64

BTC: One question before we move on


 

“There are some who will tell you that the last election was simply an accident, never to be repeated again. According to them we only need a new Leader and a new slogan and Canadians will embrace Liberal government again. Or they say an election is right around the corner so we don’t have time to get it right.

“For so many of you who, like me, campaigned on behalf of Liberal candidates last winter, who looked into the eyes of our good neighbours who said ‘no,’ you know in your heart that’s not true. I am here tonight to say it may not be an easier way but there is a way for us to win. We have to win the next election in the right way, and for the right reasons. It requires to us to renew our party. It requires us to present a long-term practical vision for the direction of this country. My friends, Mr. Harper is vulnerable but he is not going to defeat himself. We will defeat him by becoming the Liberal Party that we need to be, no matter when the election is called.”
—Some guy whose name escapes, Dec. 2006

So the Liberals are going to pick a new leader. Let’s say that happens, as expected, next May. The House will probably adjourn a month or so later, giving the new leader a summer to get settled. Then maybe we get an election next fall or early in 2010.

Let’s say—despite Bob Rae’s political genius or Michael Ignatieff’s genius genius or Justin Trudeau’s hair—the Liberals lose that election. Do the Liberals then give their newish leader another chance?

(And, as a follow-up, if the Liberals can’t pick a leader in May that they’re willing to stick with for at least two elections, what’s the point?)


 

BTC: One question before we move on

  1. All that presumes that a new Grit leader can defeat the government; which is not so esy in a Parliament that requires “three to tango” on confidence votes. More likely any bit of wind in Liberal sails would result in a lack of fight from the other two opposition parties (especially if Duceppe takes a powder sometime next year).

    2012. That’s the next date, unless Harper wants to go earlier. (Remember, he grew up in Toronto when Bill Davis ran back-to-back minorities, one for two years, the other for four). Best get used to it.

  2. Wouldn’t it be funny if Harper forgets to repeal or alter the fixed elections act and the next election accidentally occurs in oct. 2009?

  3. Wouldn’t it be funny if Harper forgets to repeal or alter the fixed elections act and the next election accidentally occurs in oct. 2009?

    I’m sure he’s got that covered. His low cunning is entirely predictable.

  4. Sometimes I think his name escapes everyone even though what he said is true. I only hope people pay more attention this time around for the push for renewal.

  5. Aaron,

    You seem to be pushing the narrative that Dion was some sort of everyday, run of the mill disaster. And I’m not sure exactly why you’re doing that.

  6. Well, Harper didn’t get his majority for the second time and only appealed to 22% of the electorate. If it’s an exceptional disaster, then the Conservatives are in real trouble.

  7. For those not in the know, the speech from which Mr. Wherry is quoting may be found here:

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061201/speeches_kennedy_061201/20061201/

    As for the scenario just posted, the answer is “yes,” the new leader will be given a second chance, mainly because the above scenario postulates a time in office of 4 to 10 months. In contrast, Dion was given nearly 22 months to get the party in fighting trim, and we all know how that turned out.

    However, you could say that Dion has helped his successor by setting the bar pretty low for success: if, in the next election, the new leader manages to increase the Liberal seat total by 10 seats, he’d be considered a success.

  8. Well, Harper didn’t get his majority for the second time and only appealed to 22% of the electorate.

    Yea but Harper’s a manly man who does one handed pushups, wears Brut cologne and literally eats his political opponents for breakfast. I heard that one time, Harper choked out a rabid mountain lion with his bare hands to save a troup of girl guides. Dion can’t compare with that.

  9. Not to speak for Aaron, but I think the fear is that Liberals don’t seem to be doing anything differently in the (admittedly young) post-Dion era than they did in the Post-Martin era. If they don’t start doing things differently, then Martin and Dion will be the first in a series of everyday, run of the mill, electoral disasters.

  10. That is kind of the interesting thing about the conservative supporters. The worse they make out Mr. Dion to be, the worse it reflects on Mr. Harper for being unable to deliver a majority in what must have been a near perfect storm for them:

    A focus on the economy which is typically thought of as a conservative strong point, a near bankrupt opposition running with a two-three way split in its general voting audience, having let its main policy plank be shaped as a tax increase rather than the tax reduction plan it was and also being able to show some 40 odd votes with them not in attendance.

    In addition to this, they want to come out and say how much of a disaster Dion is?

    How much of a disaster does that make Harper if he still can’t get his majority in all that?

  11. Ti-Guy “Well, Harper didn’t get his majority for the second time and only appealed to 22% of the electorate. If it’s an exceptional disaster, then the Conservatives are in real trouble.”

    Are you running for the job as official Lib turd-polisher? Don’t worry, Ti-boy, you’ll get in by acclamation, the same way most Lib jobs will be filled for the next while.

  12. How much of a disaster does that make Harper if he still can’t get his majority in all that?

    Well if Harper is such a disaster, than what kind of a disaster would Dion have to be if he still can’t get more than… ok I think we’re going in circles here.

  13. Olaf: I’m willing to acknowledge that Dion isn’t a grand thing for the Liberals. The difference is, for most of the con supporters here, Mr. Harper is still the chess-playing political genius that they all worship.

  14. n addition to this, they want to come out and say how much of a disaster Dion is?

    Hopefully, they’ll get pre-occupied with that for the next seven months. God help us if they actually start worrying about government.

  15. Het Thwim as soon as we get 12 more seats then ask that question again : are you serious or what? By the way the end 0f 2011 when he brings the troops home and keeps us out of a serious recession would be the icing on the cake for timing to get those 12 seats and watch the NDP become the official opposition if Dion keeps going the way he is.

  16. Are you running for the job as official Lib turd-polisher? Don’t worry, Ti-boy, you’ll get in by acclamation, the same way most Lib jobs will be filled for the next while.

    How about you be quiet, you imbecile? I didn’t start any personal attacks here.

  17. Peter, picking on Ti-guy’s turd polishing abilities is out of line, especially from the CON fart-catching brigade.
    While many in the media may be easily distracted by Harper’s three-monty card tricks, others are paying attention to an overall theme.
    The sum of Harper’s bag o’ lies plus his inability to concentrate on governing (but let’s see if he tries harder this time) may earn your party more votes. The respect factor, however, is at snake-belly levels.

  18. I thought the 9-month race was particularly mentally delayed, but a new 7-month one? That is awesome and just what the party needs.

    Since the party will need to focus on the reset leadership race, does this mean Dion will have to abstain for Lib party again, to deflect and absorb the shots while the party continues its race to irrelevance? Are the Cons still going to go after Dion in the House of Commons or are they going to go after the party? Will the Cons force another election to blatantly capitalize on a blindly obtuse and distracted Lib party before the May convention?

  19. Thwim,

    The difference is, for most of the con supporters here, Mr. Harper is still the chess-playing political genius that they all worship.

    Agreed. That talking point makes little to no sense at this point.

  20. How about you be quiet, you imbecile? I didn’t start any personal attacks here.

    The point, Ti is that Chretch won his majorities with low turnout and simialar popular vote totals as you well know, so if not shlt shining, what are you doing? The fact is, your party has been morally and ethically bankrupt for some time, but now its finances match. You can spend all day commenting on MacLean’s blogs all you want, but what you ought to be doing is fundraising. We’re really good at it. We all, by the thousands have ahand in it. Wait til you see what we do to the next one, and you guys won’t have enough money to run an ad on the cooking channel to counter it.

    As far as the personal attack, asshat, you take a backseat to no one.

  21. I can’t possible read a comment laced with such profanity. It’s an affront my tender sensibilities.

    Look, Peter, if I want to listen to people like you, I can go down to local low boozer and hear the drunks whine and moan.

  22. Hey Olaf : you obviously don’t play chess. Before you continue to cast aspersions on us Conservative Party members who post here and our statement of fact that Harper is indeed a master of strategy ask yourself one question – name one other PM in the History of the Parliamentary system anywhere that won another term from a minority situation all the while conducting a shooting war in a foreign country as well as experiencing one of the worst global economic crisis in history in the middle of the campaign no less and just to cap it off almost destroys the previous natural governing party … hmmmmm … nope still can’t think of one, going to have use a metacrawler on this question.

  23. Hey ConBots…

    …uh, nothing. I’m just getting the whole street tough “thing” on.

    Seriously, these people must have been socialised by watching Ricky Lake, or something.

  24. Thing is Wayne, great chess players play within the rules, and tend not to make them up or break them as they go along.

    Something called “honour” and “class”…ever heard of it?

    Austin

  25. Peter…it’s nice to see that you found where you belong…

    Everyone needs to feel “loved” in one form or another…even spreading your legs in obeisance, I suppose…

    Austin

  26. What rules were broken Austin : I know I know before you list all the usual litany of this income trust or that fixed election date and god knows what else it is moot as no rules were broken as if they were and demonstrated as such Harper would not have won the election! Go ahead post all these so called broken rules anyone with use of both sides of their gray matter will obviously see the left wing nut talking points, I see no evidence of any broken rules therefore not only is your point bordering on tripe it is irrelevant – are you familiar with what a gambit is? I thought not – here is what happened Dion and the LPC were outplayed, outmatched and outmanouvered and we are only 2 thirds of the way through the game the LPC have lost their queen and are trying to race down the board trying to swap a pawn for another the only problem is that they don’t have enough moves left to make it before they lose a bishop and a rook!

  27. “We have to win the next election in the right way, and for the right reasons.”

    For when the One Great Scorer comes
    To write against your name,
    He marks — not that you won or lost —
    But how you played the game

  28. Gee Wayne…I suppose no rules were broken in the strictest sense.

    They were just “reinterpreted” as necessary.

    The definition of a weasel.

    Great party. Nice to belong, eh Wayne?

    Austin

  29. And I don’t know what all this gush about fundraising was all about. The only outreach the Conservatives directed at me was to send me five or six ten-percenters a week (at taxpayers expense) for the last three years.

    Maybe if the Premier of a notoriously rightwing province had sent me a cheque, I might have thrown a few bucks at his federal buddies.

  30. They may very well have broken rules, in regards to adscam and in and out. No strict rules were proven to be broken as yet, just promises.

  31. Well Austin I wouldn’t use weasel I would use another member of the same genus : Wolverine (indeed)and by the way I have been a Liberal and a Conservative and the CPC is by far and away the superior politcial party (1) it listens and acts upon what the grassroots members say and want (2) it practises what it preaches (3) it is supported by the membership, small donations and not bay st cronies (4) it makes no claims of being the natural governing party … though I must admit that we would like to become one and I have no doubt that after the next election we will be well on our way as I doubt the LPC will know what to do with itself when it has less seats than the NDP.

  32. Fortunately, the CPC has already had the experience of having fewer seats than the NDP, so they won’t be too confused when it happens again. He’s Jack Layton, and he’s running for PM…

  33. I must admit that we would like to become one…

    This conflation of personal identity with die Partei is rather distburbing…

  34. I think that the point of reflection for the Liberal Party should be the way they do their jobs, day in, day out. This is probably more important than “presenting a long-term practical vision” as the quoted author suggests is needed. Those types of Mission Statements get lost pretty quick once an elected person assumes office. However, if the corp of Liberals would invest in developing each of their individual reputations as being responsive and fair and honest and non-partisan-for-the-most-part the party could be substantively renewed this way. The Mission Statements and political promises arrived at and carried out would always pass through that filter of an ‘upstanding citizen’. Otherwise we are always left wondering about corruption and ineffectiveness when Liberals are in power and we are open to reformers.

  35. If the Liberals once again believe that all they have to do to win back power is to scream and holler about imaginary scandals (Cadman, Schreiber, etc.) then they will be waiting a long time.

    The biggest fallacy is that somehow their crop of washed-up NDP Premiers and other failed cabinet ministers is such a bunch of “talents” that if only they didn’t have Dion as leader that Canadians would have fallen all over themselves to dump Harper.

    It didn’t happen last week and it ain’t gonna happen in October 2012. Get used to it in opposition guys. You’ll be there a long time.

  36. Two Cents: The NDP took a conservative seat in Edmonton. Edmonton, of all places. Those who think that all is rosy with the grass-roots in conservative land really need to take a closer look. The principled conservatives who are paying attention to what Harper is doing? Not happy.

    Wayne, we know, you followed Chretien until he got caught and removed, and now you’re following Harper. Nuts and trees type thing.

  37. imaginary scandals (Cadman, Schreiber, etc.)

    If you have some evidence that these are not real scandals, let’s hear it.

  38. First there should be a unite the wishy washy left movement to get the NDP and Liberal parties together. Then one of the leadership contenders at the convention can disavow that idea, and win on a (written) promise to never merge with the NDP. Then the even Newer NDP could form, or they could just drop the Democratic part and be the New Party but red instead of orange.

  39. Mike T: “Wouldn’t it be funny if Harper forgets to repeal or alter the fixed elections act and the next election accidentally occurs in oct. 2009?”

    You have read the legislation I presume?

    s.5(2) states “… with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.”

    The first general election after the section came into force has just happened.

    Fixed date is Oct. 15, 2012.

  40. Ti-Guy: “imaginary scandals (Cadman, Schreiber, etc.)

    “If you have some evidence that these are not real scandals, let’s hear it.”

    How ’bout the inverse Ti-Guy: give us some ACTUAL hard evidence that these ARE real scandals.

    The Cadman affair is a much ado about nothing, while ze Schreiber affair has zero connection to the current government.

    Shawinigate had more evidence than either of these, and it went pretty much nowhere.

    Were you blasting the previous gov’t about those affairs? Somehow I doubt it. If it was ok then, how can it be not ok now? Or is it really just a your guys/my guys thing?

  41. How ’bout the inverse Ti-Guy: give us some ACTUAL hard evidence that these ARE real scandals.

    Have you not been reading the news? Because I’m not going to do it for you.

    The Cadman affair is a much ado about nothing, while ze Schreiber affair has zero connection to the current government.

    How arrogant. Who died and made you God, that you get to decide, by fiat that something is a scandal or not? And no one is attempting to link the Schreiber affair to the current government. You’re just being paranoid.

    Were you blasting the previous gov’t about those affairs? Somehow I doubt it. If it was ok then, how can it be not ok now? Or is it really just a your guys/my guys thing?

    These aren’t really questions you want answers to…they’re just oblique insults.

    One thing I never do is insist something is or is not an important issue without evidence.

  42. “…whose name escapes”

    For anyone wondering, he means Kennedy.

  43. Wayne is beyond hilarious, my guess his parents had a sense of humour and put the little Shuster in remedial reading. Whether or not your hero’s ‘rewriting his promises as he walks on glass’ or ‘weaves around the rules that others follow’, what he has proven to be is a total partisan messiah-complex. Who else would, during a major economic s**tstorm, throw $300million of his taxpayers’ dollars into the shredder just so he can take another peg out of the opposition? He didn’t even get a freakin’ majority for all his bluster, but no doubt he’s spinning this in the backrooms as ‘better than best.’
    It’s going to look so good when Harper has to eat both his Cadman lies and in-and-out cheating like a raspberry crown. Maybe he’ll put out a 44-page pamphlet (featuring 35 photos of himself with the masses) on how John Howard wrote his speech.

  44. I’m wondering: what would happen if Harper starts cranking out confidence votes again? Will the Liberals have to abstain from voting?

    Or could Dion wind up leading the Liberals in another election?

  45. As noted above, the Schreiber affair has nothing whatsoever to do with the current government. And, in any event, it happened over 15 years ago.

    Secondly, does Ti-guy not remember Belinda Stronach, who was given a Cabinet post at the same time? How about Tim Murphy trying to buy off Gurmant Grewal on tape? The Cadman affair has already been shown to be about nothing. The law suit now proceeding will be settled in the PM’s favour as the Liberals realize they have no grounds to proceed and decide to cut their legal bills. Incidentally, this is not even a comment on guilt or not since I have no direct knowledge. It simply recognizes that there is absolutely no proof that the PM committed an illegal act of which he is alleged to have done by the Liberals. If they want to stop p…ing their money away and save it for attack ads like Dion recommends, they’d be wise to cut their legal bills now.

    And I wish the Liberals luck if they try to bring it up in the House now than Donna Cadman is an MP. Tasteless anyone?

  46. Well, there you go. Case closed on everything

    Next up…Two Cents reconciles Einstein’s theory of relativity with quantum mechanics. Don’t miss it.

  47. The Grewal case proved to be more of a case of botched entrapment and tape augmentation by Harper and his leaky plumbers. Nice try to pin that one.
    You’re just lucky Zaccardelli pulled your bacon out of the fire at Christmas 2005. So much like some presidential candidate’s brother playing a little unfriendly interference among the beach set. Your cause may be just, but your methods test the boundaries of ethical and moral culpability.

  48. Its funny to watch Dan in Van and other Lib-Bots demand ethical purity from the Conservative party on one hand while overlooking the blatant criminality of the Liberal Party with the other.

  49. Brian- I have no problem accepting that the Liberals, during their last time in office got into all kinds of unethical nonsense. The Tories got in by claiming to be something better. They weren’t. Both parties have engaged in actions that could be considered criminal, simply saying “the Libs did it too” isn’t actually a defence and it doesn’t make the misappropriation of taxpayers’ money (in and out) or attempting to bribe a dying MP any more acceptable. Seriously, lets try to get past partisan absurdity. Is there anyone here who honestly believes that the Tories didn’t try to bribe Cadman (I’m not looking for legal wrangling here because whether it is legal or not it is still despicable)? Is there seriously, anyone who can say that if that happened Harper wouldn’t have known about it?!
    There is one simple difference between the liberal criminality and the Tory criminality- The Liberals have been in the precess of cleaning up their act and trying to redeem themselves. The Tories are still in denial about having done anything wrong and thus will likely continue this pattern of behaviour (as the Liberals did) until they are motivated to do otherwise.

    Two Cents- “And I wish the Liberals luck if they try to bring it up in the House now than Donna Cadman is an MP. Tasteless anyone?”

    Yes, sensitivity to a widow who chose to run in an election knowing full well that this question would come up far outweighs the duty of our MP’s to try to hold the government to account.

  50. “And I wish the Liberals luck if they try to bring it up in the House now than Donna Cadman is an MP.”

    Neither she nor her husband were accused of wrong-doing. Indeed, Mrs. Cadman herself alleged that Harper and his representatives offered a number of incentives in return for her husband’s vote to defeat the Martin government.

  51. Ti-Guy, I was just simply stating my belief that both “scandals” will go nowhere, because there is no hard proof for either of them.

    Scandals you usually try to hide. You don’t usually expose them yourself by launching lawsuits.

    I look forward to your next apoplectic comment.

  52. I can see it all now : Lib MP rises and says Mr. Speaker bla bla bla cadman? and then sits down. Ms Cadman stands up and says Thank You Mr. Speaker the honorable mp has asked a question that has already been answered and as I have stated on the record before The PM and I discussed this and he assured me that he certainly had no knowledge of any bribe or life insurance policy and the only discussion he had any knowledge of were with respect for any future election expenses which is by no means unacceptable or a part of this issue and I believe him Thank you Mr. Speaker and then she sits down – well ….. = ?

  53. There is the matter of the tape.

    Mrs. Cadman has nothing to defend. It is Harper who has to answer the question.

  54. Ms Cadman stands up again Mr. Speaker again we have a question regarding this tape that has had sections of it recorded over and god knows what other sorts of edits according to god knows how many experts now and since the subject being discuused is dead and the only clear segment of the tape reflects just what the PM said therefore all of this is moot and the only issue is the LPC libel suit which is in court (at this moment) therefore is irrelevant thank you she sits down = ?

  55. Right, Wayne. Mrs. Cadman can’t possibly know what the PM said or did not say as she refutes the validity of the tape and she wasn’t present for Harper’s “bribe ‘im” speech. Thus, she can’t answer the question.

    How does she square aware her own words to the effect that there was a bribe offered to her husband? That she was confused and Harper has since convinced her that she was mistaken? Or does she cast aspersions on her own word as unreliable?

  56. Brian: Pointing out where the Conservatives do wrong is not saying that the Liberals do right. There are more than two sides to politics in this country, and even if that’s all there was, there’s still a lot of people who approach it from outside. It’s perfectly possible, (in fact, reasonable in my eyes) to be disgusted at Chretien’s actions in bilking the Canadian public, and then to be disgusted at Harper’s as well.

    KRB: Please name a “scandal” that the conservatives exposed themselves by using lawsuit? I see Cadman, which was being exposed and in which they’ve used a lawsuit to try and keep the Liberal party from talking about it during the election. I see in-and-out, in which it was already exposed and so they sued Elections Canada, thus requring the agency and its head not speak about the in-and-out scandal as it is a matter currently before the court. I see the fixed-election date thing, which he has tried to minimize by claiming it was only for a minority government (despite including a date which could ONLY have applied to his first minority government)

    Then there’s Schrieber and listeria, both issues that were well out in the public sphere and demanded some sort of response, and both of which Mr. Harper has done his best to limit the scope of any investigation into.

    Okay, it’s only 5 things or so, but at a rate of about 2/year, if principled conservatives don’t stand up to Harper soon, this group of “conservatives” could well find themselves looking down the barrel of 1993 — and to be honest, I don’t think that’s good for the country, as we need the conservative presence — at least, that of real conservatives, the ones who actually believed in fiscal responsibility — to balance off our tendancies toward charity.

    Unfortunately, the political landscape in Canada doesn’t include those right now. The NDP and the Liberals are as they always were, the “Conservatives” have become Liberal wannabes with added “truthiness” and less facts, and the Greens have spun off into left-field activist politics rather than green politics.

  57. Andrew : your questions do not make any sense as has been stated on record all the questions have been asked and answered it seems that the only issue outstanding is your inability to deal with the answers. case closed!

  58. T Thwim, something does not become a “scandal” just because the Liberal party and their media friends say it is so.

    The Cadman lawsuit was filed after the RCMP said it had ZERO evidence of anything scandalous happening. Not “insufficient” evidence; ZERO evidence. Not the actions of somebody who has something to hide. Only desperate Liberals still cling to the idea that this is any kind of scandal.

    Schrieber is debatable as a “scandal”; but whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the current government.

    There is no “listeria” scandal other than an off colour joke from a guy who was subsequently re-elected by almost 60% of the voters in his riding.

    This is the stuff Liberals use to say the Conservatives are just as bad as the Liberals were?

  59. I realize that this is sort of off topic however on the subject of scandals : I see Dion when first chosen as leader was presented with a report that the (at the time) informing him that new ad’s regarding him not being a leader were out and he was asked to respond – at which point he chose not to – rather he wanted to save the 4 million the party had as a war chest for an election run – what escapes me is how can he then turn around and blame his election loss on the evil meanie conservative negative attacks programming canadian brains with their propaganda (this is rather insulting actually but then again consider this is coming from a Liberal)

  60. Actually they said there was zero evidence to file charges with. When the RCMP lay charges, that’s not a scandal, that’s a crime. Now while a criminal prime-minister would certainly be a scandal, a scandal can certainly be much less than a crime. If it weren’t, then Shawinigate wouldn’t have been a scandal either as the RCMP said there was no basis for any criminal investigation there either. (Unless, of course, you’re arguing that Shawinigate wasn’t a scandal)

    This is considerably different from there being zero evidence of anything scandalous happening. The evidence was all third-party say-so. Harper said he was aware of financial considerations being offered. Ms. Cadman says her husband told her financial considerations were offered.

    Both of these are third-party evidence, not direct evidence as to whether financial considerations actually were offered. As such, there is zero evidence to proceed with a criminal case.

    So tell me, john g, was Shawinigate a scandal? Remember, the RCMP said the same thing about that that they’ve said about the Cadman file.

  61. Wayne- I don’t see how this is confusing at all. The Conservatives used nasty attack ads to destroy Mr. Dion’s reputation. He knew that they were not going to stop. Since he had limited resources to combat their negative attacks he chose to try to use his limited resources more wisely (during a campaign) than to engage in a pitched battle of “You Suck!- No YOU suck!” with the Tories whose superior funding would gurantee they’d win the smear war. Refusing to engage in a slur campaign you can’t win sin’t the same as giving credence to the method.
    As for things coming from a “Liberal” I’m glad to see that your mindless partisanship is alive and well, it must be great insulation against nasty things like…uh…reality.

  62. Wayne, how has the issue of Mrs Cadman herself alleging that bribes were offered been settled? All I’ve seen is her hiding from the media. It’ll be interesting to see if the RCMP is used to physically detain media outside the House of Commons who would like to speak to her.

  63. Man, a lot of these comments remind me of Woody Allen’s “The Gossage-Vardebedian Papers.” You should check it out, it’s funny stuff. Google it and you can find the short story on the web.

    RyanD wrote some good stuff up above. The issue isn’t who is dirtier, the Libs or the Cons, it’s recognizing that both are dirty. I like how many of the Libs have admitted to as much.

    Wayne gives 4 reasons why the Cons are a better party. 1) Can I ask exactly what is a “grassroots member”? I hear this all the time and it is such a manufactured BS term. It implies some holier-than-though respect must be paid to “grassroots”, as if “grassroots” people are better or even fundamentally different from any other person in Canada. This isn’t a slam to Wayne, I just think the term is completely lame and useless. It is used to differentiate understandings between parties where I don’t believe there is a true differentiation. If you really want to discuss “grassroots” in a meaningful way, I think you have to be talking about proportional representation. 2) as quickly evidenced by the comments above, “clearly” this it is not the case that Cons practice what they preach. Transparency and honesty were two of the big reasons they were elected in 2006 and I think it would be a challenge to find any non-partisan person to agree that the Cons are an improvement. 3) from what I understand, Wayne is likely correct on the issue of membership support 4) Like the Cons, I don’t believe the Liberals make claims of being the natural governing party. Both the Cons and the Libs say they are the best and that they should govern Canada.

  64. Thanks boys and girls…
    keep the ConBots distracted – we have a flanking movement under way – that they haven’t anticipated – because when you play dirty – you can’t quite get your head around people with ethics and common interest seizing an opportunity to work together for the common good…

Sign in to comment.