57 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - None dead in crash of ... · 1 reply · +6 points

It was ever thus, John. I wasn't there, but I heard Stanfield caught that g*ddamned football a bunch of times before he dropped it. Guess which pic hit the front page? And let's not even get into poor ol' Joe Clark's lost luggage....And yes, Libs and others have suffered from it, too.

As for P&P, all I'll say is, I miss Don Newman, whether or not I agree with him.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Speaking of coalitions... · 3 replies · +3 points

Three, actually: BC & ON of course - I'm assuming they're the 2 you're thinking of, and apologies if I'm wrong - and one more: PEI in 2005 - link

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Hey look: There‚Äôs a ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Just to be clear, you'd be just as offended by, say, a member of the United Church arguing against poverty because of her belief in what PW called the "Social Gospel" right?

And in fact, you'd be *more* offended by that woman who wants to end poverty because she thinks Jesus demanded it, than you would by, say, an atheist pro-life PM who opposes abortion because of her analysis of how the foetus evolves and grows in the womb before birth, right? Because unlike that do-gooding pverty activist, the aetheist pro-lifer doesn't represent "the church" intruding on "the state's business", right?

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Really, Grits? You're ... · 1 reply · +2 points

Depends on how one defines "culture wars", I guess. A reasonably broad enough definition, and you could find examples going back to John A's time ("A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die" was a "cultural" clash between himself & the Liberals of the day, I'd say.)

In more modern times, "Screw the west, we'll take the rest" came out of Sen. Keith Davey's mouth in 1980, long before Manning showed up in Ottawa.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Really, Grits? You're ... · 4 replies · -1 points

Good lord you people are ignorant. Please indicate which democracies where parties campaign together on the understanding they will form a government after the election.

Off the top of my head: New Zealand (ACT announced in advance of the last election that it was going to back the Nationals) and Australia, where the Liberals & Nationals have been in a coalition for years, but still run separate candidates. Also: Ireland in '07, where (a) Fine Gael and the Labour Party struck a deal in advance re: 2nd-preference ballots, and (b) Both Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats agreed to keep their pre-election coalition going (though they had to change plans after the election because the PDs didn't win enough seats, the PDs certainly intended on being a part of a coalition government again).

In other countries where coalitions are common, what you DON'T see are possible partners, such as the CDP/CSU and the Free Democrats in Germany, swear up and down that they won't form a coalition only to do so at the first opportunity. That's what we had with Dion & Layton here in '08.

Ignorance is as ignorance does, I guess.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Conservatives, Liberal... · 1 reply · 0 points

I don't know about your last sentence, and I'm still bothered by the fact that he (apparently) voted for the PC/CA merger just before jumping ship. But generally, I agree - I was pulling for Brison to win the PC leadership in '03, though I think I was one of the few people who liked him who didn't also hate McKay at the time! He had a lot of policies, such as downsizing ACOA, that would set him apart in the CPC of today, let alone the Liberals. Same could be said for Keith Martin on healthcare, when he ran for the CA leadership.

Brison was an effective Finance critic after '97 as well, which made it all the more galling to see him pal around with Paul Martin once he crossed over.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Conservatives, Liberal... · 1 reply · +1 points

Through their foot, then?

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - "Serious conservative ... · 0 replies · +2 points

I always appreciate it when they go for the subtle approach. Though relying on a picture of the ol' Gipper is just laziness. What, they couldn't have found a photo of Thatcher giving somebody a taste of the back of her hand?

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - "Serious conservative ... · 4 replies · +4 points

Who's "we"? People were 'paying attention" - or at the very least, the "hidden agenda/scary past" routine has been available for voters to pay attention to. Heck, this speech made its way into the G&M during the '04 campaign, as 251's comment below indicates. It just has gotten less effective over time.

Perhaps that's because Harper has been sensible enough to avoid trying to revive SoCon-related debates that the public doesn't seem to want to touch (abortion, capital punishment), but has been willing to legislate on issues where at least a goodly share of the voters appear to be on-side (childcare). I think that's certainly something one could take from PW's article this week.

If the Libs want to go back to their boogeyman strategy, more power to 'em, but I don't think Iggy's current crew is that foolish. If they want to beat Harper, they'll have to do it on the issues (including the SoCon issues) where there's an actual footprint, and not rely on dragging out old speeches and hoping that we'll jump at the shadows.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - "Serious conservative ... · 6 replies · +2 points

But Paul, we all learned in the 2006 election that talking about what Harper had written or said before 2005 was verbotten.

No, Ted. What we learned in 2006 was that the Liberals' strategy of saying "Ooo, Scary Stephen Harper - look what he said back then" was getting old, and getting much less effective.