The Next Conservative Leader

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Conservatives set date to choose next leader
The Toronto Star
By: The Canadian Press, Published on Tue Jan 19 2016

OTTAWA — The Conservative party will choose its next leader on May 27, 2017.

The party says the date allows for a time frame that will provide an exciting and competitive race and a fair and open contest for all potential candidates.

The decision was made over the weekend by the leadership election organizing committee, a small group of party stalwarts in charge of setting the terms for the race.

The specific rules around how the next full-time leader will be chosen will be discussed by the committee in the coming weeks, but the vote will only be open to party members.

Rona Ambrose, an Alberta MP and former Conservative cabinet minister, is currently serving as the party’s interim leader, a position she was elected to after Stephen Harper stepped down on election night.

Several current MPs are believed to be considering a run, along with former Conservative parliamentarians and at least one high-profile outsider, businessman and TV personality Kevin O’Leary.

 

[Altair]

Kevin O'Leary is an adequately educated (BA from Waterloo, MBA from the Ivey School and Western), successful entrepreneur who succeeded on his own merits ~ no silver spoon or trust fund for him. He was a successful entrepreneur and author and turned himself into a bombastic media personality for profit because that niche, the bombastic one, was unfilled here in Canada. Don't make the mistake of confusing his public persona for the man inside.

I'm not sure if he's really interested or not ... my guess remains that he mainly just wants to shake up the political process. The CPC is most likely to field a group of potential leaders who all murmur sweet reason in public and Mr O'Leary, I think, thinks we need someone to shout a few "home truths" about the way we have managed our country for the past, say, 50ish years.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqemytQ5QA
This is an act to you?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqemytQ5QA
This is an act to you?

Not worth answering that. No matter what the answer. If it isn't in total lockstep with your unoriginal thinking, we'd have to endure countless more posts, by you, on the subject. Something, I believe, most here are tired of.

 

[Kilo_302]

Not worth answering that. No matter what the answer. If it isn't in total lockstep with your unoriginal thinking, we'd have to endure countless more posts, by you, on the subject. Something, I believe, most here are tired of.

Not to worry Altair, I'll chime in here  ;D

O'Leary is a blow hard. He's also a moderately successful businessman whose main talent is self-promotion. This latest stunt is an exercise in just that. He has little substance, and the Conservatives would be loathe to even consider him. Then again, their current leader and pretty much the entire cabinet under Harper was pretty underwhelming in terms of intellectual heft, so anything is possible. 

 

[Altair]

Not worth answering that. No matter what the answer. If it isn't in total lockstep with your unoriginal thinking, we'd have to endure countless more posts, by you, on the subject. Something, I believe, most here are tired of.

Yes, god forbid that someone posts things that isn't right leaning, CPC supporting on a military politics board.

Would you like it better if this board was in complete agreement with everyone else?

 

[MARS]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqemytQ5QA
This is an act to you?

The entire show was a poorly contrived act - you must have realized that, no? A very pale attempt to replicate CNN's original Crossfire format, pitting extreme left and right views against each other - part of CBC's content shakeup in 2009 in an attempt to reach a broader, and generally less intelligent audience.  Case in point, Don Newman retired that same year and his highly respected - but not very entertaining - Politics program was replaced with....wait for it....Evan Soloman and P&P.  Both shows - the Lang and O'Leary Exchange and P and P rely on bombastic, on air "gotcha"-type exchanges designed to replicate what was happening on the US networks at the time, as a ratings grab.  To me, that marked a signifcant step away from news and towards infotainment.  I've followed Ms. Lang's reporting for years and I KNOW she isn't as dense, obstuse or extreme in her personal and professional views as her producers evidently insisted she (and Mr. O'Leary) act on the Exchange. 

So yeah dude, totally an act.

 

[Altair]

The entire show was a poorly contrived act - you must have realized that, no? A very pale attempt to replicate CNN's original Crossfire format, pitting extreme left and right views against each other - part of CBC's content shakeup in 2009 in an attempt to reach a broader, and generally less intelligent audience.  Case in point, Don Newman retired that same year and his highly respected - but not very entertaining - Politics program was replaced with....wait for it....Evan Soloman and P&P.  Both shows - the Lang and O'Leary Exchange and P and P rely on bombastic, on air "gotcha"-type exchanges designed to replicate what was happening on the US networks at the time, as a ratings grab.  To me, that marked a signifcant step away from news and towards infotainment.  I've followed Ms. Lang's reporting for years and I KNOW she isn't as dense, obstuse or extreme in her personal and professional views as her producers evidently insisted she (and Mr. O'Leary) act on the Exchange. 

So yeah dude, totally an act.

So it begs the question,  when O'Leary is polling 25 percent support for the leadership, are people supporting the man or the act? I've only seen the act in public. Even last week when he offered to invest a million dollars in the energy industry if Notley quit.

 

[PuckChaser]

So it begs the question,  when O'Leary is polling 25 percent support for the leadership, are people supporting the man or the act? I've only seen the act in public. Even last week when he offered to invest a million dollars in the energy industry if Notley quit.

Once he actually has to debate other issues besides the economy (although that's a major one), we'll see where the poll lands. He's the only guy with a mic right now. No one else has said they'll run, its all speculation.

 

[MARS]

So it begs the question,  when O'Leary is polling 25 percent support for the leadership, are people supporting the man or the act? I've only seen the act in public. Even last week when he offered to invest a million dollars in the energy industry if Notley quit.

I would say people "think" they are supporting the man, but in reality they are supporting the act, because I also think most of the voting public, of all political stripes, is incapable of distinguishing between the two. 

I think it is all and act, everytime any and every politican speaks.  Used car salesmen, every one of them, as I stated somewhere on this board during the election in a drunken rant.  But I stand by that assessment. There are certainly kernels of truth in whatever they are saying, but even outside of an election, words are important, as we are seeing with the statements coming out of the Cabinet retreat.  And that is acting.  The MND acting like the coaltion meeting is no big deal.  Rona Ambrose acting like she has a ******* clue on how to help the PM solve the econominc crisis.  The Global Affairs minister acting like we are actually gonna do something about what happened Burkina Faso.  The Immigration Minister acting like the Syrian refugee immmigration is rolling along smoothly.

Only ******* Sheeple take any of these acts/tv sound bytes at face value.

I mean, does anyone actually believe that Mrs. Gregoire-Trudeau's "spontaneous" burst into song on MLK day was "not planned"?  Garbage.  Someone somewhere was concerned about potential negative blow back, which would have emberassed her husband.  Someone somewhere would have at least asked "can you actually sing, in key, somewhat?...Ok, cool.  Thumbs up!" before letting that little gem happen.  Not saying there was a full blown War Cabinet to weigh in on it, but for sure she didn't just do that on her own. 

 

[Good2Golf]

O'Leary the man is notably different (and rather astute, dare I say prescient) than O'Leary the actor.  Then again, that was based on a single meeting, so I remain to be corrected.  YMMV.

G2G 

 

[Remius]

The problem, I think, is that Mr. O'Leary is being defined by the media and the avergae joe by what's happening south of the border.  While he is outspoken and bombastic, any comparison to Trump is juvenile and frankly assanine.  Their politics are nowhere near the same and to be honest  Kevin O'Leary actually sounds smarter because although he can be a straight shooter, he does make a lot of sense. 

Now, I suppose his tv persona is partly to blame for the labelling, but it will be up to him to manage that.  Some [people can't always differentiate between public and private personas but unfortunately, he will be judged by how he is in public. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

At least one candidate should be capable of getting well up the noses of the left and extreme left while retaining an apparent base of support.  It would work best if the anti-conservative media think he is an irremediable buffoon; they would find ways to support his candidacy in order to sabotage the CPC.  If he then turned out to actually be an irremediable buffoon it would be a setback for the CPC, but if not...thanks for the lift.

 

[Edward Campbell]

At least one candidate should be capable of getting well up the noses of the left and extreme left while retaining an apparent base of support.  It would work best if the anti-conservative media think he is an irremediable buffoon; they would find ways to support his candidacy in order to sabotage the CPC.  If he then turned out to actually be an irremediable buffoon it would be a setback for the CPC, but if not...thanks for the lift.

:nod:  :goodpost: 

Exactly ... and MARS is spot on, too. I'm appalled that anyone takes the words seriously ... but tone, on the other hand, can matter ~ for good or ill.

In the case of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau I would say that, generally, he has the tone just about right ... except for the Da'esh/ISIL/Muslim thingy where, I think, he is singing off (the majority's) key, but, perhaps, I hope, because he is trying to change us ... to make us see our "better angels" and so on. I also think Ms Ambrose is "on key" as opposition leader ~ she has the right tone, even if some of the words are wrong ... or silly, which is worse. Kevin O'Leary may be a big surprise ... even a shock. He is, in person, a reasonable, intelligent, liberal sort of fellow, he really does have a social conscience, maybe bigger than Justin Trudeau's because he has actually seen the faces of hardship, but he does not have any patience for waste or inefficiency ... which makes him a poor choice for political leader because retail politics is all about wasting money on the undeserving poor, at home and abroad.

 

[vonGarvin]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqemytQ5QA
This is an act to you?

He was not interviewed; he was interrogated.  And what did he say was wrong?  "If you work hard, you may be rich one day."

And the interrogator?  "I'm going to tell you later what you should say to this..."   

There was nothing wrong with what he said.

 

[Altair]

He was not interviewed; he was interrogated.  And what did he say was wrong?  "If you work hard, you may be rich one day."

And the interrogator?  "I'm going to tell you later what you should say to this..."   

There was nothing wrong with what he said.

I have a long winded response to this but recceguy wouldn't appreciate it if I wrote it.

 

[ModlrMike]

Of course they were both right for different reasons, but that doesn't matter in politics. We're in an era where someone has to be wrong and the other right regardless of the truth of the middle ground.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I would love to see Mr. O'Leary have a debate with the PM.  That would be a sit back and enjoy the popcorn kind of entertainment.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have a long winded response to this but recceguy wouldn't appreciate it if I wrote it.

Fill yer boots. I have little appreciation for what you say anyway. Besides, you're on Ignore and I only see your tripe if I want to. So don't let me stop you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether anyone else agrees or not.

 

[Kilo_302]

The entire show was a poorly contrived act - you must have realized that, no? A very pale attempt to replicate CNN's original Crossfire format, pitting extreme left and right views against each other - part of CBC's content shakeup in 2009 in an attempt to reach a broader, and generally less intelligent audience.  Case in point, Don Newman retired that same year and his highly respected - but not very entertaining - Politics program was replaced with....wait for it....Evan Soloman and P&P.  Both shows - the Lang and O'Leary Exchange and P and P rely on bombastic, on air "gotcha"-type exchanges designed to replicate what was happening on the US networks at the time, as a ratings grab.  To me, that marked a signifcant step away from news and towards infotainment.  I've followed Ms. Lang's reporting for years and I KNOW she isn't as dense, obstuse or extreme in her personal and professional views as her producers evidently insisted she (and Mr. O'Leary) act on the Exchange. 

So yeah dude, totally an act.

The show doesn't actually reflect "the far left" and the "far right." Amanda Lang is NOT far left by any reasonable standard, I would suggest she's centrist. She believes in markets (with some regulation) and she aligns mainly with the Liberal Party, which is a centrist party. She reflects what most Canadians believe I think, which is that markets CAN work, but they require regulation to maintain equilibrium.

O'Leary however, IS far right. He's a hyper capitalist who at least says he wants to do away with all regulation. The counterpoint to this would be a socialist point of view, the view that capitalism is inherently part of the problem. We aren't going to get that any time soon on mainstream television.

So in the end, the show serves the purpose of reinforcing a very narrow spectrum of debate. Capitalism with a small amount of regulation, or capitalism without regulation.

 

[Good2Golf]

From: Kilo_302
So in the end, the show serves the purpose of reinforcing a very narrow spectrum of debate.

Yup.  Having the National Socialists involved would vastly open up meaningful discourse to the existing "very narrow" debate.