BOOOOORRRRRR-ing!!!!

come on Sean, please give us dirt!

dirt, dirt, dirt.

The kind of stuff that gets everyone responding.

Kim Campbell used to clam she spoke Russian, played the cello,said elections are no timeto talk issues, and biggest claim to fame was she married Nathah Devinski a guy who knew a lot about chess. Oh , and she was PM for about a couple of weeks and has had patronage jobs ever since.

I think Kim Campbell was simply giving how the public perceived the Tories. Since she was a Red Tory, I wouldn't be surprised if she voted Liberal, but maybe she is like Ralph Klein who plans to vote Conservative, but realizes that Stephen Harper cannot win.

I think Kim has hit it dead on. There are plenty of Canadians in Canada who are fiscal conservatives, and would just like a more accountable federal government. But the CPC has left the reform fiscal platform and taken up a "Focus on the Family" social one.

His re-redefinition of marriage is awkward. (We had a free vote, traditional lost). And his renewal of the war on drugs is worrysome.

For those of us who had high hopes on Harper after Day, and hoped that he would be all economist and social conservatism behind closed doors, he has proved to be quite a disappointment.

I think it would be handy if we went riding by riding to expose which CPC candidates are zealots, and which ones aren't. I was surprised that both the candidates from Richmond as well as North Van used to work for an organization that still has on its website:

"Helpful guidelines from Joesph Nicolosi that identify practical ways homosexuality may be prevented."

"Furthermore, homosexuality is intrinsically misguided and
sinful, independent of anyone’s response to it"

"Canada is not the first country to consider decriminalizing marijuana. Sweden, Alaska, the U.S., and Holland" (trick question: which one does not fit)"

"Among many other spectacular claims, proponents of harm reduction strategies make assertions of saving lives, preventing disease and death, reducing healthcare costs and improving the quality of life for drug-dependent users. The harsh reality is that harm reduction accomplishes few of these goals"

I think Dan Grace is totally right. If the Conservatives focused solely on fiscal conservatism I probably would vote for them as many others would. If you look at the provincial numbers and past numbers of conservative parties, they have usually been above 35% and almost never below 30% where the Conservatives are now. Each party has its wackos, but running social conservatives in fiscally conservative but socially liberal ridings like West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, North Vancouver, and Richmond shows just how out of touch they are with people. More importantly these ridings should be easy Conservative wins, but instead they will go Liberal. I have come to the conclusion that the Reform Party has outlived in its usefulness and it is time to return to the policies of the Old PCs. In fact in 2004, the combined right had the worse showing in Canadian history, despite the sponsorship scandal so I think Canadians sent a clear message to the Conservatives to moderate or else they would stay in opposition. It looks like the only way to achieve this is give the Liberals a majority government and hopefully they will wake up and get rid of Harper and all other dinosaurs from the Reform Party.

Is a fiscal-conservatism-only platform the "silver bullet"... that is the mythology surrounding the right. That belief circulates loudly among the conservative liberations within the CPC.

However, most Canadians believe government has to tax and spend to provide services. A conservative plan based solely on "money" would have to justify why it has no social conscience, no community projects, and apparently is avoiding the realities of managing the country. A mammon only platform has always been crushed by the center and center-left during elections... easily crushed as it simply is too philosophically, and pragmatically, narrow.

Governments are involved in the running of the affairs of the country and its communities so tax and spending on those affairs is a reality – pure fiscal conservatism does not reflect those realities.

IF there is one politician in the history of this country that should absolutely not be giving advice, it's Kimmy. A disasterous campaigner, lucky girl only to be at the right place at the right time. Charest would have not lost as big a portion of the pie, nor would the PCP broken into such irretrivable pieces. The party would not have gone so extremist. She and the extreme "reds" helped secure that, while Charest was seen as a better coalition builder.

It makes me laugh everytime I think about her comment with respect to Iron Willy VanderZalm, that style without substance is a dangerous thing.....if there was anyone who ever embodied that plus a synchronously indiganant, no less, deer caught in the headlights look, it was her.

She is a mere footnote in the Canadian history book, and unfortunately, she ran as a Tory, when really she is a LaPierre Liberal, way over on the left. There were parts of the blasted Trudeau's command economy love ins that she admired. Calling her a red tory insults red tories everywhere.

To all that really know her, Kimmy will always be a punchline, with neither style nor substance.

Once again,

Charest was the better choice, but at that point in conservative history the political right was already swinging wildly into extremist positions and battles... very red tory vs hyper right reformists… a fifteen year battle began that has left the current state of socon and neo-cons (mammonists) at internal war with each other..

Charest represented "good government". Campbell represented an attempt to put a “ face to the public” that hides the obvious conflicts between socons, mammonists, and libertarians- three fundamentally incompatible philosophical camps within the PC (and now CPC) party. The public saw the hypocrisy of that coalition then… they are still leery of it now. Campbell was just a marketing gimmick that was not success at selling a very conflicted product.

Figures from the past, like Kim Campbell have little to do with the public's current uneasiness with neo-con CPC politics… it’s the contradictions and hypocrisies that Canadian neo-conservatism is built around that makes the public want something else - something more rationally self-consistent and more likely to promote community peace and constructive government.

Mammon loving, authoritarian socon positions, sprinkled with selected (read paternalistically dispensed) libertarian values that favour selected friends of neo-cons is still what the public sees as the conservative party’s true nature.

Eugene,

Interesting perspective. I guess I will just never forgive all those fools who supported someone as intellectually thin as Campbell. All the lather about how bright she was or is, and I just cannot believe the naivete.

Truth is, as a Conservative with moderate social values, I have a hard time listening to those whose dogma is so strong, whether they be form the family coalitions or the border of the red menace. I have a real problem with the Campbellites, as they left the party in tatters and we suffered, greatly, at the hands of Presto Manning and Stockfallen Day. We went from one extreme to another. I was alwaus amazed that we supported someone who had such a tough time differentiating between the great limitations of command economies, and capitalism. IT's quite stunning actually.

Unless some great cataclysmic should befall Martin, I don't know how he won't return with a minority, that, at the end of the day, will be his undoing. The Sliperals will not forgive him or themselves and it will be PM McKenna leading the troops into the next election, if the Grits are smart (and Lord above is the jury out on that one!). Same goes for Steven Harpless who is much too socially inflexible. The wingnut Reformers are still alive and well in Toryville. Plus who have they recruited? Stephen Rogers! Lord love a duck!

Although, this banning of the handguns will cost the Grits dearly. More of a bump to the Toriesin pockets previously unmined, than the satisfaction felt my the espresso and Gauloise crowd in metro Montreal. Martin is such an insidious man, it boggles the mind.

Not since Clark, Trudeau and Broadbent synchronously graced us have we ever had a more pathetic crew of leaders.

Christ, Turner and Mulroney provided better fainesburger than this.

I think Dan and Miles above are quite right. The Tories have to right the ship by playing to Canadians want of having honest people in Government. Certainly until they return to being Progressive Conservatives, social issues will become the media's whipping post, as a good number of the Tory candidates, belong to the Alliance mold, and the country deserves better than that--much.

Once Again,

Historically, "Progressive Conservative" did not refer to social issues... it referred to the willingness to both build on ideas that worked and try new ideas whilst protecting “the good”.

In contrast, the current Harperists (and former reform Day and Manning camps) are neo-cons that simply want to eliminate government to reduce its negative influence on individuals. For example, when Harper announces tax cuts he says, “no tax is a good tax”. He believes there is no net positive from government action; government action is only a necessary evil – his perspective. He doesn’t beliece on building positive government action – he doesn’t believe that such a thing exists. The true current internal synergy of the CPC is the philosophical orientation that government is about containing evil: social conservatism to contain personal behavior, neo-conservatives to contain government behavior, libertarianism to avoid other’s evil.

At this time in conservative politics in Canada, being progressive, or a positive alternative with ideas that build on Canadian strengths is not what so-call “conservatives” are offering. Rather, they are offering the Def – the -Chief reduce - eliminate – and - dismantle approach to Canada. Radical change rather than radical building is their plan… they are not conservative at all… they are still reformist radicals.

In contrast, being progressive conservative is not about being socially moderate per say… it is about being positive about the role of government and communities to build on what works; being tolerate is constructive but the goal is to build on that good will… Building on good is the more exact meaning of being progressive and conservative.

Eugene,

You'll forgive me, but you're stretching a bit...being a Progressive Conservative, for all intents and purposes leading to the ballot box, was very much having the mean of the Party be socially moderate--that's how we won! Diefenbaker cannot be used as any kind of fair analogy as times were dramatically different, and the individual circumstances of his reign over Canada, unique.

I will agree with you that Harper does indeed see Government as an evil. I don't. That's why the only way we can hope of affecting change will be to seek a Bernard Lord, with Charest as his Quebec Lieutenant. Jean is an incredible patriot and will certainly make the sacrifice. I'm just not sure how much he has left in his gut to ever go through the machinations of trying to become PM again.

Your analysis is sound, excepting the strict definition of being progressive and Conservative. I love, by th way, how the secular left have hijacked the word progressive to attach to "apropos" p.c. Liberal causes.....as I have insisted for years, the media in this country, by and large, have no ethics at all. They see themselves more as social engineers. Larry Campbell is one example, Pierre Trudeau is another. Noth men destroyed any good that they had previously done, and yet you can hardly find a negative story.

Further proof of the old adage that if the lie is long enough and told often enough, it becomes the "truth".

To respectfully debate further,

Remember when there was a PC party, like the time when Joe Clark was battling Trudeau. Being Progressive and Conservative was not about being socially moderate. In fact, Trudeau was being ill moderate socially - for that day - and Clark was roughly mainstream. Trudeau was the radical social misfit and the progressive conservatives were more or less conservative socially. The “progressive” title referred to the concept of "building" versus the conservative title of "preserving / conserving".

Today is a different matter, “progressive” is commonly meant to mean socially liberal, but that is not the original historical meaning of progressive as in Progressive Conservative.

Nevertheless, note that going too progressive socially, even today, is no more interesting to the public than is being too socially conservative. The public wants society to be gently responsibly and fairly administered… nothing harsh… nor anything irresponsible. For example, they want drug pushers in jail but users in rehab, where appropriate, without criminal penalty. In other words, don’t be too hard on the victims but don’t be so irresponsible as to let the dealers get away with harming people. When it comes to drugs, the term “progressive” particularly socially progressive has as little meaning to the general population as socially conservative. The Canadian public thinks more along the lines of fair-minded and responsible government.

And I agree with the public’s attitude. Being fair-minded and gentle is appropriate for a democratic government. Voters are right to look for those attributes in whomever they vote for. Further, voters are also right headed to expect responsible government that will address root issues in discerning fashion.

Currently, we are not seeing “progressive” and “conservative” values coming from the CPC… nor the NDP… and the Liberals are fundamenatally going to be making the pitch that a 31 year low in unemployement does should that they have been responsible – on the whole. The public will likely buy the Liberal argument over the NDP and CPC radical agendas for the reasons stated above.

Eugene, you're wrong on the "Progressive" bit.

It was always the Conservatives, until John Bracken, who was the premier of Manitoba under the Progressive/United Farmers Party (considered a predecessor of the REform/Social Credit movements), concented to lead the Tories, on condition that they change there name to Progressive Cs. Bracken was considered a populist and favoured government policies based on independence and principles of business management.

In many cases progressive is a rejection of top down leadership and government acting as an administrative rather than a political organization.

Dan Grice,

We are slowly getting somewhere... but I think you are actually starting to make my point – in part.

Western anti-establishment conservatism (a la Bracken, Diefenbaker, Manning, and Harper) most certainly is a major part of the so-called Canadian political right. You have no argument from me on that point – that is major part of my point. For example under Def, we could not have had a more anti-establishment thinking PM; he was an icon of dismantlement government. Harper is the latest version. Going back to Bracken as one source anti-government “government” I would not dispute.

However the anti-establishment influence, which is in force today in federal conservative politics, is not the "progressive" politics of Ontario, Quebec and BC. The meaning of "progressive" for many of the center-right in these regions is constructive government. For us, government in moderation is seen as a force for good… just as any intuition can be, like: hospitals, churches, community groups, curling clubs, firemen’s associations etc…

Nevertheless, you are right. Anti-establishment “conservatism” is the foundation of the Socred, Reform and now CPC parties. However, the foundation of the Progressive Conservative Party was the belief that government in moderation could be a very positive force for society. However, the two philosophical perspectives (of government can do no good and government can do good) are not compatible, hence why the PC and Reform merger has failed and why progressive conservatives have been voting blue liberal for almost 10 years.

This means today that Harper has a nearly impossible mission. He has to convince a million progressive conservatives that they were 1.) wrong to vote for the status quo and the establishment and 2.) they must now embrace a philosophy that government is a necessary evil.

“Me thinks”, voters are not to interested in admitting they were wrong (and given that unemployment is at a 31 year low, it is questionable whether or not they were wrong) and two, those conservatives that think positively about government are still thinking the anti-establishment groups are just wingnuts… again witness the 31 year low in unemployment.. Why upset the apple cart so the anti-government crowd can muck with success? Do we really want another round of Def style dismantling of the country’s successes especially since we are finally on such solid ground?

As usual, Miles' pretentious, self-aggrandizing analysis falls short of the mark.

The loss of some social progressives/fiscal conservatives who voted for the PC Party but not the new Conservative party is not the only reason the combined center-right vote in 2004 was lower than previous elections.

The shedding of the populist appeal of the Reform/Canadian Alliance party also drove some voters away from the new Conservative party and towards other protest votes (Green, NDP, Independents, etc). Miles either conveniently chooses to ignore this or is genuinely unaware of it.

Hence, a solution like "the Conservative party just needs to start talking about only fiscal issues and then they will get more votes" is short-sighted and fails to take into account the brokerage nature of the Canadian political environment. For every Miles Lunn the party may pick up, they could lose another 2 voters. It ain't as easy as you think, folks.

Eugene - perhaps you are older than me or have a better memory but what did Dief dismantle during his time in office that was so bad.

Eugene, I think you have to separate social conservatism from economic conservatism, in the contexts of western anti-establishment thinking. The reform party's populist appeal was not just a form of conservatism, and its early roots were not the social conservative party of today. (even if some of the players are the same) The idea of electoral reform in the senate and reducing centralist economic policies gathered support both from the left and right, and indeed much of the reforms base was shared with the ndp base. It was only once the reform party made major political gains was it hijacked by the conservative element, who realized the one member, one vote democratic aspects were easier to hijack than a top heavy part structure.

While anti-establishment populism would describe the reform and social credit, you have to be careful with conservatism, as it is far too much of an umbrella term to be used accurately in context. The social credit and reform movements had conservatism injected into them, and reform attracted bad apple's rather than advocating it. But in many ways as well, the reform was a rejection of big Conservative policies, (which differ from small c ones)

Much of the context of dismantling federal government is based on the notion that federal politicians have overstepped provincial boundaries, and was based on a rejection of the political distribution of economic grants, and transfer dollars. It is also a frustration with national parties that fail to address regional issues. I think the rise of the bloc in quebec has shown the failure of centralized party structure, and their success mirrors the early success of the reform party. I think many of us grew frustrated when the reform tried to move away from its western roots and tried to capture ontario. It lost its "the west wants in", message and turned full circle to try to become a national party.

In doing so, it put itself in a position not to shape government policies, but to actually determine political direction of this country. I think many of us who were proud reform supporters because of its de-centralist ideas, have really given up because the values that originally attracted us to reform under Manning have been lost. I've been trying to keep people from calling them the reform conservatives, because, none of the reform platform really remains in the new conservative party. Reform did not take over the conservative party, reform morphed and lost its foundation. Its the same conservative party of yesteryear, but with a renewed takeover by the religious right who have now taken an active roll in the party.

But when you try to say that we need to move back towards progressive conservatism, I think its just a matter of time. If the Tories lose seats, I think Harper's done, and the less extreme elements will take over. We will get McKAy or Lord, and we will go back to the same old Liberal Vs PC battle, without the P in the name.

But there is still the question of who will press decentralization, and who will take up the decentralist flag in BC.

Dan Grice,

I think I’m seeing a source of our disagreement. I do not put anti-establishment/government thinking and conservatism under the same umbrella... that is a mythology that the likes of the Reform Party, particularly Harper, solidified again in recent times. Anti-establishment thinking and conservatism are antithetical. If you have something to protest, then you have a common spirit with the anti-establishment philosophy of the CPC, which is not conservative.

As for your point that left and right can be anti-establishment, I think that is a point I’ve made many times. Both the left and the right in Canada are anti-establishment/anti-government but with the opposite goal for changing the establishment – one wanting radically more government and the other wanting radically less government but both nevertheless being radically anti-the status quo.

At this point in time, we have no party on the right that believes government can be a force for good. Hence, we have no conservative party in Canada – only one named conservative that is in fact an anti-establishment/anti-government party.

Until we have a conservative party Canadians will continue to vote Liberal or further left despite the left’s problems. Canadians want their government representatives to actually believe enough in the possibly of good government that they at least try to provide it once in a while. The so-called conservative option of no-government as government is consistently rejection by 2/3rds of Canadians as nonsense. The public does not what to give the keys of power to anti-establishment radicals.

Eugene, are you approaching this as someone living in BC or as someone living in Toronto: its still a matter of jurisdiction, which is why ridings that went NDP provincially in BC went Reform federally. A bloated central government dolling out sponsorship grants, does not necesarily equate to socialists policies on the ground.

A lot on the left oppose corporate welfare, and rural areas of this province vote NDP because of their support for labour rights, not because they want another crown corporation opened in Ottawa, or another federal loan going to Bombardier. The size of the government is not the issue for the left as much as it is the protection of social services, of which nearly all fit into provincial jurisdiction.

And your making numbers up when you say 2/3s of Canadians reject government reform. Explain how you come to that. Last time I looked, polls showed that a majority of people want less government interference in their lives, and think that govrenment in inherently incorrect. Whether Reform ideas went over in Toronto does not take away from the reform gaining over 50% of seats in BC in its heyday. And no party is advocating no government, so you can drop those false rhetoric.

The regional differences in this country are great, and you cannot describe Canada as one voice. Alberta will go heavily CPC as will much of the praries, as well as much of rural BC and the eastern suburbs. Quebec will go Bloq. The Tories are not suffering because of their economic policies or because of their small government ideas (if that even in there tax cut only platform), they are suffering slowly because of distrust with Harper and social conservatism. We've seen them rise in the polls and drop.

Under Manning, the problem with capturing Ontario didn't have as much to do with Ontario rejecting Reform policy. The main problem was that the PC organization was still strong in the east, and the vote was split.

Dan Grice,

I do not approach politics as a provincial thinker; rather I'm Canadian in experience and perspective.

Sadly, you are vastly mistaken in the belief that the left is not philosohpically for big government... just as you have been mistake in your belief that the current CPC is not anti-establishment.

As for 2/3rds of Canadians rejecting Reform (note the upper case), the country soundly rejected the Reform Party 3:1. Last two elections the country rejected its descendent parties 3:1. Why? The country does not support anti-establishment / anti-government parties. It's that simple.

Reform could not take Ontario because it is not anti-establishment. Reform could not take Quebec because Quebec is generally not anti-establishment (and Reform showed signs of being anti-French).

Reform did take Sask. and BC because of the protest vote. There is an anti-establishment vote in both provinces. Alberta goes Reform because of fiscal conservatism... However, note how in the cites, Alberta also leans slightly to the establishment and hence some former PCs and Liberal candidates are elected there.

As for dropping the anti-establishment / anti-government label of the Reform (now CPC), that is up to the CPC to do. The CPC has fully embraced anti-government rhetoric and philosophies. Until it changes it will never have mass appeal - nor should it. The vast majority of Canadians benefit from moderate government and the status quo.

Eugene

PS: As for the mythology that Canada has massive government, which was true under Mulroney and in the early Chretien years. Then the size of government (with healthcare) was approaching 50% of the economy. Today, that percent is round 41% with ~12% being healthcare. So, the government portion of the economy is roughly 30%… less than that of the US and about the same as most industrialized countries. False rhetoric is a hallmark of anti-establishment advocates; you have just delivered some false rhetoric in your claim of “massive government”.

Enough with you, until you learn the difference between provincial and federal political parties. The left has different spending priorities that the right, but it isn't generically pro federal government.

"Quebec is generally not anti-establishment" -- Ah, check your century. Have you ever heard of this little party in Quebec called the Blok??? LAst time I looked, the seperatists weren't pro establishment.

Also, last time I looked, 60% of Canadians rejected the Liberals as well, so you're case falls through there.

I.m not sure who is running the Conservative campaign in Esquimalt( The one that was highlighted by Rex Murphy this week end. I do know where the boundries are and some chump has been putting up signs for that riding in the Victoria territory. Big flashy expensive ones.

But still in the wrong riding. Which leads me to believe the candidate has more money than brains. The idea is that the fellow will end up in third place behind the other major parties.
The neat thing was that rex had the Green candidate involved, somehting that the national debates won't allow. I'm not a Green supporter but cutting them out at the same time the fed are giving them a million a year to run their platform is sort of weird. Only in Lotus Land you say.

Tony Fogarassy, the Conservative candidate for Vancouver Centre, describes himself as a Red Tory and supports same sex marriage. Should Kim Campbell endorse Fogarassy, it would help his chances at beating Hedy and Svend. Having the previous MP, Senator Pat Carney, also endorse him would help further. Fogarassy has a real chance to win since Svend's entrance into the race will only takes votes from Hedy.

"Fogarassy has a real chance to win since Svend's entrance into the race will only takes votes from Hedy."

There is a double standard here… the NDP is saying don’t vote Liberal even though those involved in AdScam are gone… but vote NDP even though the man with the ring is running.

The NDP vote has been shifting in the polls. Mr. Robinson's entrance does not necessarily help and could add to the NDP slip to the Liberals. For a conservative to win that riding, he would need an NDP/Liberal split in the vote. Robinson is seen as old school NDP, and maybe seen as corrupt, so that may actually be helping the Liberals. Again, it is difficult for the NDP to claim "Liberal" corruption when the NDP candidate actually took a $50,000 ring. A lot of wind may have been taken out of the NDP's anti-corruption sail by the entrance of Robinson.

Fry, sadly, is a shoo in.

Why?

Svender Bender is a wacko, whose grandstanding and mental masturbatory efforts have all fallen flat with the public. Who's going to support a thief? He even went so far as to suggest that his bipolar disorder was the cause! I know several folks with this unfortunate condition, and God bless 'em, none are thieves! The guy is a whackjob par excellence. He can't help himself...he's just got to constantly piss people off. I think Jack Laydown probably let him run so he didn't have to hear the vitriol.

Besides, NPA heavyweight Cameron St. John is running Fry's campaign (unfortunately, :-)), so that guarantees highly capable and uber efficient ground and air wars and an e-day to rival all others.

Kimmy should just stay home and pretend that she knows how to play the violin...or her Russian boyfriend.

Kiss of the Black Widow if she endorses
Fogarassy.....

Happy Chrismas you pervelted and corupted Caabadian. I was refused ently to youl contry. Maybe you want write that