"Tories Expected to get a Majority" What's this all about?

[AX10]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1136847012085&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

What is this all about? Please tell me Canada is not going over to the dark side.

[Spazito]

1. The media was saying the same thing in 04

Tories claim five-point lead
Majority is within reach for Harper, poll says

Robert Fife
The Ottawa Citizen


Thursday, June 17, 2004

WINDSOR, Ont. - Stephen Harper's Conservatives have taken a sharp lead over the Liberal party as the Tory leader appealed to Canadians and "disenchanted Liberals" to give him a majority mandate so he can govern "for all Canadians."

A survey by the Liberal party's former pollster shows the Conservatives are heading for a strong minority government and may be within reach of a majority.

Party insiders say a poll by Michael Marzolini, chairman of Pollara, has the Tories at 36 per cent compared with 31 per cent for Paul Martin's Liberals.

The NDP is at 16 per cent and the Bloc Quebecois at 12.

http://www.canada.com/national/features/decisioncanada/story.html?id=1cf151eb-add6-45c9-9435-1c123e13de32

Yet the Libs ended up winning a minority government, the media was wrong then and there is no reason to find them less suspect this time. It's called hyping, imo, to keep their ratings/readership high.

[glarius]

2. Have you seen Robert Fife on Mike Duffy's show?....he's no impartial

journalist...I've heard him say things like "the Liberals will now play really dirty and they know just how to do it" when Harper was starting to rise in the polls....No mention of the fact that every time Harper or any of his minions got near a microphone all you heard from the beginning of the campaign is "corrupt Martin and his crooked Liberal party"....He has no credibility IMO.

[AX10]

3. Is it a right leaning bias or just hype for ratings?

Seriously, I'd like to know the truth about this. I am hearing that the print media up there is pretty much right wing. Is this true?

Thank you for your consideration.

[HEyHEY]

4. No it's not true

the media here is not right wing... any real complaints would be the media has traditionally supported the Liberals. Right now the conservatives are saying the media is telling everyone they are going to get a majority in order to scare people into voting liberal.... you can't win.

What's happening now, is what happened last time.. the media is fucking up. And I say that as a journalist.

[Spazito]

5. Yep, I totally concur!

They fucked up last time as well, they just want hot headlines, period.

[HEyHEY]

6. Yeah, a bunch of reporters I know

Have been laughing at the polls.... usually with the catch phrase "Remember last time?"

[Spazito]

7. Yep, I went back and searched, the media might as well have

simply changed the date on their 04 articles and published them as new seeing as they were saying EXACTLY the same thing then as now. The reality, imo, is that Canadians, by and large, just want to get to the polls and vote. They are not really tuned in because nothing has changed since 04 in terms of substance or policy positions.

[HEyHEY]

8. Exactly

Same god damned bullshit as last time

[glarius]

9. I'm puzzled by the SUDDEN huge leap Harper made in the polls!

It doesn't add up!...:shrug:

[HEyHEY]

10. In such a close election

polls mean shit...that's all it adds up to

[Spazito]

11. I am participating in a polling panel, I will not name it until after

the election, but I can tell you it is all in the way the questions are asked. The polling panel I am participating in leans very right wing. The questions and, even more important, the choices given are done to receive a certain response even, in some areas, to the point of not giving you a "none of the above" choice and setting the parameters such that you cannot complete the survey unless you answer.


It has been and continues to be a VERY interesting education for me which is why I agreed to participate in the first place, to get a look at how it REALLY works.

I am posting this so as to show how the polls can show what they show at the time they show it. When the election is over, I will post many details re the specific questions and who was doing the polling.

[CanSocDem]

12. Exactly!

"...the choices given are done to receive a certain response..."

And whoever said earlier that the media wasn't biased hasn't been paying attention. Polls, as worthless as they are, are given front page prominence because they are trying to pass them off as legitimate.

[Mother Jones]

13. Many thanks to all of you folks for this info!

It's soooo nice to hear right now.

:*

[glarius]

14. You're giving me hope!

It just didn't make sense to me that Harper would have made such a huge leap forward in such a short time....Thanx!!!!!

[Spazito]

15. Don't get me wrong, it's still going to be a squeaker with no certainty,

imo, of a Lib minority win but it will be a hell of a lot closer, either way, than the media is trying to shove down our throats yet again.

[iverglas]

18. cheez

I'm in a focus group stable for a major opinion survey firm, and I get to do things like express my opinion on the Environment Canada website.

I did do one about the govt's publicity campaign for the new EI program (when they first did away with UI), but that was a waste of time. An adult educator in the group beat me to the punch to point out that the 1/4 page ad we were presented with was written at a level that one needed a post-secondary education to fathom, and even then was about as murky as it could have been made. But the thing appeared in the papers looking just as it had around that table, lousy little typeface and illegible white-on-black headings and all.

Got a telephone survey last election. I mentioned here the question I liked, can't remember quite how it went ... were the Martin Liberals just like the Chrétien Liberals, something like that. "No", of course -- that being a bad thing, in my mind at the time. Not sure how my response got interpreted!

Look forward to your post-election report.

[Spazito]

19. I am also participating on-line for a government agency but it

deals with web site set-ups, etc, it has been great. It uses actually commentary instead of multiple choice. Come to think of it, I haven't had any contact with them recently, I hope it is only because of the holiday break as I enjoy participating in that one much more than the one I posted about above.

[AX10]

17. So long as the Neo-Cons lose. That's all that counts.

Either the Liberals or NDP are fine with me.

[MrPrax]

22. Pshaw...

"No it's not true the media here is not right wing"<--oh really?

Oh yes, it is true...the Canadian Media (otherwise known as the assets of Messrs Shaw, Roger, Asper and Thompson) is rightwing with varying shades of grey.

The only real difference between US and Canadian media is scale and the fact the federal gov't (Libs) still employ regulation through the CRTC which keeps them scared.

[HEyHEY]

25. Uh, no...

The Liberal party has tons of buddies in the media, more than the Conservatives, including the much publicized friendship between Izzy Asper and JEan Chretien. And the CRTC couldn't keep a mouse scared. I work in radio and I assure you the only thing is we try our best to abide by CRTC regs, but don't regard them as the bible.
As well, I know far more reporters with left wing leanings than right wing, and I know a shitload of reporters nation-wide.
Fact is most cons think the media is biased toward the Liberals and piss and moan about it constantly.

[iverglas]

27. hahaha

The Liberal party has tons of buddies in the media

I think you think that this rebuts

the Canadian Media (otherwise known as the assets of Messrs Shaw, Roger, Asper and Thompson) is rightwing with varying shades of grey.

Hee hee.


As well, I know far more reporters with left wing leanings than right wing, and I know a shitload of reporters nation-wide.

I know one who was the head of his local of the Guild and a raving commie -- but he isn't the media, and the medium he worked for is right-wing.


Fact is most cons think the media is biased toward the Liberals and piss and moan about it constantly.

Uh ... huh. Forgive my giggling, eh?

Nothing like a good pissing and moaning fest among right-wingers.

[HEyHEY]

28. Keep dreaming Iverglas

[MrPrax]

29. much publicized...

Izzy's relationship and secret election meetings with Gordon Campbell (the liberal) is also well documented as well phoney 'Grow the Economy' public ads that CanWest runs during provincial election campaigns.

But I digress...I really really have always questioned this idea of "reporters/People who write and speak in the English language sufficiently to secure employment with with corporate media" are left-leaning. I met lots of people in the media--have friends involved as well--and their mostly cynical or in the case of one poor soul I know...spent years and years as a foot soldier for a corp community paper only to FINALLY after 22 years, get a shot at 'Acting Editor'...LOL...the editor/wife went on maternity leave!!!

Ah...journalism, the noble art.

If your in radio, then guys like Chorus clean house years ago--especially since the Clear clown (what's his name--fired Stern when he was in the US) took over--more redneck news radio by such magnificent mental giants like Adler or Warren.
(hey did you know that Christy Clark was being considered for the national show...can't imagine the theme, 'soccer moms are as angry as hell and they're not going to take it anymore')

There might be lefties at the CBC, but their presumed politics take a distance second to the backstabbing and the usual seniority hijinx. Then again, who cares...nobody bothers with the CBC for news anyway. (Jeez those were the golden years of the CBC, when Campbell's Finance Minister was running the joint...she was a woman and NOT! a patronnage appointment).

Besides that the CRTC still holds certain regs (like foreign ownership) and liscensing powers...for instance, the CRTC COULD at any time challenge Global's network programming (back to back The 70s Shows..they're shameless and flaunt it) -- digital broadcasting (biggie, no more analogy signals, no more rabbit ears), can-content, specialty channels, cable price regs, cable packaging, etc are all still CRTC.
(Would be nice IF lefties were running that one, instead of industry hacks loyal to the Liberals...but hey, Santa already came)

In other words, ignore party labels and partisanship and start thinking about what you really want from the government...the good cop, bad cop thing is getting stale.

[HEyHEY]

30. Well first off

I gave up on the labels you speak of years ago. Which is why I can see the media is not a pro con outlet. ANd I agree 100 per cent with that last comment.

However, chorus looks for people who work cheap, not people who will push an adgenda. I'm on what's left of the chorus news network and have had some issues with them... but for the most part they are more incompetent than anything.

THe CRTC hasn't the teeth it used to, sure it can make stations do things, but rarely does.

By the way
"hey did you know that Christy Clark was being considered for the national show...can't imagine the theme, 'soccer moms are as angry as hell and they're not going to take it anymore'"

BWHAHAHA

Yeah, that was a joke.. but I believe she is not going to get it. NW wanted her to do a sunday show.

[iverglas]

32. changing that subject

Which is why I can see the media is not a pro con outlet.

If what you mean by "pro con" is "pro-Conservative" -- nobody said it was. You're either tilting at a straw fellow or not grasping the point.

What was said was:

the Canadian Media (otherwise known as the assets of Messrs Shaw, Roger, Asper and Thompson) is rightwing with varying shades of grey.

"Rightwing" not = "pro-Conservative". Tell me you didn't not know what was really being said.

What I'm supposedly dreaming about, I have no clue ...

[HEyHEY]

37. THe entire argument has been that the media is pro conservatives

That is what I take it as when someone says the media is "Right wing" I say they are supporting the libs, which many consider right wing as well.
Either way, the media is not a conservative machine

[AX10]

48. I hope you are right. The CBC seems o.k to me...

but some of the Canadian newspapers look to much like the Washington Post (Bush apologists).

[Telly Savalas]

16. There are 75 ridings in Quebec and 21 in Toronto.

If the planets are aligned correctly on January 23, Harper might get lucky and win one of these. That leaves 212 ridings for his homies to win another 154 seats. Ain't gonna happen.

[Harper_is_Bush]

20. This is about the media salivating over a Conservative government....

it's what they have worked hard for on thier editorial pages from coast to coast.

I don't mind this kind of story. It will wake people up to the idea that the Conservatives might become the government, which will scare the shit out of a lot of people and send them back to the Liberals.

[pbca]

21. You should also know that our Conservatives

are similar to your Democrats. That's about as "Dark" as we get.

[Spazito]

23. The old, REAL Conservatives could be comparable to the DINOs

in the US, the faux Cons are neocons just like the current crop of republicans in the US. LOL at your supposition that it is otherwise.

[iverglas]

24. That's just weird

The old, REAL Conservatives could be comparable to the DINOs in the US

You're actually identifying Diefenbaker, Stanfield, Clark, Flora MacDonald, David MacDonald, Hugh Segal, David Orchard ... even Belinda Stronach ... with, oh, Zell Miller??

Not to mention all of the ordinary Canadians who are "Conservatives" in that they consistently vote for the party carrying the name, but not really because they're fundamentalist religious fanatics or hard-hearted free-marketeers.

The fact is that there is no close comparison to be made between any Canadian political party and any US political party. The collectivism and recognition of collective rights, in particular, that are an inherent part of the Canadian tradition -- including the Canadian conservative tradition -- simply never made their way into the USAmerican political spectrum, but they influence all political parties here. The 19th century just kind of never happened in the US.

the faux Cons are neocons just like the current crop of republicans in the US

There are indeed similarities. But it's really a stretch to say they're "just like".

And the other fact is that it isn't just the DINOs, among Democrats, who resemble our present Conservatives even, in many ways. The crap that comes out of a lot of Democratic mouths when it comes to Iraq, women's reproductive rights, health care, welfare, capital punishment and various other things would be difficult to distinguish from what comes out of Stephen Harper's much of the time.

The context in the two countries is different. It just isn't possible to explain Canadian politics (or western European politics, for example) to a USAmerican by drawing analogies to US politics. You'd always have to start by saying "imagine that in the US there is a tradition of taking collective responsibility for the welfare of individuals and minorities, and a fundamental belief that it is the job and role of government to carry out that responsibility ...".

[Spazito]

26. Wow, how does one define 'nitpicking', I define it by the above post

but please carry on. I espoused my opinion succinctly, you have espoused yours.

[CanSocDem]

31. good stuff

I have to admit that its sometimes a chore explaining the simple tenets of 'public interest' to Americans who call themselves progressive but can't tolerate Ralph Nader.

Glad you mentioned David Orchard. A few years ago, there was a magical convergence of events that could have resulted in him being Prime Minister and Ralph Nader, president of the USA. Alas, it was just an old hippies dream.....

[iverglas]

33. me, I'm just a Republican fool

I did some scut work on Flora MacDonald's campaign for leadership of the PCs back in the mid 70s.

Mind you, when she became Minister of Immigration under Mulroney, she did jump just exactly as high as she was told. Nice people do bad things sometimes, and keep bad company for unknown reasons.

Why, take Warren Allmand ...

[IntravenousDemilo]

53. 1976, Ottawa Civic Centre

I went there as a Flora youth delegate from Regina, and left as a big Clark supporter. When Mulroney took over, the party left me no one to vote for except the NDP. Then when Orchard made his bids, I rejoined the party. And now even that's gone. For now.

[MrPrax]

34. Well said...

Yeah I thought that comment needed a correction as well.

One of the theories as to why there is no Red Toryism (or High Toryism that treats obligation and responsibility equal to conservative social criticism...guys like Kristol or Bennett aren't even close enough to carry Disraeli or Burkes's jock strap)is partly the reason why there is no strong 'socialist' tendency in the US political environment.

The Big Theory goes (forget which egghead espoused it) is that socialism (rationalism combined with collectivism) is a synthesis of the two 18th century strains of ideologies of Conservatism and Liberalism. Presumably if both are strongly present in the political culture, then certain degrees of socialism and hostility to it, is lessened.

The US, of course, like most revoluntionary societies, violently eliminated the Tory elements of their society during the revolution. In fact, much of US history, esp. the civil war, is a continuance of this 'Liberalism' uberalles schtick, where the rationalist free market liberals, almost by instinct, attack anything that deviates from Individualism and it's atomized egalitarianism.

In America, you have the same equal rights as Bill Gates, but the corresponding 'Toryism' of obligation and an 'organic relationship' tying Gates to his fellow citizens is gone from the culture.

As such, (I like this part) the US, like similar political cultures, is sickly due to the lack of competing ideological perspectives that make certain 'socialist'/collectivist approaches impossible.

Not sure I believe it (YES, we commonwealth folks are the bestest under this theory!!:grouphug:) but it does explain some of the differences.

But your right...even people like Hillary Clinton find 'Choice' problematic, apparantly. Whereas Kim-o-mania Campbell et. al. wouldn't even consider the matter open for debate.

(yes you can only be elected in British Columbia if you have a Scottish last name ...and YES Dosjani is actually from Glasgow ;-)

[Spazito]

35. Tag teaming? Wow, I am shocked, no, really, rofl n/t

[MrPrax]

36. LOL...!!

Oh come on...there must be an MPs donation letter than needs to be fed into the autograph machine or a undecided supporter out there just waiting for your call...

;-)

[Spazito]

39. ROFL, you can do better than that, I just know you can!

A little more effort is needed, just a wee bit more. I don't work for any campaign so my time is freeeeeee and I just love it!

[iverglas]

40. oh good

I was afraid that you really did hold social democrats in a little more contempt.

The Big Theory goes (forget which egghead espoused it) is that socialism (rationalism combined with collectivism) is a synthesis of the two 18th century strains of ideologies of Conservatism and Liberalism. Presumably if both are strongly present in the political culture, then certain degrees of socialism and hostility to it, is lessened.

Yup. It missed the 19th century. Actually, it did have its moments -- the anti-slavery, anti-child labour and so on movements -- but the synthesis just failed to happen and they withered on the vine.

And then the US didn't suffer any of the hardship during and post-WWII that opened western Europeans' (not just Commonwealth!) eyes even farther to the "we're all in this together" notion in this century.

But your right...even people like Hillary Clinton find 'Choice' problematic, apparantly. Whereas Kim-o-mania Campbell et. al. wouldn't even consider the matter open for debate.

Indeed. And there is indeed a distinction between the Kims and the Stockwells / Stephens in that and other respects.

But for pity's sake, Spazito, if I may kill two birds with one stone here -- you're the one calling the latter the "faux Cons", and then you come out and compare the presumably real Conservatives -- like, arguably, Kim Campbell (checked out her work in democratic development lately?) -- to DINOs??

[Spazito]

41. Yes, I am and I did

The original Conservative party members were, by and large, centrists leaning to the right, very much like the DINOs in the democratic party across our border as opposed to the Reform/Alliance/New Conservative (ergo faux Cons) who are rabidly right wing very much like the current crop of republicans across the border.

[iverglas]

42. okey dokey

It's funny how you don't want to address any actual specifics -- the names I named, Kim Campbell whom MrPrax named -- and just want to stick to these big unsubstantiated assertions of yours:

The original Conservative party members were, by and large, centrists leaning to the right, very much like the DINOs in the democratic party across our border ...

My own assertion, which I've backed up and could back up way more, is that there is barely the least resemblance between a Progressive Conservative and a DINO. But if you keep saying "are so" enough times, maybe your argument will be better than mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_In_Name_Only

Frankly, I might be more open to a comparison between Progressive Conservatives and Rockefeller Republicans.

How can you possibly liken Progressive Conservative politicians in our past to any of these: --

Democrats who have been accused of being DINOs include:
<I have deleted sources for conciseness>

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, a fiscal conservative.

Rep. Melissa Bean of Illinois, who voted for CAFTA, the Bankruptcy Bill and the Class Action Fairness Act.

Former Rep. Brad Carson of Oklahoma, who often touted his 'A' rating from the National Rifle Association, support for many of President Bush's tax cuts and support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota who voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Mayor Ed Koch of New York City who supported Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and several Republican mayors, governors, and senators of New York

Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who voted for the three most conservative Bush appellate court nominees (Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor), as well as the confirmation of John Bolton as U. N. ambassador; ...

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a hawkish supporter of much of the Bush administration's foreign policy who has also sided with the Republicans on school vouchers and entertainment/video game ratings/restrictions

Former Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, keynote speaker at the 2004 Republican National Convention, who had a 94% voting record with the Republican leadership from 2003 to 2004 and now is a Fox News contributor.

Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment and opponent of abortion rights.

Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, who voted thrice in favor of John Bolton and also voted for three most conservative Bush appellate court nominees (Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor).

Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, who voted for and introduced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and sat by his side during Gonzales' confirmation hearings.

Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi who voted for all four articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton, and for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Former Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana an opponent of abortion rights and of many environmental regulations.

The late Sen. Pat Moynihan of New York, who served as Undersecretary of Labor to Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, and in 1965 published a report critical of the federal welfare system. He remained highly critical of welfare programs throughout his political career.

The late Sen. Scoop Jackson of Washington, his political philosophies and positions were a forerunner for modern neoconservatism.

The late Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, who was fiercly pro-life and refused to campaign for any Democrat who was pro-choice. Casey's son, Pennsylvania State Treasurer and 2006 candidate for Senate Robert Patrick Casey, Jr., is also sometimes called a DINO because he also opposes abortion rights.

Those are NOT "centrists leaning to the right", no matter what one's private definition of "centrist" might be.

For pity's sake, even Brian Mulroney appointed Beverley McLachlin and Claire L'Heureux-Dubé to the Supreme Court. The people in that list would be storming the White House if one of those two were appointed to the US court. (McLachlin wrote the decision refusing to allow a social agency to detain pregnant women in drug clinics; in the US, they put pregnant women who use drugs in prison.
http://www.womenshealthclinic.org/resources/pwamto/gcase_ruling.html)

And it's simply unfair to our USAmerican colleagues to suggest to them that our historical / traditional brand of conservative is even a close cousin to those people.

[Spazito]

43. Because I can, it is as simple as that

Kim Campbell was left of many Conservatives and was in a very tiny minority, possibly within a minority of one in that party, so to use her as the standard smacks of reaching. Your definition of DINO obviously differs from mine but does not make my position any more or less valid than yours or your alter-ego, MrPrax.

Spouting off a selective list based on your definition does little except take up bandwith, imo.

[iverglas]

44. "my definition"

Your definition of DINO obviously differs from mine

Yeah, that's cute. Mine came from a wikipedia article, not an uncommon sort of source for information like this. Yours came from ...? Oh wait, you haven't given a definition, let alone a source.

To be honest, I think you suffer from the problem a USAmerican has in comprehending Canadian politics, in reverse. To think that a DINO is comparable to a Progressive Conservative is to completely fail to grasp the depth and breadth of the vileness that is DINOism.

That wouldn't especially matter, except that you're the one then applying what amounts to a private, completely mistaken definition of it in an attempt to explain something to someone who is quite certainly operating with a different definition.

to use her as the standard smacks of reaching

NOBODY used her as the standard. I didn't even MENTION her, myself, in the post in which I cited various Progressive Conservatives.

Yes indeed, all the people I mentioned could just be written off as "a very tiny minority". So could just about any other particular faction of anything.

Warren Allmand was part of a tiny faction of the Liberal Party. When it comes to "social liberalism", however, I don't pretend that he was not a Liberal or representative of a genuine strain of political thought within the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party isn't monolithic any more than the Progressive Conservative Party was. The fact that any particular faction is out of power within a party at any given time doesn't mean that the party itself doesn't have that tradition within it.

does not make my position any more or less valid

No, you're surely right there. It isn't "my definition" that makes your position untenable. It is what I offered to back up what I said, versus the nothing you have offered to back yours up.

A bald assertion that "x" is "y" without offering any facts or argument to back it up, however, certainly is far less valid than an assertion made that does plainly have facts and argument to back it up.

The mere fact that we're all at complete liberty to blat our opinions around in cyberspace, and make statements of alleged fact to our heart's content with no obligation to substantiate what we're saying other than under the rules of etiquette, doesn't actually make them any good. And people who actually care about democratic discourse, on any subject, actually consider what other people say and address it when they speak in reply.

Spouting off a selective list based on your definition does little except take up bandwith, imo.

I wouldn't be leaving out the "h", if I were you.

Not that what you have stated is an "opinion". It's an allegation that I have provided "a selective list based on <my> definition", when what I in fact did was toddle off to google and start searching for things like "dino means", and stop when I hit a source commonly regarded as reliable and factual.

But that's okay. You keep calling 'em as you see 'em ... or as you say you see 'em.

[Spazito]

45. To be honest, I find the wordiness, propensity to attack and ridicule

inherent in your posts to be tiresome. An extreme example of that is the following:

"I wouldn't be leaving out the "h", if I were you."

I will say one final thing and that is on this point you raise:

"And people who actually care about democratic discourse, on any subject, actually consider what other people say and address it when they speak in reply."

I find that statement particularly ironic as I find your responses very much a matter of picking and choosing what, within the post, you will answer and what you will ignore. I suspect that "courtesy" you speak of is supposed to go only one way but that is only my 'opinion'.

I did do a spell check this time, hopefully that will save you some time.

[iverglas]

46. whatever, eh?

To be honest, I find the wordiness, propensity to attack and ridicule inherent in your posts to be tiresome.

And I find the practice of commenting on the tone of a post, the qualities of a poster, and such-like things, while saying nothing about the content of a post, to be really really really tiresome.

I find that statement particularly ironic as I find your responses very much a matter of picking and choosing what, within the post, you will answer and what you will ignore.

Well, when wordiness is a problem, what's a gal to do?

If I have "ignored" anything you have said that you think called for a response, you were always free to say so.

Kinda like I've said about your complete failure to address any of the specifics of what has been said about the nature of Progressive Conservatives, the nature of DINOs, and the similarities/differences between them.

I suspect that "courtesy" you speak of is supposed to go only one way but that is only my 'opinion'.

Yup, it is. Only your opinion.

My own is pretty much that my expectations are usually far too high.

I just have this silly, naive notion that if people choose to state their opinions in public, and make allegations of fact in public, they should be prepared to back them up with something or at least not whine when they're asked to. And when they keep saying the same thing over and over no matter how many times it's been rebutted without response from them, well, really, who would do that sort of thing, and why?

Genuine discussion of important issues can really be fun. It's too bad so few people want to engage in it. What I just can't figure out is why they hang around discussion boards if they don't.

[IntravenousDemilo]

54. The Democratic Party of the United States of America

is in no way a de facto left-leaning party, at least if you try to place them on the Canadian political spectrum. We have colours that range from red to purple, if you consider the political spectrum as a colour spectrum. The platforms and ideologies of the two major American parties would place them as greenish-blue (Democrats) and bluish-purple (Republicans). Not a lot of choice there.

Our Liberals are sort of greenish. The NDP is sort of orangey-yellow. Our Conservatives are sort of greenish-blue, like the Democrats. The DINOs would be more bluish-purple, because they act like the GOP.

I don't know exactly where the Green party would fit, since they have both leftish and rightish policies. Maybe they're just, well, green.

ON EDIT: People like Tom Wappel, Joe Volpe, and Pat O'Brien are LINOs, by the way. They have no business being in the Liberal party.

[iverglas]

55. meant to add -- re theory of Candian conservatism

The Big Theory goes (forget which egghead espoused it) is that socialism (rationalism combined with collectivism) is a synthesis of the two 18th century strains of ideologies of Conservatism and Liberalism.

I think the egghead there is George Grant. Wikipedia is always handiest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory
-- or hmm, maybe it was Gad Horowitz you had in mind.

Red Tory is a term given to a political philosophy, tradition, and disposition in Canada. It has fundamentally, if not exclusively, been found in Conservative provincial and federal political parties. It is a historical legacy that marks differences in the creation, development, and evolution of the political cultures of Canada and the United States. Canadian conservatism and American conservatism - and the philosophical use of the term "conservative" - are fundamentally different, in that the Canadian variant retains a distinct moral, English, and pre-industrial character not evident in the American version.

Red Toryism derives largely from a British tory tradition that maintained the unequal division of wealth and political privilege among social classes can be justified, if members of the privileged class contribute to the common good - for the benefit of all. This belief in a common good, as expanded on in Colin Campbell and William Christian's Political Parties and Ideologies in Canada, is at the root of Red Toryism.

In contrast to the American experience where class divisions were seen as undemocratic (yet, in fact still existing), Canadian tories adopted a more patriarchal view of government. Monarchy, public order and good government - understood as dedication to the common good - preceded, moderated, and balanced an unequivocal belief in individual rights and liberty.

... This vision contrasted Canada with the United States, which was seen as lacking this collectivist tradition, as it was expunged from the American political culture after the American Revolution - and with the exodus of the United Empire Loyalists to British Canada. Horowitz argued that Canada's stronger socialist movement grew from Toryism, and that this explains why socialism has never had much success in the United States. In some ways, Red Tories were closer to the NDP than to the Liberal Party of Canada, which favoured individualism, continentalism, and free-trade economics.

Horowitz identified George Grant and Eugene Forsey as exemplars of this strain of thought, which saw a central role for Christianity in public affairs - as both were profoundly critical of capitalism and the dominant business élites, but differed on man's innate nature. Forsey was optimistic about people's rational capacities; Grant was fearful of man's irrationality. Thus Forsey became a CCF member and a socialist, while Grant remained a conservative - and a Conservative, until small-l liberals hijacked his party, something Forsey saw happening decades earlier. ...

And I think we have to keep in mind that "small-l liberals", in that last sentence, doesn't mean people who support same-sex marriage, it means people who favour classical liberal economics and its implications for social policy.

The dominance of Red Toryism can be seen as a part of the international Post-War Consensus that saw the welfare state embraced by the major parties of most of the western world. In the late 70s and 80s the Progressive Conservative Party suffered a string of electoral defeats, under Red Tory leaders Robert Stanfield and Joe Clark. Pressure began to grow within the party for a new approach. Joe Clark's leadership was successfully challenged by more ideologically neo-liberal members who endorsed Brian Mulroney. Mulroney represented the so-called neoconservative right, committed to neo-liberal policies in the manner of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Toryism in general, and Red Toryism in particular, began to decline in relevance as a political force in Canada, as its traditionalism, centralism, and moderation fell out-of-synch with the current political climate. ...


George Grant’s 1965 book is
the lodestar of Red Toryism.

And I believe it was yuckoid polisci professor Conrad Winn (Compas) to whom I owe my own long-ago reading of it. ;)


Anyhow, that's really an article that any USAmerican wanting to know what "conservative" means, or ought to mean, in Canada should read for starters. I've just excerpted bits for demonstration purposes. There are interesting links, too.

[IntravenousDemilo]

52. Perhaps the poster meant RINOs

...or else the current mainstream of the Democratic party, since, yes, DINOs act more like current Republicans.

BTW, I'm a good friend of Grant Orchard, who manages David's campaigns. Things are afoot, but that's all I can say.

[V. Kid]

38. The Liberals are running a really bad campaign...

...and they're arrogant and tired. That said, they're usually much better and launched a bunch of, what I think are effective, attack ads against the Cons. They'll likely pull it off in the end.

[AX10]

47. I sure hope so. A Lib minority is fine with me.

It will be a horrific disaster if the Cons get in. Cananda, you have been warned.

[V. Kid]

49. One kink in the works though...

...there was this one ad, theat was widely seen as "over the top", as it insinuated the Cons would've had troops in the streets. The Liberals pulled it. I hope it won't distract from the truthful information in the other ads. Best case scenario is that it dislodges Conservative support, moves a lot for those who want to "throw the bums out" to the safe choice, the NDP and to a lesser extent Greens and Liberals.

As people know on this site, I'm not a fan of the Liberals, and I'm supporting the NDP. That said a Conservative Majority would suck for obvious reasons, the only saving grace would be that they're so incomptent that they'd probably be routed in the next election. But if they do get one, and the Liberals come out still ahead of the NDP, the Liberals will probably win the next election. Everyone will think that's at least great, problem is though that their potential leaders like a Michael Ignatiff, John Manley or Frank McKenna would be a LINO (liberal in Name only). So he'd be in league with Jeb Bush or whatever other Republican manages to manipulate the system, so that would suck.

[Mother Jones]

50. I think most who support the Liberals know that, V.Kid

Maybe an assumption but the internal strife has been aired, so unless people are not paying attention, they know this is not a true Liberal leader. (including some of the 'potentials' waiting for their chance.)

It's hard to second guess the future beyond the election, if there is a change in leader, but boy, picking any one of those 3 is a huge nightmare. Strategy wise though, they probably think it's good, stealing the moderate conservative vote. That too could bite them in the ass though, as people seem to only now be realizing that their platform is not "vastly" different from the cons on some important issues. (Deep Integration, Health care privitization, corp tax relief, etc...)

[iverglas]

51. veering off topic ...

... their potential leaders like a Michael Ignatiff, John Manley or Frank McKenna would be a LINO (liberal in Name only).

Ignatieff, a case in point for what I said yesterday about the Liberal Party and Liberals.

A couple of years ago, I watched Ignatieff's Massey Lecture on rights theory, transfixed. I keep meaning to buy a copy. I recommend whatever can be found on line of it to people who need to learn a bit more about modern rights theory.

And yup, when it comes to the other axis of the political spectrum -- what one might call the public rather than private aspects of life -- he's right-wing. An 18th century individual-rights liberal with a layer of more modern minority-rights theory, but no "third generation" of rights.

http://0-www.search.eb.com.library.uor.edu:80/eb/article-219326?tocId=219326
http://0-www.search.eb.com.library.uor.edu:80/eb/article-219326
"The content of human rights: Three “generations” of rights"
(liberté, égalité, fraternité: #3 = solidarity)

Finally, the third generation of solidarity rights, while drawing upon and reconceptualizing the demands associated with the first two generations of rights, is best understood as a product of both the rise and the decline of the nation-state in the last half of the 20th century.

Foreshadowed in Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims that “everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights set forth in this declaration can be fully realized,” this generation appears so far to embrace six claimed rights.

Three of these rights reflect the emergence of Third World nationalism and its “revolution of rising expectations” (i.e., its demand for a global redistribution of power, wealth, and other important values or capabilities): the right to political, economic, social, and cultural self-determination; the right to economic and social development; and the right to participate in and benefit from “the common heritage of mankind” (shared Earth and space resources, scientific, technical, and other information and progress, and cultural traditions, sites, and monuments).

The other three third-generation rights—the right to peace, the right to a healthy and sustainable environment, and the right to humanitarian disaster relief—suggest the impotence or inefficiency of the nation-state in certain critical respects.

(And it's all very well for Canadians to pat ourselves on the back for getting the first two, but we really need to be moving along now, and that's where Liberals like Ignatieff fail us.)