Whiney liberals attack hero

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


The income trust issue however is a great example. You see his backpedalling as integrity whereas I take the issue a little further back to when the promise was made. One of two things wre true at that time: 1) Steve made a promise knowing he couldn't keep it, or, 2) Steve made a promise he should have known he could not keep. Either way it was a failure of leadership.

Yes I do see it as integrity when a politician makes a correct decision because it is correct KNOWING they will lose votes as a result. The fact that he made a prmise as to the opposite earlier was in my mind a mistake on his part and I wish he could just say 'that promise was a mistake . . Now that I am governing and seen the full extent of the problem, it is clear that the proper course for Canada is . . .. .. "

You see, I see admitting you were wrong in the past and changing course as real leadership. Simply sticking by a wrong policy would have been the easy route (particularly since there was no huge interest group clamouring otherwise) and would have been the real failure in leadership in my opinion

[Wezil]

I see the "mistake" as intentional. He made the promise knowing it was impossible but what the hell, the rubes will vote for me if I say I won't tax the trusts.

If he truly didn't realise he couldn't keep that promiose then he is not fit for office. Economic commentators at the time spoke of the impending tax shortages such a policy would create.

It was a promise made simply to gain votes just like Chretien promising to scrap the GST.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil
I see the "mistake" as intentional. He made the promise knowing it was impossible but what the hell, the rubes will vote for me if I say I won't tax the trusts.

.

Then you assume he is politically stupid. The far better political approach would have been to hedge on the issue. While questions were being asked, I don't recall income trusts being the leading issue and he could have dodged.

Edit-- my information was that the government realized the extent of the issue when they had notice that at least one chartederd bank and two of the largest oil and gas giants were planning conversions. THis changed the landscape because it brought into focus what was not apparent before-- the possibility of the practical extinction of the corporate form in favor of the trust

Originally posted by Wezil

If he truly didn't realise he couldn't keep that promiose then he is not fit for office. Economic commentators at the time spoke of the impending tax shortages such a policy would create.

If it was so obvious why had the Liberals not done anything previously. Are you saying they would have maintained a wrong policy even at great cost to the Canadian taxpayer in their quest for votes. If it was supposed to be so obvious to the Cons, why wasn't it obvious to the Libs?

Originally posted by Wezil


It was a promise made simply to gain votes just like Chretien promising to scrap the GST.

Perhaps Harper should embrace the comparison

" I'm just like Chretien minus the corruption. Give me successive majorities just like him."

Hell if what you say is true and he's just like the Liberals, maybe all those Liberal voters will decide to throw a vote his way

[Wezil]

Hedging on the issue would not gain him votes. Promising something he couldn't deliver would. If he has to break the promise later - So what? he already got the votes and (like a typical politician) he figured he could repair any damage before the next vote.

Economists saw the tax problem coming. Conservatives (apparently) did not. Were they naive or just plain dishonest? We obviously disagree, you claim the former while I claim the later? Even so, how can you be impressed with a party/leader that were that blind to the policy implications? And yes, Liberals will do the wrong thing for votes. Bad example.

I'll eat my underwear if Harper gains successive majorities. Like Paul Martin, Steve has an opposition in disarray, and like Martin, Steve can't gain any political ground. Like Martin, the writing is on the wall. He may win another minority b/c of the inept Liberals but successive majorities for this bunch is a pipedream.

I'm just grateful I live in a province where I have political options. Unlike some parts of the country we can (and will) throw the bums out when they deserve it. It must be awful to be taken for granted.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


I'll eat my underwear if Harper gains successive majorities. Like Paul Martin, Steve has an opposition in disarray, and like Martin, Steve can't gain any political ground. Like Martin, the writing is on the wall. He may win another minority b/c of the inept Liberals but successive majorities for this bunch is a pipedream.

Its looking very unlikely. I had respected Harper for his principled stances -- On things like gay marriage, I disagreed with him vehemently but respected his clear views on the issue. Now that he seems to be unable even to have his government find out if we turn over priosners to a government that tortures them-- I liked clearspeaking Steve even though I disagreed with his policies more frequently. Now politican Steve seems to be in the forefront and I just don't like that approach.

I would still be curious to see what this government would do with a majority. Governing with a minority is quire limiting and I can appreciate the Conservatives concerns that if they EVER do anything that is wildly unpopular, the opposition can have them before the voters lickety-split-- So they govern "minority -style" and just try not to offend people. The fact that this offends people that want them to actually govern-- take positions and stand for something -- seems lost on them.

So while I am curious as to what they would do with a majority, I am increasingly indifferent to whether they ever get one-- It does amaze me that they can't gain ground on such an inept bunch of Liberals-- there have to be a lot of traditional "always Liberal" voters out there-- that all I can say

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


I'm just grateful I live in a province where I have political options. Unlike some parts of the country we can (and will) throw the bums out when they deserve it. It must be awful to be taken for granted.

In Alberta, affluence makes for apathy. It also made for "non-government" under Klein and the province is starting to really feel the price of that now. The province is unprepared for its high level of prosperity-- THat may not sound like a problem but it is. Boomtowns are not paradises , thats for sure.

Here in Alberta they do "kick the bums out" every 3-4 decades -- But they do it by deserting the unpopular centre-right party and forming a new centre-right party . Frankly the opposition parties don't attract much in the way of talent or interest.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber
...I liked clearspeaking Steve even though I disagreed with his policies more frequently. Now politican Steve seems to be in the forefront and I just don't like that approach.

That is exactly where I'm at. He was much more honest in opposition than he is in government. The past week was a disaster for the Conservatives. They were all over the map with the detainees issue and are still floundering badly trying to look like the environment file is important to them (when it isn't).

I would still be curious to see what this government would do with a majority.

Not me. The top down approach (ie. Steve calls the shots and handles all the files) disturbs me greatly. I'm confused why this doesn't bother the west though. Just a few short years ago the west was advocating "bottom-up" with the grassroots influencing policy. Now they have the opposite and I don't hear a peep.

Governing with a minority is quire limiting and I can appreciate the Conservatives concerns that if they EVER do anything that is wildly unpopular, the opposition can have them before the voters lickety-split-- So they govern "minority -style" and just try not to offend people. The fact that this offends people that want them to actually govern-- take positions and stand for something -- seems lost on them.

They're too busy playing politics and bashing Liberals to provide good government at the moment. The new Conservative Party has returned to the old and tired way of doing business. You are right, if they were to actually govern based upon principle and not polls I suspect their fortunes would improve.

So while I am curious as to what they would do with a majority, I am increasingly indifferent to whether they ever get one-- It does amaze me that they can't gain ground on such an inept bunch of Liberals-- there have to be a lot of traditional "always Liberal" voters out there-- that all I can say

There is a huge percentage that can be persuaded. I'm politically right of centre but the Conservatives have lost me since the last vote. I'd chew my own arm off before I'd vote Liberal but I won't reward this government with my vote again next time. I will never vote the "lesser of two evils". "None of the above" will get my vote before an evil.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


. The past week was a disaster for the Conservatives. They were all over the map with the detainees issue

Yeah WTF was that-- They should have just blamed any existing mess on the Liberals and then moved to fix whatever needed fixing

Originally posted by Wezil

and are still floundering badly trying to look like the environment file is important to them (when it isn't).

Yup -- its been a nightmare for them when it shouldn't be-- They are going to do more than any Canadian government before and yet they are getting slammed. Where was David Suzuki for the years and years when the Liberals did nothing.

Originally posted by Wezil




They're too busy playing politics and bashing Liberals to provide good government at the moment. The new Conservative Party has returned to the old and tired way of doing business. You are right, if they were to actually govern based upon principle and not polls I suspect their fortunes would improve.

They'd get my vote ( though not that it matters). Although my distruct of Calgary WEst is interesting since a group went to court to challenge our sitting members acclaimation as candidate in the next election and won. They have to hold another meeting. The sitting member is a joke and I would have to vote against him regardless of how I feel nationally ( since I do like to believe that the actual sitting member matters). I have actually thought about joining the Conservative party just to try to turf him at the nomination meeting when it is held.

[Wezil]

Rob Anders?

I don't know his story.

We recently had the bi-election where Elizabeth May ran and lost. Interestingly enough the Liberals ran a candidate against her which flies in the face of the statements she and Dion have been making lately about "tradition" and not running against a party leader.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil
Rob Anders?

I don't know his story.

He is pretty much known to be a non-entity-- He goes to Ottawa and disappears . .. sits on a committee that never meets-- never speaks in Parliament etc etc. He apparently fits the bill as a social conservative -- but stirred controversy when he made some comments against Mandela

Apparently in his last "acclaimation" as candidate there were FOUR individuals who wished to run against him but all of those people were ruled out of order by the person in charge of the nominating process ( who just happened to be the fiancee or something of Anders staffer IIRC) So Anders was acclaimed but 11 people went to court to fight it and a judge said they had to do the nomination process over. THis was recent

err

Just found this story that explains it all

A judge has overturned the acclamation of Tory MP Rob Anders and ordered a new nomination meeting in the riding of Calgary West.

Anders was acclaimed on Sept. 2 as the Tories' Calgary West candidate in the next federal election, prompting a group of 11 disgruntled party members to take the matter to court, alleging that the party didn't follow its own rules in selecting him.

MP Rob Anders was acclaimed as the Tory candidate in the riding of Calgary-West on Sept. 2, prompting a group of disgruntled party members to take the matter to court.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Jed Hawco agreed with them, ruling Friday that the Conservatives did not adhere to the rule book when it set the nomination meeting date for September, nor did it conduct a fair candidate selection process.

Hawco also said the riding's nomination committee chair, who lives with Anders's constituency assistant, is in a conflict of interest.

"The bigger winners are actually the members of the party and the people who live in Calgary-West," Robert Hawkes, lawyer for the anti-Anders group, said after the ruling.

Continue Article

"There is now a decision out that says the party has to follow the rules, which is good for the members. And there is going to be a new nomination process so that people can participate through buying memberships to vote for their candidate of choice in Calgary-West and I think that is good for the residents."

Anders didn't comment on the judge's ruling, but the head of his riding association, Andrew Constantinidis, said Anders is still the candidate because they did nothing wrong. He said he disagrees with the judge.

"I think he misunderstood the purpose of the nomination process and the fact that we followed the rules exactly as they were written and therefore the nomination result should stand the way it is."

Hawkes said he has been advised that the federal Tory party plans to apply to Alberta's appeal court for an emergency stay of the judge's decision.

Because of a potentially imminent federal election, it is unclear whether there would be enough time for the Calgary constituency to hold another 30-day nomination process.

Hawkes's group charged that the party did not advertise the date of a nomination meeting widely enough, did not hold it within the minimum 30-day guideline and failed to do a search for qualified potential candidates — all part of the organization's rule book.

Walter Wakula, former president of the riding association, tried to vie for the seat but was disqualified by the party.

At the end of August, at least two more would-be challengers of incumbent Conservative MPs in other ridings had their nominations rejected — Paul Lalli in the riding of Fleetwood-Port Kells, B.C., and David Xiao in the riding of Edmonton-Centre.

Anders dogged by controversy
Anders was first elected in 1997, and has been re-elected in 2000, 2004 and 2006 with large majorities.

Anders has made controversial comments in the past, including calling former South African president Nelson Mandela a terrorist.

In August 2006, Lisa Young, who teaches political science at the University of Calgary, told CBC News that the nomination process would likely be a slam dunk for most Calgary MPs, with the exception of Anders.

"The one who might be a little bit nervous is Rob Anders because there has been a fairly negative campaign run against him personally during the last election and because he had quite a tight nomination contest before the 2004 election."

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil
Rob Anders?

I don't know his story.

We recently had the bi-election where Elizabeth May ran and lost. Interestingly enough the Liberals ran a candidate against her which flies in the face of the statements she and Dion have been making lately about "tradition" and not running against a party leader.

To me that "tradition" bit is bull . And the logic doesn't work-- So leaders are sacred but its good for the leader of one party to TARGET the deputy leader of another.

So for the Conservatives to respect this "tradition" their deputy leader has to find another seat ?? THat just doesn't make sense.

All this was was the LIberals attempting to curry favor with Green voters by doing something supposedly "nice " for them while the Greens know that eliminating the Liberals in a riding gets them a bigger chunk of the anti- Conservative vote

[Wezil]

Hey, Flubber's back from lunch.

I recall now the Mandela controversy. I wasn't aware that Anders was the MP involved.

Why is the federal party sticking with him in the face of the judicial ruling?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber


To me that "tradition" bit is bull . And the logic doesn't work-- So leaders are sacred but its good for the leader of one party to TARGET the deputy leader of another.

There is some tradition to it, but the tradition is for bi-elections not a general election. We had a bi-election and the Libs ran a candidate against May but say they won't in the general election. WTF?

All this was was the LIberals attempting to curry favor with Green voters by doing something supposedly "nice " for them while the Greens know that eliminating the Liberals in a riding gets them a bigger chunk of the anti- Conservative vote

Exactly but it won't work. May will probably finish second in the riding behind MacKay which makes no sense. If the goal was to get her into the house a more winnable riding should have been sought. May I suggest London-Centre where May has already run and has some support? If the Libs don't run Pearson she would win hands down. This arrangement won't accomplish what either the Libs or Greens want but will turn off voters. The Greens were to be my protest vote next time out - but they won't be now.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil
Hey, Flubber's back from lunch.

I recall now the Mandela controversy. I wasn't aware that Anders was the MP involved.

Why is the federal party sticking with him in the face of the judicial ruling?

I don't know but since the president of the association seems to be an Anders guy it might be that all the "duly elected" folks are telling the national party that its bullcrap or something.

I don't know the details or the merits of what the association did so perhaps there is some key procedural thing or right of the party to govern themselves at stake here.

Calgary West is a pretty well off district with lots of business folks though so I am surprised that Anders is the best that they can do

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber

I don't know the details or the merits of what the association did so perhaps there is some key procedural thing or right of the party to govern themselves at stake here.

I was thinking of the Libs penchant for appointing candidates. I presume their party rules expressly allow it whereas the Conservatives lack such a clause....(maybe?)