directly to my face," Mr. Dechert
says. "I asked her what she though of the timing of
the election. She looked at me and said, 'I think
we've got a good opportunity now, and we just can't
support these corrupt Liberals anymore.' "

It turns out, of course, that she was already in early
discussions that ultimately led to her defection to
the Liberals. Over dinner with Prime Minister Paul
Martin at 24 Sussex Drive the following Monday, she
agreed to cross the floor and nailed down a cabinet
post as minister of human resources.

"From my perspective, that shows dishonesty, a lack of
ethics and dishonourable conduct," says Mr. Dechert,
who was an active player in the efforts to unite the
right into a single party.

"Clearly, she doesn't intend to pay her dues and work
from the shop floor up. She didn't do it at Magna, and
she's not willing to do it in politics either."

If Mr. Dechert is feeling burned by the actions of the
wealthy, former CEO of Magna International Inc., the
auto-parts giant founded by her father, he has lots of
company inside and outside Ms. Stronach's Ontario
riding of Newmarket-Aurora.

Peter Seemann, who was running her re-election
campaign in the riding until her defection on May 17,
says he's flabbergasted by her lack of regard for the
people who worked so hard to get the political
newcomer elected a year ago as a Conservative MP.

"A lot of decisions she made trickle down, and the
wave took out a lot of people on the ground that put a
lot of blood, sweat and tears into it (her election),"
he said.

A Liberal also got caught in the wave. She is Martha
Hall Findlay, the 46-year-old lawyer and long-time
political activist who had already been acclaimed to
once again carry the Liberal banner in
Newmarket-Aurora against the Conservative Ms.
Stronach.

Suddenly, Ms. Hall Findlay was stepping aside in
favour of Ms. Stronach, the woman who had eked out a
narrow victory over Ms. Hall Findlay in the last
federal election and who Ms. Hall Findlay hoped to
unseat this time around.

After losing to Ms. Stronach by only 689 votes last
June, Ms. Hall Findlay hired a campaign manager and
was ready to hit the ground running. Accused of being
a parachute candidate in the last election because her
home was in Collingwood, she moved into the riding and
put down roots in hopes of bolstering her chances.

Ms. Hall Findlay learned of Ms. Stronach's move just
12 hours before it was announced in Ottawa. Mike
Elzenga, president of the Liberal party, broke the
news to her after a Liberal party function in Toronto.

"It's not hard to be gracious," Ms. Hall Findlay said
of her decision to bow out. She said winning the
budget vote was more important than her candidacy. But
she doesn't pretend bowing out was easy.

For now, Ms. Hall Findlay says, she's in the Liberal's
good books, and the party is keen to help her find
another riding to run in. She insists, however,
nothing was promised in return for getting out of Ms.
Stronach's way.

Most of the people affected by the Stronach wave are
Conservatives. There are such prominent Stronach
backers as former Ontario premiers Bill Davis and Mike
Harris and former prime minister Brian Mulroney who
have been left with egg on their faces.

There is also wily Conservative strategist John
Laschinger of Toronto. Mr. Laschinger, who directed
Ms. Stronach's unsuccessful bid for the Conservative
leadership, says he doesn't want to say anything that
would hurt or help her.

He says he hasn't worked for her since the leadership
contest, and suggests a new gig with the newly-minted
Liberal is unlikely, given his long Tory ties. "I'm
probably not going to get asked," he says.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper's anger and snide
comments are well-documented. "I've never noticed
complexity to be Belinda's strong points," he mused,
responding to her comment that Mr. Harper was
insensitive to how big and complex Canada is.

And Peter MacKay's heartbreak over losing his latest
romantic love was played out publicly in several
television interviews.

The Nova Scotia MP's raw emotions were on display in
the aftermath of the budget vote on May 19. "I'm going
to go home and maybe walk my dog," he told reporters.
"Dogs are loyal," Mr. MacKay said.

Less well-known are the hundreds of supporters,
campaign volunteers, advisers and others Ms. Stronach
has left in her wake as she swept across the floor.

Most are political partisans of the Conservative ilk.
A few remain on her new team -- among them are adviser
Mark Entwistle, a former diplomat and one-time aide to
Mulroney she pays out of her own deep pockets; Mike
Liebrock, a parliamentary assistant who was seen by
colleagues as more loyal to Ms. Stronach than the
party; and John Gould, the riding vice-president of
communications who ran her website.

Mr. Entwistle has said he helped with Ms. Stronach's
transition but does not expect to become a permanent
member of her office or ministerial staff.

Most who worked for Conservative MP Ms. Stronach are
scrambling for new paid political jobs. Tara Bingham,
a 32-year-old staffer who cut her teeth on Parliament
Hill with Preston Manning and the Reform party, and
Cory MacDonald, Ms. Stronach's senior policy adviser,
are among Conservative loyalists on the hunt for new
work.

Meanwhile, grassroots Conservative activists say they
are gearing up -- with a new fire in their bellies --
to make sure Ms. Stronach's career as Liberal MP for
Newmarket-Aurora ends when the votes are tallied in
the next election. A new fundraising drive is under
way, and Mr. Seemann says money has started to flow in
from Conservatives across the country who are upset
with Ms. Stronach.

"Sweet vengeance," is how Mr. Seemann summed up the
mood. The riding will nominate a new candidate next
month, and Mr. Seemann says he'll campaigning flatout
for the winner.

A tiny clutch of protesters greeted Ms. Stronach
Thursday at her first public appearance in her central
Ontario riding since taking up the Liberal colours.
Three people wearing rubber Jean Chretien and Bill
Clinton masks shouted, "Shame" and "Boo-linda!" as the
Liberal MP opened a student business centre by
extolling the Liberal government's efforts to support
small business and young people.

Mr. Seemann says the riding will also be sending the
Liberal party a bill for at least $10,000 to cover
money already spent on Ms. Stronach's now-aborted
Conservative campaign.

That said, Conservatives admit it won't be easy to
beat Ms. Stronach, who has attracted her own fan base.

"There will be people who support her, and people who
say she betrayed us," said Stephen Somerville,
president of the riding association. "I'm not sure
which side is going to be bigger."

While Mr. Dechert still fumes over Ms. Stronach's
performance during the candidate training program in
Ottawa on the weekend of May 13, Mr. Seemann's blood
boils about an incident three nights later.

On Monday, May 16, he was waiting for a call from Ms.
Stronach to approve the layout he had sent to Ottawa
earlier in the day for her campaign signs. He now
knows that was the night the defection deal was
sealed.

"She obviously was consumed by other meetings," he
cracks with a half-hearted laugh. "She didn't postpone
her dinner with the prime minster to get back to me."

The first he heard of her defection was when he got a
call from Conservative party headquarters the next
day.

As the record now shows, Ms. Stronach had a busy
night, dining first with Mr. MacKay, who was in the
dark about her plans, before joining the prime
minister to seal the deal over a second meal and then
going back to the Chateau Laurier to deliver the news
to the unsuspecting Mr. MacKay.

*************************************


----------



## pronto (4 Jun 2005)

Hi Guys:
Sorry, been off for a while, Now, I DID sneak into the riding association meeting, and even a few other more limited gatherings...

For the Ottawa-West Nepean riding - Two rather large names have appeared: Penny Collenette and Jim Watson. JMcLeod... You were right about the Watson thing, but the Collenette one was something I had heard and placed little credence in...

Now she is an interesting candidate - both political and business backed... 

Cheers...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Oct 2006)

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Matthews_Geoff/2006/10/21/2087012.html

 Dog House antics all too Commons 

By GEOFF MATTHEWS

Oh good heavens. I'm getting a migraine. 

Here I sit, reading the latest chapter in the riveting story about what Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay may (or may not) have said in the House of Commons. 
From the howling reaction, you'd think the minister had demanded public beheadings for jaywalkers or at the very least, the reversal of the code of human rights. 

Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said MacKay's remarks were all too typical of "bullies, intolerant and vindictive," while the Bloc urged Prime Minister Stephen Harper to kick MacKay out of cabinet. 
And what, exactly, did the mild-mannered Nova Scotian do to bring such vituperative attacks on himself? Well, he may (or may not) have referred to his one-time girlfriend Belinda Stronach as a dog. 
According to a barely-audible exchange caught on audiotape, someone in the Commons asked "what about your dog?" and someone else on the floor responded: "You have her." 

Speculation was that the questioner was asking MacKay about the well-publicized picture of himself at home in Pictou County with the family pet in the days after Stronach jilted both him and the Tories to win herself an immediate promotion to cabinet as a born-again Liberal. 
And according to those who would make mountains out of molehills, MacKay, in response to the question, nodded toward Stronach's seat and issued the "you have her" response to the dog question. 
On the Richter scale of insults that regularly fly in the Commons, his smart-aleck remark should have registered about 0.5. 

Oh no. Not when there's political mileage to be made. Suddenly MacKay's remark was elevated from tacky putdown to sexism that should not be tolerated in a civilized society. 
Stronach, who wasn't even in the House at the time, said she was "really disappointed that Peter MacKay would say something like that ... It is really a reflection of the character and of the attitude of this government toward women." 
NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis called the alleged remark "sexist and demeaning," adding: "I thought we were at a place in this House where women were no longer demeaned." 

Such is the state of our political system. Is it any wonder the average Canadian is sick to death of the foolishness in Parliament? 

"Teacher, teacher, he stuck out his tongue at me." 
"Did not." 
"Did too." 
What is this? Kindergarten? Or a bunch of highly-paid men and women we elect, supposedly to have serious discussions about the affairs of the day? 

The rest of us are wondering how we can find a family doctor. We're trying to scrape together enough to pay our taxes and enrol our kids in hockey and soccer and dance lessons. 
We're wondering whether world war is about to break out and we're praying our brave soldiers will return home safely. We're sick to death about famines and disease outbreaks in far-off lands and the threat of terror attacks here at home. 
And our fat-ass politicians have nothing better to worry about than whether one of them made a cheapshot joke about another. 

Liberal MP Tina Keeper was right about one thing. Such behaviour wouldn't be tolerated on a schoolyard. But it wasn't MacKay's alleged remark that should have been the target of her attack. It should have been the childish, ridiculous, overblown reaction from members of Parliament who have to know better. 

To all of them I say: Sit. Quiet. Don't speak. Bad dog. 

   
_How in the world did insulting someone of the opposite sex become sexist?  
I, personally, think it was the 'barb of the year' and worthy of a "22 minutes" skit._


----------



## cplcaldwell (21 Oct 2006)

Well done to Geoff Matthews.

I fear we are seeing a return to Rat Pack politics: with a McGuinty in the lead no less.....sigh...

Kudos to MP Tina Keeper for elevating the debate. The real question is _when will the House, start getting serious_. When will the Opposition stop engaging rabid attacks? When will Ministers start sitting down instead of answering barbs?

If I had one piece of advice to MP's it would be this, do not dignify attacks (from either side) once this BS starts, sit down and let the Speaker sort it out. Silence will speak many more volumes than an extemporaneous response. Mr McKay misstepped in a fit of trying to play one-up-man-ship with Mr McGuinty. *Next time, sit down, Peter and STFU, your tormentor will look like a boob, not you... * 

Watch the PM's Question Period from Westminster some day, it can usually be found on CPAC. Gawd, I wish my tax dollars went toward that instead of what we get.

Oh, and Belinda, get over yourself..


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Oct 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Kudos to MP Tina Keeper for elevating the debate. The real question is _when will the House, start getting serious_. When will the Opposition stop engaging rabid attacks? When will Ministers start sitting down instead of answering barbs?
> 
> If I had one piece of advice to MP's it would be this, do not dignify attacks (from either side) once this BS starts, sit down and let the Speaker sort it out. Silence will speak many more volumes than an extemporaneous response. Mr McKay misstepped in a fit of trying to play one-up-man-ship with Mr McGuinty. *Next time, sit down, Peter and STFU, your tormentor will look like a boob, not you... *
> 
> Watch the PM's Question Period from Westminster some day, it can usually be found on CPAC. Gawd, I wish my tax dollars went toward that instead of what we get.



Totally agree, first day in question period I would make enemies a'plenty telling EVERYONE to sit and STFU so I could listen to whomever was speaking.



			
				cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Oh, and Belinda, get over yourself..



....carefull Tie doesn't come over and hockey fight ya....


----------



## neko (21 Oct 2006)

It is a bit ridiculous for the liberals to be saying that women have been insulted by Peter MacKay's (alleged) remark about Stronach. That  assumes that we all feel that that lady personifies us, and I for one certainly don't. I don't think much of her and  actually find it insulting that the liberals are supposing that we are so much like her that we are offended as well. Belinda Stronach is not the figurehead of womanhood. The insult was directed at her and her alone.
I actually thought the comment to be funny but it should not have been uttered in such a public setting, very stupid if it turns out he actually said it, and Mr.MacKay would deserve some flak for being such a nit. 
Just to be clear, I am only calling Mr.MacKay an (alleged)nit not all men. :
 ;D


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (22 Oct 2006)

I find it funny that the conservatives are being criticized for one person allegedly calling old Belinda a dog when the only so called evidence of the word was actually used by a liberal "what about your dog?"

 Its also nice to see that major political decisions are being sidelined for a he said/she said pissing match.


----------



## armyvern (22 Oct 2006)

neko said:
			
		

> It is a bit ridiculous for the liberals to be saying that women have been insulted by Peter MacKay's (alleged) remark about Stronach.  ;D



I agree. A lot of the dogs I know are men. And I'm a girl.


----------



## youravatar (22 Oct 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Its also nice to see that major political decisions are being sidelined for a he said/she said pissing match.


AGREED! Then again they did cut funds to the status of Women in Canada... >


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Oct 2006)

Message to Mr.Harper.......I would ask the Liberals if they would be so upset if Mr. McKay had called the male questioner a "dog" and when they answer 'well no, of course",  I would then ask the nation which party has REALLY shown it is sexist.


----------



## warspite (23 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Message to Mr.Harper.......I would ask the Liberals if they would be so upset if Mr. McKay had called the male questioner a "dog" and when they answer 'well no, of course",  I would then ask the nation which party has REALLY shown it is sexist.


+2


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Oct 2006)

Who is making this a mountain out of a ant hill? The media. The liberal/Liberal media. And the opposition, seeing they are getting sound bites, are piling on. On Thursday's CTV Mike Duffy Live, guest host Jane Tabor spent the whole hour bubbling over this story, as if this was the most important political news in the world. Do not forget that Bell owns CTV, MacLeans, Bell Express View, various radio station chains, speciality channels. CTV's, I believe director of news, took a leave of absence twice to work high up in the Liberals election campain.  Do not forget, BS has been NAMED as the other women in a divorce. She is/was fooling around with a married man with school aged children. A couple of weeks ago, the two of them were seen out for dinner in Toronto. Some ethical example. She feels bad because of the remark? Give me a break. As some bloggers state, it is an insult to dogs to compare her to a dog.


----------



## niner domestic (23 Oct 2006)

Well, personally, my 2 rough collies are up in arms over the alleged comment. They are both off writing up letters of protest to the Government over its over use of canine-ism.  They are demanding it stop.  My male is ready to create protest placards and march on the Hill.  My female is affronted that a human female is considered even close to being dog like, after all my female says, it takes generations of fine pedigree and breeding programs to come up with a face like hers (my dog's not Stronach's).  I'm not sure how I'll live with them until this is resolved...


----------



## larry Strong (23 Oct 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Well, personally, my 2 rough collies are up in arms over the alleged comment. They are both off writing up letters of protest to the Government over its over use of canine-ism.  They are demanding it stop.  My male is ready to create protest placards and march on the Hill.  My female is affronted that a human female is considered even close to being dog like, after all my female says, it takes generations of fine pedigree and breeding programs to come up with a face like her (my dog's not Stronanch's).  I'm not sure how I'll live with them until this is resolved...




Dakota gives you a +3


----------



## neko (23 Oct 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Well, personally, my 2 rough collies are up in arms over the alleged comment. They are both off writing up letters of protest to the Government over its over use of canine-ism.  They are demanding it stop.  My male is ready to create protest placards and march on the Hill.  My female is affronted that a human female is considered even close to being dog like, after all my female says, it takes generations of fine pedigree and breeding programs to come up with a face like her (my dog's not Stronanch's).  I'm not sure how I'll live with them until this is resolved...



And dogs are  more loyal than Stronach too, they must feel extremely insulted. My lovely boy is deaf so he hasn't heard all the rucus or he'd be a bit snarly too.


----------

