# Who do you like for Liberal leader?



## Hunter (8 Apr 2006)

With the announcement of some candidates for the leadership of the federal Liberals, who do you think would be the best leader?  I won't be voting Liberal but I'm interested in the race. I'm disappointed Belinda isn't running - I would have said her just because she's hot.  How about Michael Ignatieff?  I can see the ad campaigns now.  "Michael Ignatieff supports torture...he wants to put torture chambers in your cities....staffed by dweebs with thick glasses...we're not allowed to make this up....."

Personally I think it's shaping up to be the great-grandmother of all leadership conventions.  Great-grandmother as in sitting in a wheelchair and asleep most of the day. (No offence to those with great-grans out there)


----------



## Trinity (8 Apr 2006)

I wanted Belinda too - for the obvious reasons only....

but..  if she won't do it, I think we should let tess run for it.

"testicle, spectacle, wallet and watch.....  barkeep  a round of the cheap stuff"

(obviously, I can't put in the really good quotes of tess!)


----------



## HItorMiss (8 Apr 2006)

I'm with Trinity...

Tess for Liberal Leader, But only if I can be a Cabinet Minester....Defense would be good, but I would take Justice as well


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Apr 2006)

Well I did dabble a bit in politics in my younger days,

But I am honoured guys!!!

Free drinks for all military people who vote for me!!

(only the cheap stuff though...)

dileas

tess


----------



## couchcommander (8 Apr 2006)

I dunno. Seems to me that the race is kind of a toss up at this point. Anyone who could have taken it without much fuss has decided to pull out! I'm going to wait before deciding who to support.


----------



## Trinity (8 Apr 2006)

That's so photo shopped..

There is no way Chretien could ever look that good/young!    ;D

btw.. did you get any autographs?  



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

>


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Apr 2006)

I'm actually thinking one of the Trudeau kids is going to get into politics, maybe go for the leadership. The CBC would pee their pants with excitement.


----------



## RangerRay (9 Apr 2006)

Barbie Billions winning the Liberal leadership would have been Harper's greatest wish come true.  Imagine if your biggest opponent was a uni-lingual whose only policy was a vacuous statement about "baking a bigger economic pie"?

Since she is out, I would like to see Hedy Fry become Liberal leader.  Then we would be talking majority Tory government, baby!


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2006)

Write in campaigns for Sheila Copps and Carolyn Parrish!  >


----------



## HItorMiss (12 Apr 2006)

Sure Fry some am I (federally) but umm what does your love of the Conservatives have to do with who you think will be the next Liberal Party leader?

Seriously my money is on Stronach


----------



## monika (12 Apr 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Seriously my money is on Stronach[/quote}
> 
> Papa's Princess officially bowed out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hunter (12 Apr 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Seriously my money is on Stronach



I'll gladly take your bet.

Pssst...she announced she wasn't running a while back  

Danny Williams...I would love to see him as Prime Minister.  That would make an interesting parliament.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2006)

Although I would shed few tears should the Liberals take a self destructive course, their choice of leader would set the tone of their policies and proposals for years to come. It is always possible that Prime Minister Harper could slip on the metaphorical bananna peel, in which case we could end up looking at a Liberal government yet again.


----------



## Centurian1985 (20 Apr 2006)

Belinda!!?? Bah!


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2006)

Sadly my favourite _political_ watering hole in Ottawa (The Mayflower II) has closed and the rumour mongers have moved to other pubs which are not on the route between my office and home.  I got this, however, from an NDP _insider_ of my acquaintance: *the only leader the Tories and NDP fear is: * <drum roll>   Ken Dryden.  He is regarded as smart and tough; he is something of an _anti-politician_ with a lower level of _charisma_ than Stephen Harper which is, right now, seen to be a major asset.  He is untouched by decades of Liberal corruption and he has a _name_ (from his hockey days) which provides a high level of _satisfied_ recognition when people are polled.

Apparently the other parties agree that Kennedy, Ignatieff and Rae would all be reasonably easy to beat because they all have excess baggage and none is seen as being _centrist_ (which is where Canadians are thought to be).  My acquaintance says that Canadians understand that the Liberals traditionally campaign on the Left and then govern on the Right – Ignatieff’s _seize the centre-left_, Rae’s _unite-the-left_ and Kennedy’s _hard left_ credentials are all seen as being ‘away’ from what Canadians want.  Those Canadians who want ‘left’ will gravitate, he says, to the NDP, (maybe the triumph of hope over experience, but ...) those who want ‘right’ are happy with Harper’s Conservatives.  The Liberals, he says, need to recapture the real _centre_ and he reckons Dryden is the _natural_ for the job.

Edit: spelling


----------



## Hot Lips (21 Apr 2006)

Well he was my fav goalie on my fav team...a long time ago, lol
Seriously though...he does seem the best fit...the others make me want to shake my head and wonder how the Liberals got to this point...well no...I know how they did...

HL


----------



## monika (21 Apr 2006)

Another thing Dryden has going for him is that he has always been involved in his community, even at the grass roots level. Even though he has the typical legal politico's background, people can see he has also done "real" things.


----------



## Centurian1985 (21 Apr 2006)

Go Ken!







"and now your starting line-up for the Canadian Liberals, number zero-one, Ken Dryden!" 

"Conservatives break down the wing looking for a 2-on-1... Head Referee Layton attempts to call off-side, but is cuffed upside the head by Coach Harper as Layton lounges by the Conservative bench.. Emerson fakes a pass to Liberal defenseman Ignatieff, catching him off guard, then passes to McKay...  McKay takes a shot!  Dryden kicks it out, rebound, another shot, off the post!  Confusion on the ice...  Coach Harper may want to think out a new strategy, his players cant talk to each other with duct tape over their mouths... Line Ref Hillier is arguing with the Conservative Minister of Defensive Plays... oooh that had to hurt, Hillier just gave the MDP a kick to the groin and is now escorting the MDP to the penalty box... , McKay has the puck again, fakes past Liberal forward Graham who is out of position but still trying to break up the play.. McKay shoots again! Save by Dryden!  And a time out is called - Good night everyone, we'll be back after a two-month recess in parliament..."

(Im not really a fan of the Liberals, but there is just too much fun to have with a former NHL goalie as a party leader!)  ;D


----------



## RangerRay (29 Apr 2006)

I do believe that Dryden has likened those that raise their kids rather than sending them to institutionalised day care as "irresponsible parents".

Doesn't sound very "centrist" to me...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Apr 2006)

> I do believe that Dryden has likened those that raise their kids rather than sending them to institutionalised day care as "irresponsible parents".



Just in the interest of balance and fairness, do you have a reference to back that up?


----------



## Hunter (30 Apr 2006)

While I don't support the Liberals, I think we get better government when our parties have better leaders.  I would love to see a strong opposition leader who can keep his eye on the ball and steer opposition members away from the useless attempts to embarrass the government that we see in question period.  I would love to see an opposition that presses the government and keeps them honest without resorting to the dick-stretching contests that they usually have.  It seems to me that the tone of this parliament has been better than the last, and surprisingly it seems to me that the Liberals are doing a better job than the Conservatives did of keeping their eye on the ball during question period.

With ten delcared candidates, none of the choices are inspiring.  And 8 of the 10 being from Toronto says a lot about the Liberal base of support.  I think 3 or 4 will probably fold before the convention, and the vote will go 3 or 4 ballots with the remaining candidates.  I just don't see any of them as being able to galvanize the support of delegates.

I heard one of the candidates' declaration speech on the radio this week.  I can't remember who it was, but he gave this great fire-and-brimstone speech talking about his vision, and his intention to lead the Liberals into the next election.  It ended with applause - from maybe half a dozen people.   That seems to be how much excitement any of these candidates can generate.


----------



## a_majoor (1 May 2006)

I wonder how much of Ignatieff''s campaign is being stage managed by people who are nostalgic for the idea of a Trudeauesque "Philosopher King". The fact that he is really only a Canadian by courtesy (having spent the last 30 years in England and the United States) really doesn't inspire me.

Ken Dryden is only notable in my mind as the "National Childcare" guy, and given the massive success he has had since 1993 of actually implementing this (OK, I realize he hasn't been on the case since '93, but you get the idea), he doesn't inspire much confidence.

Bob Rae is running from his record, and most of the remainder are non entities who are positioning themselves for shadow cabinet seats or gravy in some Liberal friendly board of director's appointment.

Like I said before, this is important in the sense we should be aware of what the Liberal's are attempting to remake themselves into (since the party nowadays is largely a reflection of the leader, like it or not), and from what I have seen, the bulk of the pack has their eyes firmly set on defeating........Jack Layton (!). A Left wing war to the knife? *Bring it!!!*

_edit for spelling_


----------



## Infantry_wannabe (2 May 2006)

Michael Ignatieff might be interesting. I don't know enough about him to know for sure. I'm just familiar with some of his books and his reputation abroad. A lot of high profile political candidates that seem interesting on paper end up being complete duds politically though, so I'll have to see how he does. Considering that he has never held elected office until now, it seems strange that suddenly he expects to run for PM. I'll be watching him since everyone else is either dull (Ken Dryden) or ridiculous (Hedy Fry).

Too bad Belinda didn't run. She would have been more enjoyable to watch...


----------



## geo (2 May 2006)

Belinda = Kim....... no thanks


----------



## Hot Lips (4 May 2006)

Well Belinda couldn't decide which party she wanted to be in...so why would she want to lead one...

No one in the present lot of Liberal hopefuls really stands out as adequate opposition for Stephen Harper...

HL


----------



## RangerRay (4 May 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Just in the interest of balance and fairness, do you have a reference to back that up?



Y'know, I remember it being talked about and bandied about the blogs and what-not prior to the election that Dryden had likened not sending children to institutional day cares as "child abuse", but you think I can find anything online now?

 ???


----------



## George Wallace (5 May 2006)

So.....Now Hedi Frey has entered the Race.   :

Conservatives should have a larger lead come the next election.


----------



## aesop081 (5 May 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So.....Now Hedi Frey has entered the Race.   :
> 
> Conservatives should have a larger lead come the next election.



I wonder if burning crosses will be on her platform  :


----------



## canadianblue (6 May 2006)

I heard one of the liberal leadership candidates make some comment about how parents that raise their children at home instead of a daycare are going to help create more criminals. So far the smartest seems to be Ignatieff, he probably would make a good leader.


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2006)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> I heard one of the liberal leadership candidates make some comment about how parents that raise their children at home instead of a daycare are going to help create more criminals. So far the smartest seems to be Ignatieff, he probably would make a good leader.



Why would he make a good leader for the Liberal Party, or potential PM? Details and references, please.


----------



## a_majoor (7 May 2006)

Here's a zinger from the "Philosopher Prince"

http://www.civitatensis.ca/archives/2006/05/06/1315



> *Ignatieff's Taxi Drivers*
> 
> Speaking about all the things that a new Liberal Party will do, Michael Ignatieff wants to get all those with more education than he has out of their taxi cabs:
> 
> ...



Maybe if he had been in Canada a bit more over the last 30 years, he would not have slipped on that metaphorical bananna peel!
But it was a good observation on the blogger's part. In a single sentance, Michael Ignatieff demonstrates what Liberals think of people who do hands on work, while at the same time avoiding the question of "how did things get like this anyway?" and disingeniously assigning blame ("Make Canada a land of opportunity again".  Prime Minister Harper has been on the job for how long? If we have lost lots of opportunities since 1993, as Michael Ignatieff suggests, name the Prime Ministers in power during that time period.) I fully expected boneheaded pronouncements from Hedi Fry, but this is supposed to be the "smart guy". Heh


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 May 2006)

The problem here is not with who's driving the taxi but who are you recruiting to become Canadian?  If you want to have highly educated immigrants (which we do not) then recognize their credentials (which we dont) before they come to Canada (which we also dont do), and have jobs for them to apply for (which organizations in Canada are obstructive about).    If all you want is taxi drivers and hands on manufacturing lines, which Canada needs by the way, dont select people with universiy degrees.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2006)

This is from this morning’s _Globe and Mail_ and is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

I am not spamming but I am posting this in two threads: here and in Military Current Affairs & News in Canadians don't want troops in Afghanistan.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060509.wxmacgregor09/BNStory/National/home 


> Souring on Afghanistan will leave Liberal hopefuls anxiously testing the wind
> 
> *ROY MacGREGOR*
> 
> ...


----------



## vangemeren (12 May 2006)

I would really like to have an effective opposition. All of the people I would have considered didn't join the race, so I don't know. It hasn't been this wide open in a long time. Usually there is a chosen successor that usually obliterates the competition ie. Trudeau, Martin etc. They also usually have had cabinet experience under the previous Liberal government.

I'll say Ken Dryden, because he is new, has no baggage like the others (ie. Rae as Premier of Ontario).

Because of the "united right", the Liberal party in some cases may vote split in some ridings with the NDP.

To tell you the truth I  would say this crop of candidates doesn't really intrigue me.


----------



## a_majoor (15 May 2006)

Smiling Jack sems to be the target of the Liberal hopefuls; here is a potential (nasty) outcome of the current race:

http://www.ltvnews.com/viewcolumn.php?id=6559



> If Liberals Fail, Layton Will Emerge More Powerful in Next Election
> 
> Frank Tridico -- SOONEWS.CA -- Sunday, May 14, 2006, 9:29AM
> 
> ...


----------



## vangemeren (16 May 2006)

From what I have read, back in 1984 (just before I was born) They were saying that the Liberal party was on the brink of demise and that the NDP would become the second party. (and look what happened)


----------



## clasper (17 May 2006)

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> From what I have read, back in 1984 (just before I was born) They were saying that the Liberal party was on the brink of demise and that the NDP would become the second party. (and look what happened)


I don't remember anyone saying the Liberal party was doomed, but I do remember the leadership convention that year when the party decided that Jean Chretien was yesterday's man.  If they follow the same pattern, John Manley or Brian Tobin will win the leadership convention in 2009...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2006)

AS if we didn't know.....

http://www.bluebloggingsoapbox.com/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=31&p=1219



> Liberals Planned for Years of Political Pork
> June 26th, 2006
> 
> For some reason, I don’t think anyone’s running out to call Ripleys Believe it or Not on the subject of this article. With the Adscam taps turned off, $9 billion in previously untouchable Liberal-created foundations about to come under the Auditor-General’s scrutiny, a Leadership race featuring the ‘’ who’s who ‘’ of other parties and the ‘’ who’s that ‘’ of the Liberal party it hardly seems surprising that sales are running a little weak.
> ...


----------



## Bob Terwilliger (29 Jun 2006)

It is my fervent wish that Bob Rae win the Liberal leadership race. His track record as a NDP premier in Ontario leaves him virtually unelectable there. It would give Harper another 15 seats in Ontario, at a minimum. Combine that with the inroads Harper is making in Quebec, and we have a healthy Conservative majority next go round. Or Hedy Fry, either way. A flake in search of nonexistant burning crosses or NDP Liberal flip flopper.


----------



## Enzo (29 Jun 2006)

I like anyone who stands out from the status quo as a rule and for me this appears to be: Martha Hall Findlay. If for no other reason, pointing out the uselessness of the current debating system the Liberals are utilizing due primarily to the lacklustre nature of the forum. It's basically dull and allows for no passion or momentary zeal. She seems to be the only candidate with an awareness of this and a willingness to discuss it; so in all honesty, allow Ignatief to flow into the job and it's going to be nothing but smiles for Harper and Layton.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jul 2006)

This kind of ties in with the bloggospheric buzz that the Liberals are not signing up new members, either in spite of or because of the leadership convention. Considering the calibre of candidates being offered, I wouldn't be signing up either.......

http://www.politicalstaples.com/2006/07/05/on_giving.html



> On giving
> I am not sure if there is even a story here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060705.wxelections05/BNStory/National/home. Bob Rae was not a Liberal until recently. Same for Michael Ignatieff. Gerrard Kennedy was a provincial Liberal. Hmmm, ok there is a story here but not about fundraising, it is about roots and where one belongs. Anyways, this is what jumped out at me.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Adam (8 Jul 2006)

I don't really care, as long as the new Liberal leader is is cut from the same cloth as the champions of the past.
He must be French (from Quebec)  and show the utmost dedication to there uniqueness.  He must continue there great compassion to those oppressed by the majority.  And treat everyone as fair and equal realizing some are more equal than others.


----------



## couchcommander (11 Jul 2006)

You're screwing with me, right?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (11 Jul 2006)

Couch, Im with you,
 Adam are you serious........And I thought I was the minority being white male english speaking and middle aged.

And on this thread Ive been watching it for some time and laughing my $%#^off. "Who do you like for Liberal leader"...who cares, lets just finish the job and take the rest of the garbage out to the curb next election.  Ya YA Im a conservative...thank god some of us are or we would be in serious crap.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2006)

Given the bryzantine nature of Liberal Party rules, this could be the real race:

http://dissonanceanddisrespect.blogspot.com/2006/07/sale-of-century.html



> *Sale Of The Century *
> 
> Recent reports that Joe Volpe has sold the most new memberships in the Liberal leadership race have so embarrassed the party that they're trying to spin Gerard Kennedy as the actual front-runner, based on a few interviews with insiders and a bit of guesswork.
> 
> ...


----------



## canadianblue (13 Jul 2006)

> I don't really care, as long as the new Liberal leader is is cut from the same cloth as the champions of the past.
> He must be French (from Quebec)  and show the utmost dedication to there uniqueness.  He must continue there great compassion to those oppressed by the majority.  And treat everyone as fair and equal realizing some are more equal than others.



The only people with any skills to be leader of this country are from Quebec then :

Personally, not really interested, especially when Dion wants to make an "affirmative action" parliment apparently. Personally, maybe the Liberals should stop making rediculous statements in order for the majority to take them seriously.


----------



## starlight_cdn (25 Jul 2006)

It doesn't really matter who get selected for the leader of the Liberal party( or the NDP for that matter).....I have never voted for them and I never will. Liberalism represents everything that is wrong with post-911 Canada. It is time to take a stand and dig in.

I like working for Harper.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2006)

Like it or not, this is very important for several reasons:

1. The universe of Conservative party voters is not very large. Prime Minister Harper may never get a majority government since it is difficult to break the lock on the urban riding's with their sheer number of non Conservative voters.

2. The universe of Liberal/NDP/Green voters is considerably larger, so the Liberals have the potential for anything from a minority to a majority government, with all that implies.

3. Regardless of who is in power, ideas evolve through a dynamic process. A moribund Liberal party will not offer any real challenges to the Conservatives, hence their own ideas will become weakened. Do we want a lazy or corrupt Conservative party to develop?

Lets keep an eye on things so we don't get surprised later on.


----------



## starlight_cdn (26 Jul 2006)

Without hijacking the thread...There has been a fairly significant shift in the views of Canadians in the past few years. A fact that was lost on the left - even in urban areas. 

Realistically in Canada, the voter that make the decision on minority or majority are the 10-15% that are not aligned with any one party. These voters flipflop between parties based on their belief at the time of the election (which is their right paid for by veterans). This, historically, is reason for the campaign to sway that 10-15%. These people will have a better veiw of the Conservative Party in the next election, due to their performance as the ruling party. Also, the fear-mongering about how ' the Conservatives will destroy the country' will be a non-issue as the Conferderations seems to be chugging along. 

Canada has an extremely low voter turnout. A greater percentage of Iraqis voted in their last election (under the threat of IEDs, insurgent attacks and sectarian viloence) than Canadians did in our last election. A good plan for every voting Canadian would be to take a non-voting Canadian to the polls and encourage them to take part in the election.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

starlight_cdn said:
			
		

> Without hijacking the thread...
> Canada has an extremely low voter turnout. A greater percentage of Iraqis voted in their last election (under the threat of IEDs, insurgent attacks and sectarian viloence) than Canadians did in our last election. A good plan for every voting Canadian would be to take a non-voting Canadian to the polls and encourage them to take part in the election.



Why don't we try what Australia (?) does? If you don't vote, you are fined on your taxes. (I think that was how it worked, sounded pretty good to me)


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2006)

I don't like that idea because it is "conscription" rather than "cooperation". We are rightly sceptical of the motivations and reliability of conscripted soldiers (whenever that idea is raised), so many of the same objections apply to conscripting voters. If no party can inspire a voter, then the voter should have the right to refuse to vote.

While I realise many people don't vote because they are lazy SOB's, a great many more decline because they feel disconnected from the entire political process. Given that, any party which can find a way to reconnect the voters will have a vast advantage over the others.


----------



## starlight_cdn (26 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> While I realise many people don't vote because they are lazy SOB's, a great many more decline because they feel disconnected from the entire political process. Given that, any party which can find a way to reconnect the voters will have a vast advantage over the others.



That is what I am doing as a party man. Problem is Canadians are not politically savvy....the education takes a long time.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I don't like that idea because it is "conscription" rather than "cooperation". We are rightly sceptical of the motivations and reliability of conscripted soldiers (whenever that idea is raised), so many of the same objections apply to conscripting voters. If no party can inspire a voter, then the voter should have the right to refuse to vote.



By the same token the voter must take some form of responsibility for their actions or inactions. Nobody is telling them "how" to vote, simply that they must, even if it is to spoil a ballot.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2006)

Discussion on the right NOT to vote is here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38841.0.html


----------



## Mauler (26 Jul 2006)

Simple ----- NOBODY! Thanks.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2006)

http://www.bluebloggingsoapbox.com/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=31&p=1345



> ‘‘Is there anybody else?'’ he asked rhetorically. ‘’Boy, doesn’t that say something about what’s wrong with this country?'’
> Liberal Party of Canada (Alberta) President Adam Campbell commenting on the current Liberal Party Leadership race.
> (Note: *in true Liberal fashion, the fact that they can’t muster some Trudeau-like saviour candidate equals ‘’what’s wrong with this country'’*)



Read the rest here:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154209809896&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2006)

Here is an interesting column by John Ibbitson from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_; it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060824.wxibbitson24/BNStory/National/home 


> Spring election would pose formidable task for new leader
> 
> *JOHN IBBITSON*
> 
> ...



I’ll take his word for the idea that women, ‘Young Liberals’ and seniors are more likely to vote ‘left’ but I am certain that there will be lots and lots of _Liberal traditionalists_ at the convention reminding all delegates that the _raison d’être_ of the Liberal Party of Canada is to secure and then hold onto power – for the benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada and its _constituents_.  Some (many?) delegates will be strong-armed into voting for the _machine_’s preferred candidate

It is not clear, to me, anyway, just who is running the _machine_.  It appears that many (just some?) of the _Chrétienistas_ are supporting Bob Rae; is Ignatieff the preferred candidate of the _Martinis_ or is that Scott Brison?

It also appears that the NDP are going to be squeezed by both the Liberals and the Greens.  Maybe the NDP can squeeze back, if the Liberals do, indeed, select a ‘left Lib’ leader, saying: look here, folks if you want *left* then go for the real thing, not some Liberal fakery.

Somehow I cannot get over the *fact* – I believe it is a fact – that the Liberals are the BIG party: the party of big business, big labour, big cities and big banks.  I’m not sure how any ‘real’ loony leftie could be accepted as leader by the Party’s paymasters.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Aug 2006)

Edward, look at the Democratic Party in the United States. Like the Liberals in Canada, they are dependent on a very small number of "big" contributors, and certainly the upper echelons of the Democrats in no way resemble the "little guy" they pretend to represent. Since the party is sitting on such a narrow base, it seems relatively easy for the "moonbat left" to have muscled themselves into leadership positions, taking the Democratic party farther to the left and alienating much of the former membership.

I would guess the Liberals are having a similar problem, with the Martinites and Creitienistas struggling for control others in the party are trying to adopt more leftist postures to appeal to NDP and Green voters, while New Democrats and Greens, attracted to the potential availability of money and power move into the Liberal ranks.

My long term prediction; the disintegration of the Liberal party, with constituent elements moving to the true "Left" parties like the Greens and NDP, and a core or rump (depending on how messy the break up is) forming the basis for a new Centrist party. A few elections will show the shape of the new landscape


----------



## a_majoor (26 Aug 2006)

Interesting

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=293



> *A Party Built To Survive*
> 
> The Liberals have finally released their Red Ribbon Report on party renewal (available in PDF format), and at 30 pages it certainly reads a lot less volatilely than Buzz Hargrove’s screed.
> 
> ...


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Aug 2006)

starlight_cdn said:
			
		

> Canada has an extremely low voter turnout. A greater percentage of Iraqis voted in their last election (under the threat of IEDs, insurgent attacks and sectarian viloence) than Canadians did in our last election..



Try not voting back in Australia, and you'll get a fine. Here its compulsary to vote, and elections are always held on a Saturday. This ensures that pretty much everyone of voting age, does go to vote. I see nothing wrong with that.

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Aug 2006)

Adam said:
			
		

> I don't really care, as long as the new Liberal leader is is cut from the same cloth as the champions of the past.
> He must be French (from Quebec)  and show the utmost dedication to there uniqueness.  He must continue there great compassion to those oppressed by the majority.  And treat everyone as fair and equal realizing some are more equal than others.



I do take this as 'tongue in cheek', if not what have you been smoking Adam?

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## mudeater (26 Aug 2006)

Stephen Harper is my pick  ;D :-\


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2006)

Stephan Dion, for his hard headed and realistic take on global politics........

http://www.civitatensis.ca/archives/2006/08/27/1454



> *Liberal Warm Fuzzies Will Protect North: Dion*
> 
> According to Liberal leadership hopeful Stephane Dion, Canada needs to give the world more warm fuzzies about the northern environment in order to protect our sovereignty.
> 
> ...



Heh


----------



## RangerRay (28 Aug 2006)

It looks like the Librano establishment's choice is Bob Rae.  Aside from his ties to Power Corp, Paul Desmarais and Moe Strong, but bit players like Maurizio Belavaqua (sp?) who are supposedly ideologically polar opposites of Rae, appear to have been given their marching orders to throw their support behind him.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Aug 2006)

And here is the competition:





> Sunday, August 27, 2006
> *Welcome Elizabeth May*
> 
> Elizabeth May - on-again, off-again Martinite - has taken control of the Green Party and its $1 million annual stipend. While accepting the leadership role, May took wild swipes at the Prime Minister and called to scrap the Softwood Deal and NAFTA. Layton-loopy, but feisty - in fact, May brings to the leadership exactly what Jack brought to the NDP: someone who can grab headlines, whatever it takes to turn a camera her way. The worrying thing, for Jack and Stephane Dion, is that May could lure David Orchard to settle in the most sympathetic organization he'll ever find. May + Orchard could equal seats.
> ...


----------



## Gunnar (28 Aug 2006)

Where'd you snip this a_majoor?


----------



## geo (28 Aug 2006)

I take a look at all the bozoes who are running for the party and find the one guy who isn`t is ths strongest & steaiest hand...... Take a bow Mr Bill Graham.


----------



## Gunnar (28 Aug 2006)

yeah, Graham is still a Liberal, but he seems to be the least confused of the lot...and has some passing familiarity with reality.  The rest just seem so totally out to lunch that it isn't even worth thinking about.  I guess it is inevitable...when you believe that anything can be negotiated, discussed, or reasoned out, provided  you just love people enough, and/or give them time to adjust, it's hard to articulate a clearly defined platform that will make people vote for *you* instead of someone else...

And this is from a 'hardly read the  news, but this is the only guy who stands out' point of view, FWIW...


----------



## geo (28 Aug 2006)

And he did a fair to middlin' job as the Minister of National Defence AND at foreign affairs.


----------



## civmick (28 Aug 2006)

he's getting stabbed in the back every five minutes as Leader though.


----------



## geo (28 Aug 2006)

cause he ain't runing for the big job & the backstabbers are.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (28 Aug 2006)

I still think a target balloon is the best choice.

Or Elmo from Sesame Street.   ;D


----------



## geo (28 Aug 2006)

MRM,
we're all entitled to an opinion but, in all honesty, your flippant remarks bring nothing new or of value to the discussion......


----------



## hugh19 (28 Aug 2006)

But elmo would be a good choice. LOLOLOL ;D


----------



## GAP (28 Aug 2006)

If I was a liberal, and had these choices, I would vote for Elmo also. As for flippant remarks, ahh...can't be serious all the time.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (28 Aug 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> MRM,
> we're all entitled to an opinion but, in all honesty, your flippant remarks bring nothing new or of value to the discussion......



Just making a joke Geo...just a joke.

IIRC, there is a post a few above mine where you referred to them all as bozo's...

Honestly?  I don't think anything I have seen WRT the potential leaders of this group of clowns we refer to as the Liberal Party of Canada that is actually worth a serious comment.


----------



## geo (28 Aug 2006)

Well, while I may refer to most of the leadership candidates as bozos (aka clowns) I do put forward a candidate that, to date, has not been considered..... unfortunately.

Elmo is not a member of the Cdn Liberal party (though he may have relatives) he will not run for office in this country.

CHIMO!


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2006)

How many Liberal leadership candidates (or Liberals for that matter) are willing to sell their souls in order to team up with Buzz Hargrove and access the CAW's money and media clout?

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/brookstreet/index.php



> CAW union boss Buzz Hargrove seems bent on waging an old-fashioned class war in this country and he’s looking to recruit the Liberal Party into his ranks.
> 
> That’s the upshot of a political manifesto the CAW unveiled at its recent convention called, “In the Eye of the Storm: The CAW and the Re-making of Canadian Politics.”
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (30 Aug 2006)

Leave it to the NDP to cozy up to the CAW.... IMHO


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2006)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, is some good Liberal _gossip_ from the _Globe and Mail_’s well plugged-in Ottawa rumour monger Jane Taber:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060830.wxliberals30/BNStory/National/home



> Front-runners woo Liberal laggards
> *As the party's leadership race develops, Hall Findlay becomes a coveted prize*
> 
> JANE TABER
> ...



Some time back I reported (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41980/post-369531.html#msg369531 ) my own rumour that the potential Liberal leader most feared by the Toresi and the NDP is Ken Dryden, precisely because he_”… has little baggage in the party … and is known for his credibility and integrity.”_  He is, also, if it’s possible, less _telegenic_ than Stephen Harper and that, like Joe Volpe’s support, appears to be a _kiss of death_ in today’s Liberal Party.

Based on what I read it looks like a two horse race: Ignatieff vs. Rae, even though the media (including Taber, in this article) appears to want to make it more exciting by giving Kennedy support which, according to the rumours I hear (_filtered_ as they are  by amber liquids), he does not really have.   But: maybe he’s the guy Buzz Hargrove will love and cherish and, ultimately, screw.


----------



## larry Strong (31 Aug 2006)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060830/ignatieff_brison_060830/20060830?hub=Canada


_Ignatieff gaffe-prone: Liberal leadership rival
Updated Wed. Aug. 30 2006 11:28 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Michael Ignatieff was portrayed Wednesday as a gaffe-prone amateur by at least one Liberal leadership rival after the presumed front-runner was forced to clarify his latest controversial comment. 

In the most pointed broadside yet against the acclaimed academic, Scott Brison said Ignatieff's repeated miscues suggest the rookie MP has poor political judgment and insufficient experience to lead a national party. 

"These gaffes are damaging to a leadership campaign but they will be terminal to a national general election campaign," Brison said in an interview. 

Brison's attack was prompted by what he called Ignatieff's "gaffe of the week" -- a refusal to commit to running in the next election if he doesn't win the party's leadership. 

"Depends who's leader," Ignatieff told the Toronto Star's editorial board, adding that there are "all kinds of ways you can stay committed and involved and active in the Liberal Party of Canada, believe me, without being an MP." 

Ignatieff clarified his intentions in an interview Wednesday with The Canadian Press. 

"Let's be clear. I am planning to run in the next election in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I love being an MP and I've enjoyed it enormously and I'm looking forward to doing it again," said Ignatieff, who first won election last January. 

He added that, whoever wins the leadership race, he will do whatever he can to help him or her defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the next election. 

Asked why he didn't say that when the Star first asked, Ignatieff said he considered hypothetical questions about his political future should he lose the leadership contest to be moot. 

"I feel I have good reason to believe I'm ahead in the race and I plan to win. So the hypothetical is not going to arise." 

Only three weeks ago, Ignatieff had to douse another controversy, after saying he was "not losing sleep" over civilian deaths during the Israeli bombing of the Lebanese village of Qana. He admitted that remark was a mistake. 

Still, Ignatieff dismissed suggestions that he's prone to making rookie mistakes. 

"I'm running ahead. It doesn't feel like this is a rookie campaign to me." 

Brison has made his share of mistakes, the biggest being sending an e-mail to a banker friend about pending changes in income-trust rules, which he admitted was a mistake. 

However, Brison said that in nine years in politics he hasn't made as many "retractions and clarifications" as Ignatieff has made in just nine months. 

Brison compared Ignatieff to Stockwell Day, who jumped from provincial politics to become leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance without any experience at the federal level. 

Day's tenure at the helm of the Alliance, which eventually merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative party, was short-lived and disastrous. 

Brison said Ignatieff is "smarter than Stockwell," now Harper's minister of public safety. But he added Ignatieff faces an even steeper learning curve, having spent almost 30 years out of the country as an academic and journalist. 

Brison took Ignatieff to task for other recent so-called gaffes, including telling the Star that Canadians "live and operate in a heartless world and you need leadership that understands that." 

"When you see the world as being heartless, that helps someone justify ruthless acts," such as Qana, Brison said. 

He also chided Ignatieff for saying that Canada's peacekeeping tradition "died" with the genocide in Rwanda. 

Brison said that remark could only come from someone who's spent 30 years outside the country and fails to appreciate how important peacekeeping is to Canadians and to Liberals in particular, who view party icon Lester Pearson as the father of peacekeeping. 

He also scoffed at Ignatieff's recent admission that he's not sure he's "up to the price you have to pay" to succeed in politics. 

"If you go in to have heart surgery and the surgeon says, `I think I'm ready to do this but I've never done it before,' you're probably going to look for a surgeon who's done it before," Brison said. 

Gerard Kennedy, another leadership rival, said he's glad Ignatieff has clarified his intention to run for re-election, win or lose the leadership contest. 

"You can only do this with a commitment to renewing the party," said Kennedy, who gave up an Ontario cabinet post to jump into the federal leadership race and has vowed to seek a seat in Parliament. 

"First and foremost, before asking other people for their commitment, you've got to have your own clearly established." 

Kennedy was more charitable than Brison about Ignatieff's lack of experience. 

"I don't think Mr. Ignatieff pretends to have a lot of experience, per se. I think that's one of the things he would argue is offset by other attributes." 

Another contender for the leadership, Ken Dryden, issued a statement critical of his rival before Ignatieff clarified his remarks. 

"This is pitch-in time, get-mad time, do whatever needs to be done time," Dryden said. "Some things are more important than who is party leader ... this isn't a time to pick up your marbles and go home."_

Now for the REAL leadership race


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2006)

This is an excellent piece, from today’s _National Post_ – reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act -  from long time Liberal stalwart Tom Axworthy  (see: http://www.queensu.ca/csd/people.htm )

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=2f13dcab-afdd-409a-83cb-fa4d69f1c2ae 


> Volunteers must take back the Liberal party
> 
> 
> National Post
> ...



I am not a supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada; I did vote Liberal until 1967 because I could not abide Diefenbaker’s populism which leads, inevitably, to what Axworthy calls the _plebocricy_ and I agree with him that it is an abomination.  It drove policy, about 99.5% of it – as far as I could see, in the Trudeau and Chrétien eras; I think it drove 95% of Mulroney’s policies; I don’t think Martin ever had any policies – just poll driven responses.

Like Axworthy I think the Liberal Party of Canada is a great national institution which, overall – even counting Trudeau, has done marginally more good than harm.

I like Axworthy’s prescriptions: riding associations to consider policy and then seize control of their parties, from the _back-room boys_, then national policy conferences to recommend and national conventions to *decide* the party’s policies.  Parties – and I include the Conservatives in this – need to go one step farther: they need to adopt one of the populist positions – recall.  The party leadership reviews and conventions must have teeth: the _grassroots_ must regain and then *hold* control so that the party can select and then retain or reject its leader – even when (s)he is the sitting prime minister.

The problems Axworthy describes are consequences of Lord Acton’s famous _dictum_: power doesn’t just corrupt, it seeks to become self-sustaining and real policies are, generally, anathema to those who seek power for its own sake.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2006)

Hmmmm; two posts in a row.  Oh well, there’s no alternative:

Normally I would never bother anyone with the ravings of the _Ottawa Citizen_’s resident loony-left wing-nut Susan Riley but she has one good point today.  Her column from 11 Sep 06, with my *emphasis* added, is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=38da6308-e21e-48f9-a279-215c7c3b6424 


> Liberals' tower of babble
> 
> *Susan Riley*
> 
> ...



First: you must leave aside the fact that Riley is a Bob Rae partisan.

Second you must leave aside the fact that she is biased: Brison’s _accented_ French is unacceptable – it seemed, to _Anglo_ me to be clear and correct, albeit somewhat _”stilted”_ - but Dion’s fractured English is, somehow, acceptable (“stilted”?, common, Riley, get real, even _stumble-mouth_ Gordon O’Connor seems well spoken by comparison).

That being said the essentially unilingual candidates should withdraw.

*IF* I was one of Ken Dryden’s advisors, and I, most assuredly, am *NOT*, here is what I would tell him to say:



> Fellow Liberals, fellow Canadians: I regret to announce that I must withdraw from the Liberal leadership campaign.
> 
> I do so on one issue, only: language.
> 
> ...



Riley is right: there are too many unqualified, by the Liberal Party’s own definition, candidates and the Party and the public would be well served if some would withdraw, sooner rather than later.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Sep 2006)

My view is that Bill Graham and Michael Ignatieff are the only ones with a clue and I hope they don't get in. They should quit and join the CPC or take over the NDP.


----------



## RangerRay (15 Sep 2006)

Ken Dryden is incomprehendible in English too!  Listening to him speak is like listening to a university sociology professor on valium!


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2006)

What party does Bob Rae belong to again?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060921.wxrae21/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20060921.wxrae21



> *Rae gave money to NDP candidates as recently as 2006*
> BILL CURRY
> 
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...



A blogger suggests that Bob Rae may actually be a trojan horse for the Creitien wing of the Liberals. I don't know how probable this is, but people in the know might take a closer look:

http://www.civitatensis.ca/archives/2006/08/21/1439


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (21 Sep 2006)

My politics tend to be a little left of center.  Especially on socail issues,  but with that said I kind of like the idea of Scott Brison  being the next Prime Minister.  This man not only ran for the Conservative leadership and then crossed the floor,  he is now running for the Liberal leadership!  I like Peter MacKay on a personal level,  but I do get a bit of a kick when I see him make that prune face,  which if Scott Brison  became PM I'd see daily :-D   ( I know it is not a good reason to support anyone,  but since they're all liberals and will do anything they like regardless of their campain promisses,  I say choose the one you know will at least be interesting)   On that note Hedy Fry seems interesting.


----------



## RangerRay (22 Sep 2006)

EDIT: Liberal, NDP, they are two sides of the same coin, as far as I'm concerned.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> A blogger suggests that Bob Rae may actually be a trojan horse for the Creitien wing of the Liberals. I don't know how probable this is, but people in the know might take a closer look:
> 
> http://www.civitatensis.ca/archives/2006/08/21/1439



Well, Baw Brae does have close connections to the Desmarais/Power Corp. cabal, just as Chretien had, and I've heard that many of Chretien's former backers are now backing Baw Brae...sounds like this race will be a coronation for him.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Sep 2006)

Bob Rae could pull it off,  inside the Liberal party.  But here in Ontario I still see people (both Liberal and NDP) who look like they want to Spit when they say his name to wash the filth from their mouths.  A bob Ray victory would be heaven sent to the Conservatives,  who could destroy him with his own record.  Also the NDP would enjoy taunting him like they taunted Treadu (another former NDPer)

I still Like Scott Brison.  I don't know much about him,  but I'd laughf so hard id he won.  Who else could defeat the Tories?


----------



## TCBF (23 Sep 2006)

"On that note Hedy Fry seems interesting."

- Other than the fact she considers all rural Canadians rascists - do you recall the crosses burning in Prince George fiasco? 

"We can just go to British Columbia in Prince George, where crosses are being burned on lawns, as we speak."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060828.wxprofilefry28/BNStory/National/?pageRequested=2

http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex20010327.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1027382920463_22792120//


----------



## a_majoor (24 Sep 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "On that note Hedy Fry seems interesting."
> -



Perhaps this was in the Chinese sense, as in "May you live in interesting times" (ancient Chinese curse).


----------



## a_majoor (24 Sep 2006)

More interesting commentary:

http://conservativeelitist.blogspot.com/2006/09/new-liberal-juggernaut.html



> The new Liberal juggernaut?
> 
> Liberals are not dumb people, but I have to question if their brains have taken a vacation – there is word Bob Rae may closing in on Ignatieff in the race to replace Bill Graham. Recently, I said Ignatieff won’t win because he is incapable of climbing down from the ivory tower and into the real world, but I also mentioned in the same post that the Liberals would never choose Bob Rae because of his disastrous record. Perhaps some people need remind just how disastrous it was.
> 
> ...



If this is the best the Liberals can come up with, the only hope for them is either the Taliban attack the Canadians with nuclear weapons, or Prime Minister Harper makes some kind of huge gaffe like the now former president of the CBC......


----------



## a_majoor (24 Sep 2006)

And of course, we must not forget Joe Volpe:


----------



## BernDawg (27 Sep 2006)

Liberal...  Leader....  hehe... ha ha ha  BAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

 :rofl:


----------



## Teflon (27 Sep 2006)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> Liberal...  Leader....  hehe... ha ha ha  BAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
> 
> :rofl:



+1


----------



## Shamrock (27 Sep 2006)

Haven't read the previous seven pages, but will gladly answer the headline.

A Conservative.


----------



## TCBF (28 Sep 2006)

I still think Martha Hall Findlay would be the best move they could make.  But, they won't.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Sep 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I still think Martha Hall Findlay would be the best move they could make.  But, they won't.



You never know - I am waiting for the third ballot...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2006)

If there is any hope for the Liberal party, it lies in the appointed Senators. Evidently, Mr Creitien ensured _some_ quality people were appointed to the upper chamber:

http://socialistgulag.blogspot.com/2006/10/these-are-my-kind-of-liberals_05.html



> *These are my kind of Liberals *
> 
> As shocking as it is there are some Liberals who haave a common sense approach on national security. The Liberal-dominated Senate released it's latest report on Canada's foriegn policy, military capabilities & national security. It featured four main points:
> 
> ...



All these points are open to debate, of course, and reasonable people might disagree with some of the stands the Liberal Senators take. I am not a big fan of "Foreign Aid", given it breeds dependency rather than self sufficiency, and I certainly hope "fast track" isn't taken to mean "Carte Blanche". Over all, though, it seems there is a grown up apprieciation towards these matters in the Upper House.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (11 Oct 2006)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Haven't read the previous seven pages, but will gladly answer the headline.
> 
> A Conservative.



 :rofl: :cheers:


----------



## Blindspot (12 Oct 2006)

Seems like Iggy is coming out of orbit and disintegrating on entry. 

He doesn't loose any sleep over Qana - the Israelis committed war crimes. Wait - both sides committed war crimes! I'm so confused!




> Campaign organizer abandons Ignatieff over war crimes comment
> 
> Wed Oct 11, 8:08 PM
> By Joan Bryden
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Oct 2006)

Maybe Iggy is trying to get into the Liberal Comfort zone of a dithering, see-sawing leader who goes with the flow?  (Yes, this is sarcasm) ;D


----------



## geo (12 Oct 2006)

better to hear it now than to hear it later.........


----------



## Blindspot (12 Oct 2006)

I would really like to know who Susan Kadis is going to support now. If commenting that Israel committed warcrimes is enough for her to withdraw her support for the Leadership of a party then the only real wagon she has left to hitch up to is.... Harper. Come on, Susan, feel the power of the Dark Side.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Oct 2006)

:rofl:

Now THAT'S funny!


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (12 Oct 2006)

I can't say I exactly agree with what Ignatiff has said recently,  but in all honesty I have a new respect for him.  I respect that he can state his position,  admit when he is wrong and accept the consequences of being honest with his views.  He has conducted himself like a real statesman through this whole thing (something I thought beyond him)


----------



## InfantryWannabee (12 Oct 2006)

The reporting on what Ignatieff said about Israel is indecipherable. In the same article, it says that he thinks Israel commited war crimes in Qana, and that he doesn't lose any sleep over Qana. WTF is the reporter trying to get across?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Oct 2006)

Never mind the reporter, what is Ignatieff trying to say?


----------



## Blindspot (13 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> He has conducted himself like a real statesman through this whole thing (something I thought beyond him)



I see a bored academic foisting himself upon a tired, broken party trying to suck oxygen in a vacuum. I believe he views his home country as a banana republic that he can dupe into crowning him ala Return of the King. Only problem is he doesn't have a clue about the affairs of court.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (13 Oct 2006)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> I see a bored academic foisting himself upon a tired, broken party trying to suck oxygen in a vacuum. I believe he views his home country as a banana republic that he can dupe into crowning him ala Return of the King. Only problem is he doesn't have a clue about the affairs of court.



 :rofl:*Brilliant!*    I'm not just saying that because I've thought extremely similar things either.  As much as I dislike his views on the acceptability of torture and the war in Iraq he is the last best hope to stop Bob Ray from returning to power. ( I'd vote for George Bush himself to stop Bob Ray - but that's just my newfound abhorrence for anything NDP)


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2006)

The Liberals and the NDP are dredging the political depths for the knee-jerk anti-American bottom feeders – and there are plenty of them, maybe even a majority of Canadians fall into or near that category.  I have said before that I am about 95% certain that George W. Bush will still be president when we go next to the polls in Canada and running against George Bush will be a popular and rewarding strategy.  Many, many, maybe most Canadians are far more anti-Bush than they are for anything,  anything at all.

In Canada, as is the case throughout the West, in general, being anti-American brings with it the old _enemy of my enemy is my friend_ dictum and that means that being anti-American almost automatically makes one anti-Israel.  In the *real* electoral war – the one for the anti-Americans – Ignatieff’s recent comments made perfect sense.  That they were dead wrong, even stupid, and beyond any reasonable standard which must apply to someone with his credentials is beside the point: he’s running for office in Canada so honesty and logic can be tossed aside – in safety; Canadians voters will not care.

Harper’s characterization of Liberals being anti-Israel is untrue and unfair but that, like Ignatieff’s comments, will not bother anyone.  Harper is deeply involved in the Liberal/NDP battle – and he is, firmly, allied with _Taliban Jack_ Layton! He wants Layton to split the loony-left vote because he will, almost certainly, win a few seats by _’coming up the middle’_ whenever the NDP drags away enough of the _traditional_ Liberal vote.

Harper is also sending out an equally important if somewhat subtle message: “You may not like all my positions but you must admit that I am consistent and I keep my word.”  That will, the Tories hope, counter the fact, and I think it is a fact, that most Canadians do not agree with or much like Harper.  I think the Tory brain-trust thinks that competence is more important than personality; they think that Canadians liked Martin, at first, because they thought he was competent – they turned against him when they perceived him to be _Mr. Dithers_.  Harper’s Tories want to paint all Liberals as shifting with the wind.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (13 Oct 2006)

Edward,  I didn't mean to impugn anyone.  I wanted to express my distain for Bob Ray in an amusing way,  I should have realised even mentioning  ... mentioning ... he who can not be named (another bad joke,  sorry) would invoke the anti-anti-Americans to point voice themselves.   Which I must say you did with both clarity of thought and expression.

     I have to disagree with your assumption of the intention of Ignatiff's recent comments.  Ignatiff will never receive the Muslim or the anti-Israeli vote.  Ever.  He has ensured they will do what they can to keep him out of power a LONG time ago. (I know people who wouldn't slow down if they saw him j-walking,  I'm not saying they'd speed up... but they wouldn't go out of their way ... to not,  well you know)  I can't see him changing his opinion as a political strategy in order to win votes - he has lost more votes than he's received because of this.  I think he has said exactly what he believes to be true.  I honestly believe that Ignatiff believes what he says and I believe that George Bush honestly believes he is doing good in the world.  I can disagree with what they believe without disagreeing that they believe it.

     I have to agree with you on the Tory's desire to appear calm and competent.  The Ralph Klein strategy,  say what you mean,  mean what you say and do what you said you would.  It is very appealing to know that a person will follow through on what they say they will.   I think the Liberal strategy will be to simply tell Canadians what the Tory's are saying they will do.  The Tories hold a rally to repeal same sex marrage,  the grits will hold a rally to say "the Tories want to repeal same sex marrage".   The Grits lacked the credibility last election to properly smear the Tories,  maybe with a new leader they can get back to fear mongering and do nothing except what the latest opinion polls say to do governance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2006)

My sense of the Ignatieff campaign (and that's all it is - just a _sense_ from reading the papers, etc) is that he hit the panic button after the delegate selection when he came in 15% *below* expectations - at 30% rather than 35%.  With 35% he might have gotten a whopping majority of the serving MP/senator/former candidate/party _apparatchik_ vote and would have been a second ballot shoo-in.  Now it looks as though Dion might win the prize on the 4th ballot.

I think the Red _machine_ is now in charge – and it is the Paul Martin machine, I think – so reacting to polls is all that matters.  Polls say Québecers are anti-Israel : accuse Israelis of war crimes. 

Ignatieff’s remarks today mean that, having thoroughly alienated the Jewish vote – including Irving Cotler’s wife! - he has now turned back on the Muslims by affirming that Hezbollah, too, committed war crimes.  Dumb!  Now everyone either hates him or thinks he is terminally stupid; I’m sure it is the Martin campaign team.

Harper set a simple trap: all the Liberals walked into it.  They are all forced to try to find _nuanced_ positions which will give minimal offence to Muslims and Jews while remaining firmly anti-American.  It is impossible.  The issue was, potentially, a _one day wonder_: stupid comment by Iggy, cruel, insensitive shot by Harper … OK, next story.  Not now; now it has ‘legs’ as the journalists say and it will, likely, dominate the Saturday and Sunday news, too.

I think Iggy’s campaign just lost more than one wheel.

I also think Dion scares the hell out of the Tories.  He may have issues with the Québec nationalists and his English may be poor (_‘tit Jean_ who?) but he is gaining _traction_, I think, and, consequentially, good press which may draw considerable 2nd and 3rd ballot support away from Ingatieff, Kennedy and Rae.  I wonder if Brison and Dryden (maybe Hall-Findlay, too) will not find him the candidate most likely to win and acceptably compatible with their respective views?  If they move to him then I think the race is won.

All speculation based on conjecture.  It’s probably a very good thing I’m not a Liberal!  ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I can't say I exactly agree with what Ignatiff has said recently,  but in all honesty I have a new respect for him.  I respect that he can state his position,  admit when he is wrong and accept the consequences of being honest with his views.  He has conducted himself like a real statesman through this whole thing (something I thought beyond him)



This statement is tongue-in-cheek, right?


Matthew.   ???


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2006)

Oh! OH! *OH!* What a lovely war!

I just heard PM Harper on the radio blasting the Liberals, except that he expressly exempted Brison and Volpe, for attacking Ignatieff for the comments with which the PM expressly disagreed.

He has, probably, given this ‘story’ another couple of days of ‘life’ so that Liberals can remind all Jewish voters (who have long but maybe not forever constituted a Liberal stronghold) that several leadership candidates are, at least, sympathetic to the Arabs, including those with staffers who march in anti-Israel parades (in Montreal) where Hezbollah flags are on parade and, while in the process of trying to mollify Jewish voters, also alienate Arab sympathizers by trying to be ‘even-handed’ by declaring that they are ‘friends’ of Israel and, anway, Arabs committed war crimes too.

Keep the Liberal leadership candidates debating the Israel/Lebanon thing; further confuse and annoy voters ... Neat.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (13 Oct 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> This statement is tongue-in-cheek, right?
> Matthew.   ???



God I wish.   I ache for my simpler world where "Iggy” (I like that nickname) was a bad guy with horns who held simplistic views.  (Fittingly simple views, I thought him a simpleton) – I can’t stop with the bad allusions today.

     I just saw on the news his reaction/rebuttal.  In a purely academic way he just *****-slapped Harper. I can’t explain how perplexed I am that Iggy is suddenly looking less like the creepy professor the other staff try to keep away from social parties and more like a statesman. I think there is a Dr Jekyll / Mr. Hyde thing going on here. 

    In my limited assessment, I think that the key demographics (right now Liberal swing voters) likely are quite impressed that Iggy isn't even the leader (yet) and already he just landed one upside the PM's head.   Ordinary Canadians likely just heard a fierce condemnation of absolutism (something most Canadians take issue with) and a very subtle association to …. He who can not be named.    

     I basically like Harper; I’m from Alberta and I know conservatives who are now in Ottawa. After seeing that news conference it looks like it is Harper who has fallen into a trap – Iggy couldn’t have planned it that well.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Oct 2006)

PM Harper did respond.  I don't have a link (unless I can find a way to link to my radio...).  Harper responded by reminding "us" (the consumers of media) that back in the summer, most, but not all, Liberal Leaders condemned Israel.  He pointed out that "Mr. Brison and Mr. Volpe did not".  Divide and Conquer?


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I ache for my simpler world where "Iggy” (I like that nickname) ...
> 
> ... I just saw on the news his reaction/rebuttal.  In a purely academic way he just *****-slapped Harper ...



I think 'Iggy' has had so many _nuanced_ positions on one issue over three days that I'm going to start using *'flipper'* as his nickname.

You may be right about the _rebuttal_; I think all I saw was petulant whinging.

What was that rubbish about "our constitution" and "the integrity of parliament"?  Does he not know the difference between a head-of-state (who does represent all Canadians) and the 'head-of-government' who is, and is supposed to be a partisan politician?  Did he fail Poli Sci 101?  I thought he looked like someone who has trouble remembering that he is in Canada, dealing with Canadian politics.

I repeat: I think _*Flipper*_ just blew it; I think his campaign hit the panic button and I think Harper, who is a cold, mean, nasty SOB, is loving every minute of it.

_Flipper_ is right about one thing: Harper is dividing Canadians.  That’s what he’s trying to do.  He wants the anti-Israel/anti-American vote to divide, with the NDP gaining at Liberal expense.  He expects to keep the 35+/-% of Canadians who are not anti-Israel/anti-American – he only needs about 10% of the remaining voters (and only 60% of Canadian do vote) to get 40% of the national popular vote and a majority government.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> God I wish.   I ache for my simpler world where "Iggy” (I like that nickname) was a bad guy with horns who held simplistic views.  (Fittingly simple views, I thought him a simpleton) – I can’t stop with the bad allusions today.
> 
> I just saw on the news his reaction/rebuttal.  In a purely academic way he just *****-slapped Harper. I can’t explain how perplexed I am that Iggy is suddenly looking less like the creepy professor the other staff try to keep away from social parties and more like a statesman. I think there is a Dr Jekyll / Mr. Hyde thing going on here.
> 
> ...



Sorry Zell, you maybe a Liberal partisan, but that's disengenuous.  The first time Ignatief was right and basically pointed the finger where it belonged at Hezbollah.   Going back and "nuancing" his position to garner the anti-Israel vote by calling what happened at Qana a war crime, isn't measured, it's the same spineless pandering we've come to expect from Chretien, Martin and their apologist cronies.

Of note, if you haven't looked up the debunking of the Qana massacre, I suggest you do so.  The entire thing was a stage-managed Hezbollah propaganda event.  Specifically, look up "Green Helmet" and you'll find a breakdown of the film and the Hezbollah actor who has played every role from a grieving father to an ambulance driver to a fireman to a soldier to a journalist in various media events over the last 10 years.

RE:  Iggy bitchslapping Harper - Yeah, good luck with that.  When you don't have an ethical base for your positions (as Ignatieff doesn't in this case), only the party faithful buy your crap....everyone else just thinks you're a clown.


Matthew.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2006)

Further, just because I’m enjoying this, much as one _enjoys_ watching a train wreck in slow motion: Ignatieff complained (whinged) that Harper showed his “lack of respect for the official opposition.”  Indeed he did.  He holds the opposition in contempt.

Remember Exteter’s speech to the French Court in Henry V?  He was asked what message Henry had for the Dauphin; he said something like: _“Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt, and any thing that may not misbecome the mighty sender.”_  

That’s what Harper has on offer for the Liberals.

The next election will be in 2007, I think – maybe in the spring, just after a _good news_ budget which I will hate.  Harper will, just in time, just as Canadians start to pay attention, start looking _prime ministerial_; until then he will be bitterly, cruelly partisan – aiding _Taliban Jack_ bin Layton even as he tries to steal one Montreal, a couple of Toronto and maybe a Winnipeg  riding where the loony-left vote slides father left but the Jewish vote goes Tory.

My only worry, as a Conservative voter, is that in his bashing of _Flipper_ and friends he will propel Dion _up the middle_ and I think Dion will be harder to beat (fewer _festering_ negatives} than either _Flipper_ or Bob Rae.


----------



## Blindspot (13 Oct 2006)

Have we heard any word from Dryden on Israel? That would be interesting considering his riding is massively Jewish.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2006)

In a way, I would like to see Dion show his chops as leader. He seems very smart (in a good way, not a Harvard Professor or Dr. Evil kind of way), is certainly passionate about Canada and (importantly in the Canadian context) delivered a very sound thumping to the separatist movement.

This also underlies what I don't like about the current Liberals; they are so insular and inward looking. Prime Minister Harper has staked a lot of his and Canada's reputation on engaging in the outside world in a way not seen for perhaps two generations. The sudden influx of light and air is very disturbing for many Canadians, and Socialists especially seem to be withering like exotic orchids taken out of the greenhouse. The Liberal Party may be in danger of disintegrating, shedding the hard left membership off to the Greens and NDP, with a core or rump (depending on how messy the break up is) becoming the "New Centrist" party.

The ultimate problem is that much of Canadian politics (at all levels) has become rather insular and inbred, new ideas are hard to come by. This leads to the danger of the Tories becoming complacent and sloppy, with negative results for all of us.


----------



## TCBF (14 Oct 2006)

"This leads to the danger of the Tories becoming complacent and sloppy, with negative results for all of us."

- The complacent and sloppy are the former Eastern PCs, who think it is back to the good old days, and to heck with the Right/West who put them back in the driver's seat.  The ex-Reformers remember too well what happened in the mid-eighties in a similar situation, and are trembling at the prospect of the Mulroneyization of the Conservatives, and the resulting future split off of a New Reform (motto: "NEVER AGAIN!").

Can they learn from the past?  Time will tell.  A recent "Western Standard" newsmagazine poll show dwindling numbers for Alberta separation, BUT, that is with a PM from Calgary heading a minority Conservative government.  What could go wrong?  Well...  BC and Alberta - who often hold joint cabinet meetings - now have a greater combined population than Quebec.  Quebec has 75 seats, BC/Alta 64.  By the time we have a new census and the comittees re-jig the riding boundaries, it will be another ten years or so.  At that point, if the West cannot find the true meaning of life in Ottawa, the map of Canada may change.

What does this have to do with the Liberals?  Lots.  If the Conservatives break in two or - again - three, the Natural Governing Party will again be King, and if they cannot placate the West - and they won't, with Kyoto/Carbon Tax - the country is theirs to lose.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2006)

There is a long article here, and a very interesting train of responses, so I will post the link only. The essential argument is that Ignatieff is indulging in the sort of "magical thinking" which might be OK in the content and value free world of academia, where there are no consequences to words and actions, but is very counter productive in the real world of action and reaction: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004801.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2006)

If I was a Liberal (which I, most emphatically, am not) I would being doing this sort of political _calculus_:

***
Popular support 23 Jan 06

CON – 36.5%
LIB – 30.25%
NDP – 17.5%
PQ – 10.5%
*Result*: Conservative Minority Government

***

Ignatieff as leader means, nationally, the left wing of the Liberal Party either votes NDP or sits on its hands.  No other major gains or losses.

Likely Results –

CON – 37%
LIB – 29%
NDP – 19%
PQ – 10%
*Result*: Conservative Minority Government

***

Rae as leader means that the Conservatives pick up some support in Ontario.  No significant changes elsewhere.

Likely Results –

CON – 38%
LIB – 29%
NDP – 17%
PQ – 10%
*Result*: Conservative Minority Government

***

Kennedy as leader means that Québec is insulted and abandons the Party; federalist Québecers vote Conservative.  Liberals gain a few NDP votes.

Likely Results –

CON – 40%
LIB – 27%
NDP – 18%
PQ – 11%
*Result*: Conservative Majority Government

***

Dion as leader means the Liberals get Québec federalist votes back from the Conservatives.  Ontario and Atlantic Canada remain, roughly, unchanged, Conservatives and NDP gain, at Liberal expense, in Western Canada.

CON – 34%
LIB – 35%
NDP – 18%
PQ – 11%
*Result*: Liberal Minority Government


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2006)

I have commented here in Army.ca (e.g. just a week ago at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41980/post-461408.html#msg461408 ) that in the next Canadian general election running against US President George W. Bush will be a popular (and I think successful) tactic.

_*Flipper*_* (Ignatieff) has already started, using Chrétien mouthpiece/apologist Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail as his messenger.  Here is Martin’s column from today’s (19 Oct 06) Globe, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061018.wxcomartin19/BNStory/National/home 



 The man who would be PM hammers Bush

LAWRENCE MARTIN 
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Michael Ignatieff wants to make one thing clear: He's not Washington's guy. “People seem to believe I want to live in an American imperial world. I do not. I do not.”

The front-runner in the Liberal leadership race was hunched over lunch at an Ottawa restaurant, focused, eyes like a hawk. He wants the prize so badly.

He's criticized as being Harper-lite or Bush-lite or both. It bothers him.

On George W. Bush, he was pointed. “This president has been a disaster for the authority and the influence of the United States,” he said. Post-9/11, with the Western world at his feet, Mr. Bush missed a golden chance to unite it. “A historic opportunity was missed by the Bush administration that Americans are now realizing was a catastrophe — and a catastrophe not only against their values, but against their interests.”

The former Harvard professor made it clear he will not be hitching his wagon to any unilateralist empire-building. “I've supported the Afghan mission precisely because I don't want to live in an American imperial world. If we don't, as Canadians, want to live under American domination . . . then we have to have the courage to take on a difficult mission with our NATO partners and get it done. If we don't want a world run by the Americans, Canada has to lead.”

It's an interesting twist because the perception is the opposite. The conventional wisdom is that, if Canada becomes a warrior nation, it is following the U.S. lead. Mr. Ignatieff said he wants Canada to follow the Pearsonian example. “I'm a Mike Pearson Liberal. I want to reinvent the party as a progressive social force.”

He appears to be trying to reposition himself. Primarily because of his initial support for the Iraq war, he is considered to be to the right of other leadership contestants. This has fuelled the impression that he does not have much growth potential after the first convention ballot. It makes sense for him — though he says he's been a Pearsonian Liberal since 17 — to move left.

On Iraq, he said he takes “full responsibility for not having anticipated how incompetent the Americans would be. I don't have remaining confidence in the Americans. . . . The Bush operation in Iraq betrayed any hopes I had of Iraq transitioning to a stable political elite, and now all those hopes rest with my friends, the Iraqi political elite.”

On the economy, he said he feared that Mr. Bush's colossal national debt could result in a damaging blowback into Canada. On the social side, he said he was “particularly concerned about the importation of failed criminal justice policies and failed social policies in the United States.”

If elected Liberal leader and prime minister, Mr. Ignatieff might have to work with the President. In the past, pointedly criticizing Mr. Bush got Liberals into big trouble. The more colonially inclined reacted with rancour when a cabinet member, Herb Dhaliwal, called Mr. Bush a failed statesman. But Mr. Dhaliwal hardly proved to be wayward with his assessment. The mood has changed, however, and calling Mr. Bush a “disaster” may win him points for candour.

His harsh assessment is hardly unique. He pointed out, quite correctly, that millions of Americans now appear to feel the same way about the Bush presidency as Canadians do. The Canadian view, Mr. Ignatieff said, has been vindicated. It's not anti-Americanism, as polls demonstrate, but rather an anti-Bush conviction.

As he sat in the restaurant, the candidate was coming off a miserable week. He had made injudicious observations alleging Israeli war crimes. He had been punched around the ring in a leadership debate. The blood sport of politics, he allowed, was teaching him a thing or two. “What I've learned is the importance of words. Getting them right.”

He wasn't complaining of media treatment. “You put on your skates, your pads, your helmet, and whatever happens on the rink, it's your responsibility. So I accept that.”

Mr. Ignatieff has to create a greater comfort zone with the other camps, so distancing himself from Bush country could well help. Defining himself coherently has been a problem for him, partly because of his far-flung international career and myriad writings and pronouncements.

When in Britain, he often played to Britain. When in America, he often played to America (the famous “we” quote). He hasn't been home for long, and he is still trying to discover how to play to Canada. If he does, he will be in the best position to win on Dec. 2.

 lmartin@globeandmail.com 

Click to expand...


A couple of interesting points:

•	’On the economy, he said he feared that Mr. Bush's colossal national debt could result in a damaging blowback into Canada.’ I agree, I think George W Bush has pursued/is pursuing disastrous fiscal policies and I fear Canada will get singed, at least, when the chickens come home to roost, etc. +1 for Flipper.

•	’ “… we have to have the courage to take on a difficult mission with our NATO partners and get it done. If we don't want a world run by the Americans, Canada has to lead.” ‘ So he is, indeed, on side with Stephen Harper! +1 more for Flipper.

•	’ It's an interesting twist because the perception is the opposite. The conventional wisdom is that, if Canada becomes a warrior nation, it is following the U.S. lead. Mr. Ignatieff said he wants Canada to follow the Pearsonian example. “I'm a Mike Pearson Liberal. I want to reinvent the party as a progressive social force.” … It makes sense for him — though he says he's been a Pearsonian Liberal since 17 — to move left.’  Again I suspect Martin is right, so another +1 for him.

I think Flipper misunderstands or, more likely, misrepresents Mike Pearson.  Mike Pearson did not repudiate St Laurent’s policy that Canada would be a leading middle power with the concomitant requirement for military muscle.  Pearson did support Hellyer’s misguided attempts to wring some of the bureaucratic inefficiency out of DND (remember Glassco, 1960?), so would anyone, we were in another, periodic recession and Canadians wanted more social spending from within the existing budget.  Mike Pearson added ’helpful fixed’ to leading middle power as a matter of policy and tried to do both with less (defence spending) as a matter of management. -1 for Flipper.

•	’ When in Britain, he often played to Britain. When in America, he often played to America (the famous “we” quote). He hasn't been home for long, and he is still trying to discover how to play to Canada. If he does, he will be in the best position to win on Dec. 2.’  I suspect Martin – who does know Canadian politics – is right.  +1 for Martin.


On balance: only +1 for Flipper and +2 for Martin, but I hope the Globe and Mail and the Ignatieff campaign do not forget to declare this as campaign publicity.
*


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2006)

None of the above:

http://www.stevejanke.com/archives/201270.php



> October 19, 2006
> 
> *McGuinty is using Ontario tax money to support the federal Liberal leadership campaign*
> Posted by Steve Janke of the Blogging Tories at 06:13 PM
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2006)

Perhaps someone is looking towards the next leadership convention?

http://dissonanceanddisrespect.blogspot.com/2006/11/burden-of-greatness.html



> *The Burden Of Greatness *
> 
> The unofficial dauphin of the Liberal Party is launching his leadership campaign with a few gratuitous swipes at the men who deign to actually seek it at this time.
> 
> ...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061114.wtrudeau1115/BNStory/National/home



> *Justin Trudeau takes another dig at Ignatieff*
> Canadian Press
> 
> TORONTO — Justin Trudeau has taken another swipe at Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff.
> ...


----------



## canadianblue (15 Nov 2006)

> New poll put Liberals ahead of Tories for first time in a year
> Wed Nov 15, 5:15 PM
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah :


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Nov 2006)

First, they say this:
*New poll put Liberals ahead of Tories for first time in a year* 
Then, in the story, they bury this:
However, the narrow Liberal lead in the Decima poll was within the three-percentage-point margin of error, which means *it's too close to say who's really ahead.*

I see no bias, do you?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (16 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> First, they say this:
> *New poll put Liberals ahead of Tories for first time in a year*
> Then, in the story, they bury this:
> However, the narrow Liberal lead in the Decima poll was within the three-percentage-point margin of error, which means *it's too close to say who's really ahead.*
> ...



well going from a comply 10 point lead to neck and neck.... we can call it bias. But there we are,
(I wish I could take the good point of the Tories mix it with the good parts of the NDP and make a new political party that was socail progressive and fiscally sound... god knows that it isn't the liberals)


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Nov 2006)

That 10 point lead could have been anywhere from 7 % lead to 13 % lead (19 times out of 20)
The current position could be anywhere from a 2% lead to a 4% deficit.  (19 times out of 20).
So, the Conservatives dropped 17% vis a vis the liberals OR they dropped 5% vis a vis the liberals.  How many jumped ship?  Was it one in twenty or one in five?


That's the problem with polls: see the difference that stuff makes.


My point is that the headline, which most people will see and not investigate further by reading, says, unequivocally, that the liberals lead the tories.  If people read on, they find a conflicting statement, that says it is a statistical tie.

In my opinion, a less-biased headline would have read "Tories lose support", "Liberals gain ground in Polls" or something similar.


----------



## canadianblue (16 Nov 2006)

> well going from a comply 10 point lead to neck and neck.... we can call it bias. But there we are,
> (I wish I could take the good point of the Tories mix it with the good parts of the NDP and make a new political party that was socail progressive and fiscally sound... god knows that it isn't the liberals)



Liberals usually only go by what the polls tell them. I actually agree with alot of what the NDP says in terms of policy, but since I'm a social moderate, and the fact Jack Layton seems to only go after the protest vote he would never get my vote.


----------



## patrick666 (16 Nov 2006)

Show me a leader and maybe I'll like him/her.


----------



## RangerRay (16 Nov 2006)

IIRC, Decima is a Liberal-friendly polling firm, as well as Environics...

I have heard anecdotal stories of persons being contacted by polling companies, and hung up on when they weren't giving the "right" answers.  Polls are for dogs.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (16 Nov 2006)

Im still laughing....9 pages long and still going.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2006)

Why Bob Rae may indeed be the choice of the Liberal Establishment:

http://jojourn.blogspot.com/2006/11/globe-admits-left-wing-agenda.html



> *Globe admits left-wing agenda *
> 
> Since one of my readers has threatened to switch to Red Tory if I don't post something new soon (which BTW is a very curious and desperate leap!), I thought I'd highlight today's Toronto Sun editorial "Globe sees the light at last".
> 
> ...


----------



## Desert Fox (1 Dec 2006)

None of them!!!

Dont you remember 1993-2005?


----------



## exsemjingo (1 Dec 2006)

I'm watching the debates now.  Where was this rhetorical gusto when they were in office?

And what's with the Aids ribbons?


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Dec 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> And what's with the Aids ribbons?


It's world AIDS day


----------



## Yrys (2 Dec 2006)

Results will be on the PLC web site, if anyone is interested, here :

http://www.liberal.ca/news_f.aspx?id=11936

As Volpe has side with Rae, its look like Ignatief and Rae will
compete each other...


----------



## UberCree (2 Dec 2006)

Have they released the executive election results yet?  

I am interested to see how Bobbi Ethier does (for party president), she is a staff officer for the Manitoba Teachers Society.


----------



## peaches (2 Dec 2006)

Iggy is the only one with half a clue, the rest oxygen thieves...  Used to be a big Ken Dryden fan when I was kid, no respect for the guy at all now.  Hoping for Rae though, can't see anyone in Ontario that's sane voting for him, Harper wins...


----------



## 3rd Horseman (2 Dec 2006)

Does not matter now...Dion wins = Harper wins


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Dec 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Does not matter now...Dion wins = Harper wins


Wasn't it Dion who cried for "Peace in our time" "Withdrawal with honour"?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (3 Dec 2006)

Captain Scarlet said:
			
		

> Wasn't it Dion who cried for "Peace in our time" "Withdrawal with honour"?



http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=b476faeb-cd0e-4567-95f2-0c56cb1d6375&k=35236

And not to point fingers,  but could we stay away from WWII references?   :warstory:  I really hate the Goodwin's law.


----------



## armyvern (3 Dec 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Have they released the executive election results yet?
> 
> I am interested to see how Bobbi Ethier does (for party president), she is a staff officer for the Manitoba Teachers Society.



http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?type=news&id=12095


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Dec 2006)

Well, I guess we can lock down the speculation and guessing thread, see the thread(s) on the new leader to continue the more focussed discussions.


----------

