Saturday, July 16, 2005

Bloggers Unraveling the Liberal Smear Campaign against Gurmant Grewal

Gurmant Grewal is the Conservative MP who exposed liberal vote buying by recording his conversations with senior staff of the liberal party. In the run-up to the confidence motion in May, the liberals were desperate to avoid an election. What the liberals did was peddle influence by bribing members of the Conservative Party in exchange for their vote in Parliament. Sick of seeing the liberals get away with denying that bribes were being offered, Gurmant Grewal took it upon himself to tape conversation as senior staff of the liberal party tried to bribe him. Exposing the liberals this way put Mr. Grewal in the crosshairs of the liberals and the liberal friendly mainstream media.

Since those tapes were made public, the liberal media has been on a relentless campaign to smear Gurmant Grewal. Every accusation has been thrown at him including accusations he doctored the tapes and accusations that stole campaign contributions for personal use.

The accusations that he doctored the tapes are ridiculous. The tapes in question run over one hour in length and Ujjal Dosanjh, the liberal Health Minister, can clearly be heard talking to Gurmant about foreign appointments and cabinet positions. Tim Murphy, the Prime Minister’s chief of Staff, can be heard just as clearly as he coaches Mr. Grewal on how to lie to the media in the event he decides to take the liberals up on their bribes. There is simply no way to spin the content of those tapes, so the liberals and the media have moved on to accusations he stole campaign contributions.

Terry Milewski filed a CBC story that alleges Gurmant Grewal cashed cheques that were supposed to be campaign contributions. As a result, the people making the contributions were never given receipts. Terry Milewski proudly displayed the cheques in his news piece and all but declared him guilty of stealing money from his campaign, but bloggers looking into this story have turned up some interesting facts.

An article by Back off Government points to a news story that was covered by Nicholas Read of the CanWest News Service.

The article titled Grewal donor who wants tax receipt acknowledges ties to Dosanjh says it all. It turns out that Sarup Mann, the Vancouver businessman that is demanding a tax receipt for money he says he gave to Gurmant Grewal, is actually a member at large of Liberal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh's riding association.

Small Dead Animals offers a letter written by Jim Holt, president of the Conservative Newton – North Delta riding association, to Terry Milewski of the CBC. The letter points out many facts that were overlooked when the CBC reported its hit piece and shows copies of the chques in question.

Firstly, we have a Mr. Kandola, who gave a donation of $200. He did receive a proper receipt and his contribution appears in the Elections Canada records.

Then there is the claim of Mr. Dhahan who attended a political dinner for Mr. Grewal back in December of 2003. Mr. Dhahan also happens to be a good friend of liberal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh. The $600 cheque he wrote may have been made out to Gurmant Grewal, but if you look at the endorsement it was not cashed. Rather, it was signed over to The Grand Taj Hall in Surrey to help pay for dinner.

The next person mentioned by the CBC was Mr. Mann who wrote two separate cheques. He is also a very good friend of Ujjal Dosanjh, who, when the story broke about Mr. Grewal taping liberals breaking the law and offering bribes, called Mr. Grewal to voice his displeasure. Mr. Mann’s first cheque for $600 also cleared the same way as Mr. Dhahan’s. It was signed over to The Grand Taj Hall to pay for dinner. Mr. Mann’s second cheque for $1,800 was made out to the campaign of Mr. Grewal’s wife in June of 2004. Gurmant’s wife Nina is also a Conservative MP. That cheque clearly shows it was properly endorsed by the Registered Agent for Nina Grewal, and deposited to the EDA account.

The last cheque that was mentioned in the CBC story was a cheque for $1,000 made out by Imperial Plumbing and this one seems to be a mystery. It is worth noting that the cheque was cashed but it was never endorsed on the back. The cheque seems to have been cleared at the Khalsa Credit Union the same day it was drawn. Equally baffling is the fact the item was processed at a branch of that credit union about 20 miles from where the cheque was prepared. Even more baffled is the fact that the date the transaction(s) occurred Mr. Grewal was in Ottawa, and either in his office, or in the House of Commons.

The liberal mainstream media loves to assassinate the character of Conservative politicians, but bloggers are now here to set the record straight.

99 Comments:

At 8:38 AM, Blogger Bill said...

Yes, the media is being used as a character assassination tool against liberal opponents. They are willing accomplices to the Librano$, probably because of their dependence on funding from the government.

But the really scary thing is that the RCMP is also being used as a tool by the Librano$ regime against their political opponents.

These things supposedly only happen in third-world nations and banana republics!

 
At 7:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We aren't far from a dictatorship.

Like a Mad Max film, I can see in Canada's future Liberal stongmen driving from town to town, pollling station to polling station in Toyota 4X4s -- like those used in Somalia by the warlords -- complete with mounted machine guns in the back, all to make sure the people vote for the "natural governing party."

 
At 8:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree about the RCMP.

Every time the RCMP was asked to explain the slow rate of progress of their investigations into the former PM, it was always the same reply – we are still investigating (even as years and years went by).

During Question Period, Chertien seemed so calm – even cocky and over confident – when explaining to the opposition that on all matters related to his business dealings, he had confidence in the RCMP’s investigations.

Years went by with nothing from the RCMP.

And then in 2004 we learn from Sheila Fraser’s report that the RCMP themselves were receiving illegal monies from Adscam. Gee, how convenient. I wonder why they seemed to be dragging their heels in the investigations of Chretien. Hmm, I guess we now know why.

Remember when the head of the bank that initially refused the loan to a guy with a criminal record – the money which would ultimately be approved and would wind up in Chretien’s pocket – had his home raided by the RCMP, and that one member of that raid was a former member of Jean Chretien’s personal security detail?

Frightening!

And to make matters worse, the RCMP announced the arrest of Chuck Guite just a day before (could have been 2 days before, someone will have to correct me on that) Paul Martin called the 2004 election. And this came after Liberal Jean Lapierre said in an interview that it would improve Liberal fortunes in any election if the RCMP would arrest someone – anyone – in the Adscam affair to, in effect, have a fall guy.

The RCMP certainly acted quickly there, didn’t they? And for the Liberals – the very party that was dolling out illegal monies to the RCMP – the timing couldn’t have been better.

Canadians need to wake up to what’s going on! It’s one thing to have the media shilling for the governing Liberals. It’s another thing completely when it’s our “state police” that’s doing it.

When the RCMP launches probes into Liberal party activity -- activity that could damage Liberal election fortunes -- the RCMP are very deliberate in their investigations. But when an arrest is needed to help Liberal fortunes, the RCMP act decisively.

In that sense, everything goes like clockwork…

A clockwork orange.

 
At 10:25 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"We aren't far from a dictatorship."

A dictatorship? Do you know the meaning of that word?

 
At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I sure do ... I lived in Somalia 13 years ago.

- Foul al Kanadia

 
At 11:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry, that was Fouk al Kanadia

 
At 11:57 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

And are you saying that Canada is becoming like Somalia 13 years ago?

 
At 8:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was being facetious, of course.

Um, yes, I was being serious about Toyota 4X4s being driven by Liberal party operatives carrying machine guns. Give your head a shake!

Isn’t it the left that always accuses the right of being anal-retentive?

The Liberals wouldn’t be riding in Toyota 4X4s, don’t be silly! No, they would be riding in those cheap converted VW’s they have provided for our soldiers in Afghanistan. You know the ones that blow to smithereens when running over an aerosol can?

Actually the Liberals wouldn’t be in those, either. If Chretien’s purchase of two new jets was any example (a purchase that the government’s own department made recommendations against, but the dictator went over their heads) then the Liberals would purchase for themselves the best thing on the market. Our soldiers? Who cares about them! Our military (and coast guard) can ride around in toys, leaking submarines that have less value than a submarine sandwich, fly in decrepit 4o-year-old helicopters that have a 24:1 maintenace to flight hour ratio, and jets that have parts falling off them in flight over fans attending motor sports events (Toronto Molson Indy).

For the Liberals, spending an extra billion on the military is not a practical long-term solution ... spending a billion on the CBC to tell us that out military is fine is much more effective (deceptive).


In all seriousness though, yes, we are increasingly moving towards a dictatorship.

Paul Martin’s commitment to address the so-called “democratic deficit” is insincere precisely because the electoral system as it currently stands benefits the Liberal Party.

I like to use the 1997 election to make my point because it’s the best way to demonstrate how the Liberals can run a country with a phony majority.

Back in 1997, there were 301 seats in parliament. In the election that year, the Liberals got 155 seats – 4 over a majority. But if you break down the numbers, you’ll see how the entire system is flawed and needs to be reformed – a system that has benefited the Liberals for the past 12 years.

Of the 155 seats the Liberals won, the Liberals won 101 of the 103 (98.1%) seats in Ontario. That means that of the remaining 198 seats in Canada, only 54 (27.3%) went to the Liberals.

Imagine, 9 of 10 provinces and 2 territories collectively handing the Liberals a paltry 27.3% of the seats in parliament and yet being DICTATED to!

That would be like a U.S. president being elected by winning only 1 of every 10 states (5 of the 50 states) with a collective total of about 1/3 of the population. It ain’t gonna happen!

Our system is flawed and the Liberals – because they benefit from the way it currently works – will not be the party to change it.

 
At 9:19 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Mulroney's Conservatives seemed to have benefitted from the system as well didn't they when they were elected? Is it only unfair when the Liberals are in power? That's how our system works - one vote, one person. It's not the Liberals fault that Ontario and Quebec have more people.

I just can't believe someone who has seen a dictatorship would even imply that Canada is headed down that road. We have a democracy and you just don't like the outcome of that democracy. If the Conservatives were in charge you would have no problem with the way it was run.

Yes the Liberals have made many mistakes, but didn't Mulroney? The problem is that Canadians don't see an alternative to the Liberals because Harper has presented a vision for Canada that people don't believe in except for those in the west. Quebec isn't buying it and neither is Ontario and since they have the majority of people in this country (or close to it), they will ultimatley decide who is elected. Harper was giving a golden chance with this scandal and he dropped the ball. How else do you explain the Liberals lead increasing since all this took place?

I know that conservatives want to believe that Grewal is innocent, but he isn't. Did the Liberals try to bring him aboard. No doubt. But who made the first call? We don't know that. And if the Conservatives were in that same position they would have done the same thing. It's politics. It's dirty. Grewal tried to get a piece of the pie and something didn't work out. So he went to the media and then he was sent home by Harper because he was embarassing himself as well as the party.

And before people call me a Liberal apologist I have never in my life voted for them and probably never will. I think they have made huge mistakes while in office but I am willing to take that over Harper's vision as I do not agree with his social policies.

 
At 12:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Accusing me of supporting the current system if the Conservatives were in power is complete nonsense!

I am a person driven by principle and conviction!

I support – and always have – reforming the system, regardless of which party benefits. In fact, I think democracy is best served in a two party system because it would ensure true majorities. And under such a system, it’s the Conservatives, not the Liberals, who would be hurt because votes for the NDP would end up going to the Liberals.

Unlike people like you, I am willing to make changes to a system that would end up hurting my party’s chances of getting elected, at least in the short term.

I don’t throw my principals aside, doing political calculations in my head, and wouldn’t justify a broken system in the event it benefited my party’s election chances.

I am thinking about the country’s long-term future – first and foremost! I am made of better stuff than those of the lib-left, which accept a system that breeds corruption and rot!

And what proof do I have that I’m made of better stuff than those who vote Liberal? (On that note, I have some respect for the NDP, because at least they stand for something. Unlike the Liberals – who stand for nothing and yet, paradoxically, everything at the same time -- they have a core set of guiding principles. And I can respect that.)

In both ’84 and ’88, I voted for Mulroney, but after the Meech Lake debacle (and later Charlottetown), I decided I had had enough. I was disappointed with how something as fundamental as a nation’s Constitution was being treated like a deck of playing cards around a poker table (even though I do not like the Constitution in its current form.)

I was disappointed with Mulroney and what my party had become – what all parties become after being in power too long.

In the 1993 election, I helped vote my party out by not voting at all (I didn’t vote Reform because I just didn’t have enough information at that time. I certainly would never vote Liberal. Never have, never will either.)

My family and friends (most of whom are Liberal) would say to me, “I know it’s tough, but it’s for the best that your party must go. They have become corrupted. And in fact, you’ll be doing them a favour, because by sending them into the proverbial corner for a time out, you will be teaching them a lesson, and they will come back having learned a lesson, and the party will be better for it, becoming more accountable to you, knowing that you – their core type constituent – will not be taken advantage of.”

I was proud of myself, even though my party had been thoroughly trounced at the polls, being reduced from majority status to a meager 2 seats.

Now (last year, 11 years later) I asked those very same people to return the favour, to show consistency and to stand on principle and to vote out the party they supported in the ’93, ’97 and 2000 election – the Liberal Party – for the very same reasons. That being a party that has become corrupted from being in power too long.

Ah, but the favour would not be returned. Instead, excuses like “They’re all corrupt” and, my personal favourite, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” were trotted out by the very same people who convinced me in ’93 that I was doing the right thing. In retrospect, their arguments were all lies, arguments that served as nothing but a Trojan horse to achieve their objective – which was to get out a party for reasons other than having become corrupted.

That, more than anything, exposes the hypocrisy of those on the left who vote Liberal.

I am proud of who I am. I am proud of being on the right. I am proud that I am consistent.

 
At 12:48 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"I don’t throw my principals aside, doing political calculations in my head, and wouldn’t justify a broken system in the event it benefited my party’s election chances."

Your right I made an assumption. My apologies.

And I should point out that I do not vote Liberal. I have always voted Green and will continue to do so.

I don't necesarily think that our system is broken. It has its faults but all democratic systems do. The two party system in the U.S. is totally unfair as it assumes that everyone will follow one of the two ideologies (which are so close you can hardly see the differences). And the 2000 U.S. election showed what a gong show they have down there.

Do the Liberals deserve a time out? Probably, but it will not happen unless the Conservatives A) Get a new Leader and B) become more centrist in their social platform. Ontario and Quebec are both left leaning provinces and will never support Harper's social agenda. Just my 2 cents.

 
At 3:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Green Party? Yes, that’s what we need. We need more parties in our parliament to create even more bickering and deadlock. Is there really that much difference between the NDP and the Green Party? Maybe we should have two Green Party’s, maybe even three. Maybe two Conservative parties like we did a few years ago. Maybe we can have two New Democratic parties as well. Who knows, if were lucky, in a decade from now, will have a dozen political parties in parliament.

Democracy is NOT best served by having all these parties in parliament. You may think it is, but it’s not.

I would like to see runoff elections that would take place a week after the initial election and would be held in those ridings where no candidate got 50+1% of the vote total. The run off would take place between the top two candidates. The others would be dropped from the ballot.

You can’t argue that such a system is undemocratic because the people are given the opportunity to choose the Green Party, the NDP, etc. and didn’t do so as a majority. So we move to the next stage and that is to have a process in which the top finisher is guaranteed to get 50 + 1% of the votes cast.

I know such a system would hurt parties like yours, but it’s better for democracy to ensure that any candidate elected truly has the moral authority to speak in parliament on behalf of his/her constituents, at least in terms of the votes casts (maybe people like you on the second ballot would choose neither candidate. That would be unfortunate, but it would be your choice).

I think it’s awful that we can have a candidate elected in a riding with 35-36% support. And by adding the Green Party into the mix (and likely more parties in the future), you’re only going to succeed in lowering the threshold by which a candidate can be elected. That hurts, not helps democracy.

Who knows? Maybe 20 years from now, with all the parties will probably have in parliament, all that will be needed to win a riding is 25% of all votes cast.

Yeah! Having 75% of the people voting against a candidate (that is in effect is what they are doing when they choose to vote for someone else) and yet having that person they voted against (and the vast majority voted against) represent them in parliament is absolutely appalling!

As it relates to the Conservatives’ need for a more “centrist” social policy and that Ontario won’t support Harper’s social agenda, which social policies and agenda are you referring to? It’s interesting to see how you gave no examples.

I know, the Conservatives have a scary “hidden agenda,” right? What the left is saying is: “Show me what you say you aren’t hiding and I’ll believe it’s not hidden.”

How does Harper show you what he says he doesn’t have? It’s asking someone to disprove a negative. It’s a paradoxical argument by the left – one that’s by design in that it's objective is to plant the seed of suspicion in the public's mind. And with the mainstream media being anti-conservative, this has been a rather effective strategy on part of the left.

Do you mean the party’s non-existent policy to ban abortion? Is that what you are referring to?

And what exactly do you mean by “centrist” social policy. You mean like same-sex marriage? Since when did support for same-sex marriage become mainstream, moderate and a centrist position to take?

This just points out the brazen arrogance of the left and the assumptions they make about what the public supports – taking radically leftist ideas (such as gay marriage) and trying to spin them as centrist ideas that are supported by most Canadians. What nonsense!

 
At 10:37 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

The problem with only allowing 2 parties, or having 2 party run-offs, is that in the end many voters might not find any connection to either of those 2 parties. So who are they to vote for? Do they just cast a vote for the heck of it? The reason we have so many parties is because there is a diversity of opinion and ideology in Canada - we should not limit that. Democracy isn't defined as 50% + 1, but as the person with the most votes wins. The U.S. model is not something to envy as both parties have been co-opted by big business and leave little room for people with alternative ideologies.

And same sex marriage is radically left? Polls show consistently that between 40 and 50% of Canadians support it That makes it radical? Yikes. I didn't realize equality was radical.

As for social policy, I can name 3 - ssm, enviornment and Aboriginal Rights. The Conservatives have spoken out against all 3.

 
At 11:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Democracy isn't defined as 50% plus 1, but as the person with the most votes wins"

You still have not clued-in to what a democracy is.

Your defintion is FALSE.

You cannot prove otherwise.

Frank.

 
At 1:01 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Am I sure that you are more than willing to share then, so why don't you?

 
At 1:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Totally ludicrous.

I have already provided you with the defintion of 'democracy', from authoratative voices. We won't do that again.

You continually argue a case for a 'liberal democracy'.

There is a huge difference.

Take a lesson in Greek, if the world's dictionaries aren't enough for you.

You are pushing a lie on us.

A blatant lie.

The debate only continues if you can prove otherwise.

Which you can't.

Frank.

 
At 2:18 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Your act gets old Frank. Really old.

 
At 2:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stay on track, Peter.

Please advise on any contradictory evidence, regarding the definiton of 'democracy'.

Then I'll owe you an apology.

Frank.

 
At 2:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and when did the truth, become an act?....

Incredible.

Frank.

 
At 4:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marriage is not a right; it’s a value, an institution, in spite of what our activist Supreme Court says. Same-sex marriage is not about equality.

If “one man to one women” is unconstitutional, then certainly the number “two” is as well.

The last poll I saw showed a virtual 3-way split, with approximately 1/3 supporting same-sex marriage, 1/3 supporting something less, such as civil unions, and 1/3 being opposed to any change whatsoever.

The CBC, for example, spun the poll, suggesting that only 1/3 oppose same-sex marriage. This characterization was highly deceptive, since it left the impression with the viewer that 2/3 are in support of the Liberal legislation – now law – as it stands.

As for the issue of what constitutes a democracy, I believe it isn’t merely who gets the most votes wins. Democracy – to me at least – is when the elected representative has gotten at least 50 + 1% of the total votes cast.

By raising the bar – which is what you are doing by having the threshold at 50 + 1% -- you are instilling more accountability in the system by setting a higher standard at which a candidate needs in order to win; as well, they have a true mandate in such a system.

The U.S. system is far superior to British parliamentary democracy. There is simply no comparison. There are more checks and balances and more overall accountability. If Adscam happened in the U.S., the party responsible, and the president if he were involved, would be held accountable and would be dealt with accordingly, unlike in Canada.

 
At 4:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I'm the author of the last blog and I forgot to include my name. It's Marilyn Fawlty.

 
At 5:04 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

No Frank, your act is to believe that you have a monopoly on the truth.

Your defintion of democracy is the people of the country. Well, the people of the country spoke up and the Liberals won a minority. As I stated before your defintion is extremely limited. We live in a liberal democracy in Canada. We have majority rules with protection for minority rights (the Charter). Nowhere in your defintion does it state that democracy equals 50% plus 1. But then again, I am stupid and illiterate (according to you) so that might be my problem.

So what did I say wrong this time?

 
At 5:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, we are a liberal democracy in Canada. You are stating the obvious. But why are you using that to advocate the status quo?

On your point about being “stupid and illiterate,” you make a good point there, one that I cannot argue with.

- Marilyn Fawlty.

 
At 5:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The defintion of 'democracy' is NOT MINE.

Missing that point is your defiency.

What you talk about is a 'liberal democracy'....and that's what we have.

The proper defintion says nothing about 50% plus 1 (how anal). It speaks of a majority, which implies anything between that and 100%.

Don't the lies of your liberal dogma disgust you?

 
At 5:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The defintion of 'democracy' is NOT MINE.

Missing that point is your defiency.

What you talk about is a 'liberal democracy'....and that's what we have.

The proper defintion says nothing about 50% plus 1 (how anal). It speaks of a majority, which implies anything between that and 100%.

Don't the lies of your liberal dogma disgust you?

 
At 5:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The defintion of 'democracy' is NOT MINE.

Missing that point is your defiency.

What you talk about is a 'liberal democracy'....and that's what we have.

The proper defintion says nothing about 50% plus 1 (how anal). It speaks of a majority, which implies anything between that and 100%.

Don't the lies of your liberal dogma disgust you?

 
At 5:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the post above.

Frank.

 
At 5:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow!....how'd I get 3!....3 posts in one.

I feel like a Cert breath mint.

Frank.

 
At 6:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's the hypocrisy of the lib-left for you.

The NDP always say that the Conservatives don't speak for Canadains -- this from a party that gets around 15% support and has 6.2% (19 of 308) of the seats in parliament.

Peter supports the Green Party, whose leader, Jim Harris, also made the same claim.

The left's view on what does and doesn't constitute a majority shifts depending on whether or not it benefits them.

The proof of that is in Ontario where I live.

In 1990, the NDP -- offically endorsed by the labour unions -- received about 37% and formed a majority gov't. All its supporters, including CUPE president (at the time) Sid Ryan said,"That's the way our democracy works."

But years later, Sid Ryan claimed that Tory premier Mike Harris' mandate was illegitimate because, as Ryan put it, “If you total the votes of the NDP and the Liberals and combine them, 55% of Ontarians voted against Harris.”

There’s the consistency in argument by the left for you.

 
At 6:31 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"The proper defintion says nothing about 50% plus 1 (how anal). It speaks of a majority, which implies anything between that and 100%

Don't the lies of your liberal dogma disgust you?"

No, you are interpreting it as 50% plus 1. I am interpreting that it means the people of a country decide who will rule (which they did). Again, you assert so over-whelmingly that you are right and I am wrong. I am starting to see a pattern here Frank.

"The left's view on what does and doesn't constitute a majority shifts depending on whether or not it benefits them."

Yes because the actions of one liberal reflect us all. And the actions and words of Jim Pankiw reflect the attitudes of all right wingers correct?

 
At 6:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

50 + 1% constitutes a majority -- plain and simple!

Aren't leftists suppose to be "progressive" in their thinking? Don't you want to see a reform of the system that seeks true majority mandates from the people? How can you intelligently argue that a party that receives, let's say 37% of the popular vote collectively in the 308 ridings and forms a "majority" government is a good system but one that seeks 50 +1% from each and every riding is undemocratic?

You people on the left seem to have an odd view of what does and doesn't constitute majorities and what a proper democracy should be.

Your argument for maintaining the status quo is because under such a system, the Green Party could, conceivably, get maybe 5-10 seats in the next election. It's for purely selfish motivations that you support the status quo.

My party -- the conservative party -- does not benefit under the 50 + 1% rule because NDP votes will undoubtedly go to the Liberals in a run off between the Liberals and Conservatives.

This proves that unlike you, I advocate such a reform not to benefit the party I support, but to ensure that there is a true mandates from the people.

 
At 7:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pattern Peter?

The only pattern is in you're doing so poorly in debate, because of skewed facts.

In theory you support a system that may furnish an unlimited supply of political parties, whereby an eventual winner of an election,(in theory)can garner even less than 10 or 20%.

You undermine democracy,and sow the seeds of civil unrest with your way of thinking.

Frank.

 
At 7:08 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

I want the government to reflect the people. Having just two parties, as I have said before, limits peoples choices in my opinion. What if I don't like either of the candidates? Do I just not vote, or do I throw my vote at someone just to vote? How is that fair? Canada is a diverse place and as a result, the parties should reflect that diversity. Democracies must reflect the will of the people. I think we can all agree with that. I hope someone responds to this because its the third time I've posted it.

"How can you intelligently argue that a party that receives, let's say 37% of the popular vote collectively in the 308 ridings and forms a "majority" government is a good system but one that seeks 50 +1% from each and every riding is undemocratic?"

I never said that the U.S. system is undemocratic. I also find it interesting how you framed the debate - there is no way I can provide an intelligent response in your opinion. Why even bother being here if you think that only you are intelligent? Whats the point?

"Your argument for maintaining the status quo is because under such a system, the Green Party could, conceivably, get maybe 5-10 seats in the next election. It's for purely selfish motivations that you support the status quo."

Yes I do want them to get some seats because I believe that they have a lot to offer in terms of sustainability issues and the enviornment. I want my views to be reflected in my government. How is that selfish? Isn't that what democracy is?

 
At 7:13 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"The only pattern is in you're doing so poorly in debate, because of skewed facts."

Frank, you are to predictable. Your constant need to reassure yourself that you are "winning" is very telling. Have you ever been wrong?

"You undermine democracy,and sow the seeds of civil unrest with your way of thinking."

I undermine democracy by advocating for the government to represent the people? Interesting.

 
At 7:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Frank.

Hypothetically, if -- let's advance 20 years in Canada's future -- there are 12 parties in parliament, is Peter suggesting that it would be good for democracy to have the majority party winning 155+ ridings across Canada where the collective average of the votes cast for that party is 20%?

Give your head a shake Peter!

 
At 7:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What if I don't like either of the candidates? Do I just not vote, or do I throw my vote at someone just to vote?" says Peter.

The people have a chance to give your party a "true mandate" in the first vote. If you can't get it, tough! And you know what? If my party can't get it, then tough for me also!

 
At 7:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What would you say, Peter, if a real extremist right-wing conservative party (you see them that way now, i'm sure) came to power 20 years from now on a 20% vote and began to do all kinds of nasty things you didn't like? Would you continue to advocate the status quo, knowing that 80% collectively did not vote for the governing party?

Under my system (50 + 1%) this would mean that only the voting public would be to blame. Under your system, 80% of the public would be at the whim of the other 20%. Tyranny of the minority!

 
At 7:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wrong Peter.

You would likely vote liberal. You would do so because they lean in your direction. The reason they don't fully lean in your direction, is a matter of numbers....which still aren't on your side, even within a liberal forum.

If your 'issues' can't get attention from either the 'left' or 'right'.....you are in a minority position.

Why would you need a political party to represent a 'niche' issue?

I don't believe that you've been quoted on the American system of Gov't....It looks like a comparison between 'us' and 'them'.

Consider re-reading that passage.

It's all fine and well that your concerns lay with the environment. Elevating your level of concern over the majority, and the expectation of implenting policy is the problem.

Niche groups don't rule in a democracy. They are free to educate the public, and grow their ranks.

What's unfair about that, Peter?

The legitimacy of your 'cause' can only rise with a swelling of rank and file.

What you prefer, seems arguably.....selfish.

Frank.

 
At 7:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, and most pundits, left and right, have argued that before the merger of the PC's with the Canadians Alliance, the Liberals won many seats (most in battleground Ontario where elections are won and lost) by vote splitting.

Now, Peter, imagine if the PC's were 3rd place finishers in the first round. They'd be dropped from the ballot and those votes could go to the Conservatives (many, though, would go to the Liberals -- pink Tories who voted for the "Clark Party" in 1997 and 2000).

Again, if my party lost in the second round -- if those pinko Ontarian Tories went with the Liberals -- then I would accept the result. My interest first and foremost is seeing 50 +1% in EACH and EVERY riding across Canada.

 
At 7:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's all fine and well that your concerns lay with the environment. Elevating your level of concern over the majority, and the expectation of implenting policy is the problem."

Kudos to Frank. That was an excellent point.

I like to use an anolgy to point out the hypocrisy of the leftist position on the issue of Kyoto (a policy Peter undoubtedly supports) and same-sex marriage, and to do so let me use the CBC's Evan Solomon to make my point.

In an interview Solomon had with a U.S. Republican congressman, he said, "With most of the world being in support of Kyoto and the U.S. opposed, doesn't this clearly show the the U.S. is out of step on this issue?"

To Solomon I ask, "With most of the world being opposed to same-sex marriage (save for 4 countries), doesn't this show that Canada is out of step on this issue?"

That's the left for you: inconsistent in their arguments.

 
At 8:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good point, Anonymous. (got a name of ANY kind?)

Frank.

 
At 9:30 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

I actually would want a government that gives seats based on percentage of the vote (like they considered in a referendum in B.C.). If the Green Party gets 6% of the vote, they get 6% of the seats. If the Conservatives get 32% of the vote, they get 32% of the seats. This way you get a true democracy (as in a government for the people).

Yes you might get some "scary" parties on both sides of the spectrum that might get one or two seats, but that's fine - if that's the will of the people I would rather know about it. Heck I had to sit through 2 terms with Jim Pankiw as my MP. We can't control what the will of the people is in a democracy, that's what makes them great.

Your scary slippery slope argument is irrelevant because our democracy has been alive for 138 years and we still only have 4 main parties. When we get to 14, lets revisit it.

"It's all fine and well that your concerns lay with the environment. Elevating your level of concern over the majority, and the expectation of implenting policy is the problem."

Who says that I am elevating my concerns over the majority? I simply said that I like the current system because it allows for a multitude of views. With only two parties in power you are limited to two ideologies and view points. I find that limiting. You do not. I get the point. The great thing about our system is that smaller parties can effect change by getting a few seats and introducing legislation into the HoC. I will never expect the Greens to win an election, but if they can get a seat or two, maybe they will be able to effect change by bringing new, and needed, ideas to the debates currently on going. What's wrong with that? Lobbying groups only have so much power. Seats are what is needed to bring change.

"I like to use an anolgy to point out the hypocrisy of the leftist position on the issue of Kyoto (a policy Peter undoubtedly supports) and same-sex marriage, and to do so let me use the CBC's Evan Solomon to make my point."

Who says I support Kyoto? Because I'm a liberal? Thats right and you support the killing of abortion doctors because some right wingers do. Give me a break. I actually think that Kyoto goes nowhere near where we need to go. Plus, without the U.S. Kyoto is useless. I would prefer much broader cuts across the board by all nations, with the west taking the lead (as we have inflicted the majority of the damage). But I'm glad that you have me all figured out in your tidy little stereotype. it must make your little black and white world much more simpler.

As for the two tiered vote thing, I think the system has its merits but what about this. If you have 5 parties, 2 get about 20-30% of the vote and then have a run off, don't you have the same problem as you seem to think we have now? Yes in the end the ruling party wiill have 50% plus 1, but they will still only have real support from 20-30% of the population (as that is all who really supports them). So instead of having a party of the majority, you simply have a ruling party of 20-30% of the people plus others who had no choice to vote for them or the other party.

 
At 10:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Your scary slippery slope argument is irrelevant because our democracy has been alive for 138 years and we still only have 4 main parties. When we get to 14, lets revisit it.”

By the point above is what you are saying that you could conceive of a point where you, Peter, would say that such a system is flawed? If, let’s say, in 2025 (and for the sake of argument, the parliament still had 308 seats) that if the Green Party, with, let’s say, 30 seats in parliament, was in a position where, with many parties in parliament (let’s say a dozen), a majority party (155+seats but with only 25% of the popular vote because of the ammount of parties in parliamnent) was governing “irresponsibly” that you’d be open to the changes as I propose? Well, why wait? If you’re ackowledging that the system is flawed to such an extend that it could allow such a thing to happen in the first place, then why not change it now before it gets to that point?

The matching proportions propsoal you suggest – popular vote being tied to the seats received – is at least a slight deviation from your support of the status quo you have been defending up until this point (don't you have a solid position? You keep changing positions where as I have remained consistent), but it doesn’t seem workable since you’re dealing with ridings with great discrepancies in population.For example, a riding in Toronto could have 100,000 total votes where as one in rural Saskathewan would have only 1000 total votes and yet both represent a single seat in parliament. So it’s unlclear how your idea would work.

On the other issue: Who says you support Kyoto? C’mon, Peter! Now you’re just being dishonest! (but in that regard you’re on the left so you’re being true to your “principles” of dishonesty.)

The Green Party – and all who suppport it – endorse the Kyoto Accord. If you don’t, you have to be the only supporter of that party that doesn’t.

The bottom line, Peter, is that 50 + 1% constitutes a true majority. And if we can get that in all 308 ridings, deomcracy will be better fo it.I can argue ‘til Im blue in the face on that point but you just don’t seem to get it.

 
At 10:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And another point on the Green Party. Jim Harris argued that it was undemocratic to exclude him from the televison debates.

The reason for the Green Party's exclusion was that they did not have a seat in parliament. I beelive this reason for their exclusion to be entirely legitimate.

Harris' argument was that the Green Party should have been there because in "polls" it had received 5% of support.

First of all, polls are unscientific. Secondly, what is Jim Harris suggesting the minimum be for a party's inclusion in the televised debates? 5%? Why that as the minimum? Because that's what the Green Party polled?

If your argument is that more voices are better, then, for that sake of consistency, woudn't you have to argue that all the other parties -- Communist Party, Marxist-Leninist Party, Marijuana Party, etc. -- should be included in the debates? Or are you and Mr. Harris the ones to set the minimum by which other parties should be invited?

Hmmm. Didn't you say that the more parties represented -- the more diversity in opinions heard -- would be better? Or is there a limit to that, a limit which is set by you, Peter?

 
At 11:10 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:12 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"By the point above is what you are saying that you could conceive of a point where you, Peter, would say that such a system is flawed?"

No I wouldn't. If there were 14 major political parties in Canada then it would be a sign that there is something seriously amiss in our country (namely that we could support 14 major political parties). Is this a function of the political system? No. It's a function of society. Protest parties will always arise regardless of the system if the circumstances are right.

The Reform Party was created because people felt that the major political parties did not represent their interests. The same for the Parti Quebecois. If there were 14 major political parties in Canada it would tell us that people in this country are greatly divided. If people are divided so greatly, don't they deserve a say in the people who run their government? Under your system, there could still be 14 major parties and the 2 parties that go on to the same round could have only garnered 10-15% of the vote in the first round. Is it fair to allow these people who have recieved so little support nationally to then form a majority government of 50% plus 1?

This system also has it benefits because it would force groups to work together for the good of the country rather than the good of the party. It would be interesting to say the least.

"(don't you have a solid position? You keep changing positions where as I have remained consistent)"

Here's the funny thing. You assumed that I was defending the status quo because you were so busy talking. I know your position because I have listened. I was defending the current system against yours because I think what you propose is limiting. The current system is less limiting. The vote by percentage is the least limiting as it accurately reflects the will of the voter. And what if I do change positions? Aren't we allowed to grow and re-think our position after we are provided with new information? Isn't that a sign of maturity (rather than sticking to one position and never changing regardless of the facts).

"The Green Party – and all who suppport it – endorse the Kyoto Accord. If you don’t, you have to be the only supporter of that party that doesn’t."

I support Kyoto to the extent that at least its a good start. As I said, I think we need to go far beyond Kyoto, but it is better than the status quo. My point was that we can't stick people into little stereoypes and assume that we know what they support. I support the Green Party because at least they are willing to talk about sustainability. Who else, other than maybe Layton, is willing to do that?

"I can argue ‘til Im blue in the face on that point but you just don’t seem to get it."

Why is it so important that I agree with you? Why can't people respectfully disagree with each other?

"If your argument is that more voices are better, then, for that sake of consistency, woudn't you have to argue that all the other parties -- Communist Party, Marxist-Leninist Party, Marijuana Party, etc. -- should be included in the debates? Or are you and Mr. Harris the ones to set the minimum by which other parties should be invited?

Hmmm. Didn't you say that the more parties represented -- the more diversity in opinions heard -- would be better? Or is there a limit to that, a limit which is set by you, Peter"

Sure invite them all. Those debates need some livening up. You already know what the stiffs are going to say and they don't listen to each other so why not allow more participants to come in and challenge the big 4 on what they think they know. I am still dissapointed that Nader didn't get to participate in the U.S. debates back in 2000. I would have loved to have seen Bush and Nader go toe to toe.

And I'm not the one trying to limit anything. You are.

 
At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter.

You're flawlessly consistent in your need to get 'the last word', in every debate you partake in.

Who really needs to be right?

You.

That's why you're here, and that's why you'll keep coming back.

Frank.

 
At 12:39 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

I was replying to the questions presented to me. How is that trying to get the last word?

Or is this just another way to avoid engaging the questions I posed?

 
At 12:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello...

My name is Peter and I need help...

I'm a liberaloholic

 
At 12:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter is the kinda guy that will support any system - even a flawed undemocratic one such as our own - as long as it gives his party the chance to win a few measly seats, even when the combined vote totals go against him.

He has a twisted vew of Mathematics where 35 is a higher number - and in a political context carries more weight - than the number 51.

He's the kind of guy that, if you compete against him and win, he will, like a child, say, "Okay, best 2 out of 3, best 3 out of 5," and so on, until he wins.

 
At 12:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He thinks "all" parties (he hasn't defined what "all" means) should have been invited to the 2004 televised debates.

What if I register my own political Party? Should I be allowed at the televised debates? Or do you decide, Peter, who participates and who doesn't?

Imagine the logistics of trying to moderate a shouting match (which is what the TV debates end up being) with a dozen political parties on the stage ... well, 13 parties because mine will be there too (thank you, Peter).

Heck, let's open the door to everyone. We'll have 40 podiums set and because of the limited TV time and the amount of questions, each leader will be limited to giving a 5 second reply.

 
At 1:00 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Wow. You guys have me all figured out. What a joke. Debate the issues guys and quit the personal attacks. I posed several questions in my post and replied to some of your concerns. Why can't you just stick to that rather than posting inflamatory statements about me personally? How does that help?

 
At 1:03 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

I'm just not sure why you guys are interested in limiting democracy. You say that I get to pick and choose who gets invited, but in fact you are the one's doing it. Why not allow more than the big 4 to the debates? They are useless anyways. How many people actually watch them anyway? I would sure tune in knowing that the leaders of some of smaller parties could go head to head with the big 4.

 
At 1:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PETER WILL BE SHISH-KEBOBED BY THIS...

Peter, in the fight to see who gets to be leader of a party (and this includes the Green Party), many candidates compete and if there is no clear “winner”, meaning 50 + 1%, then another vote is taken after the last place finisher is dropped from the second ballot. And this continues until someone gets over 50%.

Are you arguing that this process is unfair, Peter? Are you saying that if there are 5 leadership candidates that whoever has the highest total after the first ballot(35% let’s say) that he/she should become leader of that party, or would you say that he/she would not have a proper mandate from the delegates?

You either have to say that the person with the highest total on the first ballot (again, 35% let’s say) should be leader of the party, or you must acknowledge your own hypocrisy and say that you believe in one form of democracy for the selection of a leader and another for the voting public at large.

 
At 1:18 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Here's the big difference. People in a party tend to follow the same ideological line (Green, Liberal, Conservative etc..) while in an election you get people from all over the political spectrum. You are comparing apples and oranges.

If you support one candidate in your party and they do not move on, it is probably not a huge ideological jump to then support another candidate within that same party. It is a much bigger deal if you vote Green and are then forced to chose between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

 
At 1:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many Candidates have different views, positions and the general direction they want to take the party (Need I remind you of former Conservative candidate Belinda Stronach and the positions she had?)

No, Peter. That is not going to work. You have just been exposed for the hypocrite you are.

 
At 1:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember David Orchard?

Orchard was a candidate for the PC party before it's merger with the Canadian Alliance.

Are you arguing, Peter, that Orchard's ideology was in line with other Conservatives? C'mon, Peter! Give your head a shake!

 
At 1:55 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Orchard's situation was unique because you had two parties merging into one. That was the exception rather than the rule.

And yes, people have differing viewpoints within a party but they generally fall under the same ideology. But of course there will always be exceptions. That is a given. The same cannot be said between two seperate parties.

I think part of the problem here is that you expect me to see things as black or white. I don't. You can call me a hypocrite all you want but from my point of view there is a difference between the two examples. Yes 50 plus one works for a party because they tend to share a common ideological viewpoint. But for me, it doesn't work for a country as diverse as Canada because we all have different interests. Wasn't the Reform party started because they felt that their interests weren't being represented at the time? Does that make them selfish as some of you have called me?

 
At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ANALYZING DODSON

The best way to make sure a majority government is accountable is by ensuring they receive true mandates (50 + 1%) in each and every riding they win.

Dodson doesn’t believe in this principle. He believes in one form of democracy for who leads a political party (a higher threshold thus a higher standard) and another form (a lower standard) for the Canadian people and who ultimately leads their country. Dodson believes in allowing the elected party to govern with impunity, all because he wants to have a handful of Greens in parliament to ask their allotted one question per day.

Classic Dodson. Don't question your government. Do not hold them accountable

 
At 2:14 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Dodson believes in allowing the elected party to govern with impunity, all because he wants to have a handful of Greens in parliament to ask their allotted one question per day."

Doesn't allowing a 50% plus one allow a government to act with impunity since there is no way any of their bills can be defeated? Our current system allows for less impunity. In the current system, the Liberals had to build coalitions with other parties in order to get their bills passed. How is that acting with impunity?

"Classic Dodson. Don't question your government. Do not hold them accountable"

Classic Dodson? How long have you known me? I am all for accountability and questioning government. When have I ever suggested otherwise? Back up your claims please.

 
At 2:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

DODSON’s CANADA 2025
(still 308 seats in parliament)
Where Liberano$, after 12 consecutive majorities
And 32 consecutive years in power (with no end in sight) still govern with impunity.



Seat total/Popular vote

Librano$ 158 (majority)…24%
Tories 77………………………20%
NDP 17.........17%
Bloc 40.........10%
Green Party 9..........7%
Sex Party 4.........3%
Markist-Lenist 3.......2%
Communist 2.........2%
Anti-Gov Party 2.......1%
National Party 1........1%
Clark Party 1..........1%
Anti-Clark Party 1.......1%
Dominion Party 1.......0.7%
Loblaws Party 1.......0.7%
Greener Party 1.......0.5%
Booger Party 1.......0.2%
Les Parti Vert 1..0.0000001%

The numbers don’t quite add up, but you get the point.

 
At 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As you can clearly see, democracy is not served well when looking through Dodson's green-coloured glasses.

 
At 2:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In the current system, the Liberals had to build coalitions with other parties in order to get their bills passed. How is that acting with impunity?" - DODSON

This minority parliament we have is but a blip. The Liberano$, I have no doubt, will be back with a "majority" after the next election.

In fact, you are making the same mistake the PC's made in 1997 and 2000. The Greens will peel away votes from the NDP (vote splitting) and allow Liberano$ candidates to win in ridings where the margins of victory are very close ... where the Liberano$ candidate wins by les than 3% (The NDP could take the seat without the Greens splitting that vote).

Trust me, the Greens are just the tip of the iceberg. Eventually, many years down the line, Canada's parliament will be like that of Italy's.

I would predict that in 10-15 years, it will be possible to form a majority gov't with like 29%.

 
At 2:45 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"DODSON’s CANADA 2025
(still 308 seats in parliament)
Where Liberano$, after 12 consecutive majorities
And 32 consecutive years in power (with no end in sight) still govern with impunity."

No, if you recall I am proposing a system where the number of seats you win is directly related to the percentage of the popular vote you win. So using your example, the Liberals would win 24 seats, etc... You keep assuming I am defending the status quo because I disagree with your idea - this is not the case. I am simply saying that the current system we have is better than the one you are proposing, but the one I favor is the # of votes = % of vote.

And I could care less about vote splitting. The Conservatives and Reform/Alliance split votes for years, but as a result a merger was made and the party is all the stronger for it.

And please, my name is Peter not Dodson. Most people like to be called by their first name and I am one of them. Especially when I do not even know you.

 
At 2:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your proposal for popular vote matching seat total (24% = 24 seats) is imparactical because of ridings' system.

 
At 2:58 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Your proposal for popular vote matching seat total (24% = 24 seats) is imparactical because of ridings' system."

How so? Please expand.

 
At 3:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's impractical for another reason:

In some ridings, Liberals would win by a landslide -- 60%. In others, they would win by slim margins -- like 35%.

If the "national popular vote" totals 24% of for the Liberals and, let's say, the Liberals won in 124 ridings, then which 100 ridings are you going to strip from them in order to put them at 24% = 24 seats?

We have ridings, Peter. Your idea doesn't work.

But you're on the left. You're idological while I am a practical thinker.

 
At 3:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you mean that the Liberals would receive 24% of the 308 seats, then that would mean 78 seats for them. What would you do if they won 124 seats? How would you propose they be cut down to 78? And who would get those seats? The second place finishers? If that’s what you’re proposing then indeed you do believe in tyranny of the minority worse than I had originally thought.

 
At 3:23 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

You are both making an assumption - that a vote per percentage system would work within the current setup. That the only thing that would change is the popular vote overall would equal your number of seats. That is incorrect. The entire system would need to be changed to in order to accomodate this new system. Your system is just an extension of the current system - you are just adding on another round and concentrating even more power into one party.

I will guide you to the BC Citizens Assembly and their recommendation to the B.C. electorate (which just narrowly lost in a referendum).

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/final_report.pdf

 
At 3:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyway, laterz for now.

You gave me a good laugh … you’re a clown.

You’ve inspired me. I am now gonna go start my own political party while this farce of a system of ours is still in place.

I know that under the 50 + 1% system that there would be NO CHANCE to get enough seats for me to implement my scarey, evil, dark “hidden agenda” of mine – even darker than the Conservative Party’s. (I plan on replacing the emission polluting automiobile with an army of Dickie Dee ice cream carts for ALL Canadians as well I plan to make special laws that give me the power to arrest and lock away Celine Dion for … well, for just being Celine.)

Under the current system, there is a chance – albeit slight – that after a few elections, I just may form the government.

 
At 3:38 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Why not respond to what I posted instead of dismissing me as a clown and walking away. Why do you feel the need to belittle me? What does it do for you?

 
At 3:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This oughta teach me for dropping the debate, in favour of earning a pay-cheque.

For the sake of continuity there is not much sense in backing-up too far in this argument.

Peter you did err in thinking that we didn't watch the debates on TV. I watched them all...including our watered-down CDN version. I know of many conservatives, that did likewise.

There is is good reason why our brain has a 'left' and a 'right'.
side....and our political thinking is cut in the same way.

Peter continues to argue for a multitude of political parties, because he thinks it can only enchance a democracy.

Maybe in debate only.

But in practice, all parties on either side of the political sprectrum, will 'fall-in-line' in most cases, when it comes to voting.

It's already happened.

The NDP and the LIBS made a deal, didn't they? It's just that this deal (budget), is more liberal...than liberal. Actually, it's by jubilant admission....an NDP budget.

The NDP didn't have a mandate for this expenditure....but they conivved their way to it, in partial thanks....due to circumstances.

How does this speak for democracy?

Again, just this year......you have the La Belle Bloc, voting almost unanimously for SSM.

How does this speak for democracy?

Family sticks with family.

The Bloc is a 'left' leaning party.
So is the NDP.

The CPC is 'right' leaning....and rightly so, out of the running for the 'let's make a deal' game.

We have a minority Gov't that can wield the authority of majority.

And what kind of majority do you have, with the likes of the BLOC?

They don't even want to be a part of the majority, the want OUT OF CANADA....and they don't hold a seat, or ever will....outside of Quebec.

Yet they decide on our future and policies?

Ludicrous....and that leaves room for malicious intent, whilst on your way 'out the door'.

This is already a mess, that is clearly misreprenstative of the PEOPLE.

QUAGMIRE....chic fashionable word of the 'left', is what you'll certainly have, with 10, or 20.... or 30, political parties.

and on the road to anarchy and civil unrest.

No thanks Peter.

And that's a part of the reason that the American form of democracy.....'constitutional republic', has historically been the most successful form of democracy to date.

Frank.

 
At 3:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to say that I have read much of what has been discussed so far and I agree totally with Peter. I feel he has made the best arguments and I agree with him completelly.

In fact, I think that a lot of changes need to take place. It’s not just about deomcracy and elections, etc. There are a lot of more important issues that need to be dealt with. Like poverty.

In Canada there is too much poverty.

I have a great solution to solve this problem. And no, it wouldn’t make us like Sweden where everyone earns $30,000 annually.

Under my proposal, the government would have the Canadian Mint print billions upon billions (even trillions) of new bank notes. When this has been completed the government would then send one-time $10 million cheques to each and every Canadian citizen -- Like a Publisher’s Clearing House bonanza extravaganza!

This would be great because every Canadian would then become an instant millionaire! No one would be poor! Our problems would be solved!

I know what critics of me and Dodson are going to say: “Yes, but wouldn’t the economy fall apart since everyone would quit their jobs as a result of their new found wealth?”

No. And the reason is simple. Because we are all new millionaires, we would have the financial resources to bring in labour and slaves from overseas, to build our new houses, our new cars, our new boats, etc.

Anyway, think about it people. I think it’s a fantastic idea!

-Dodson Fan

 
At 4:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah!....but who needs cash!

We have trackable debit cards.

Spend wisely!

Frank.

 
At 4:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyway, I'll post just this last thing ... I want to get Frank's opinion on what I posted earler.

Frank, do you agree that this points out the inconsistent position of Peter's?

I wrote.......

Peter, in the fight to see who gets to be leader of a party (and this includes the Green Party), many candidates compete and if there is no clear “winner”, meaning 50 + 1%, then another vote is taken after the last place finisher is dropped from the second ballot. And this continues until someone gets over 50%.

Are you arguing that this process is unfair, Peter? Are you saying that if there are 5 leadership candidates that whoever has the highest total after the first ballot(35% let’s say) that he/she should become leader of that party, or would you say that he/she would not have a proper mandate from the delegates?

You either have to say that the person with the highest total on the first ballot (again, 35% let’s say) should be leader of the party, or you must acknowledge your own hypocrisy and say that you believe in one form of democracy for the selection of a leader and another for the voting public at large.

 
At 4:31 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"But in practice, all parties on either side of the political sprectrum, will 'fall-in-line' in most cases, when it comes to voting."

If most people are left leaning in this country, then shouldn't the government represent them? You are the one who supports majority rules.

As for the Bloc, didn't the Conservatives vote with them to try and bring down the government? Why is it OK for them to decide the future of our government when it serves your parties purpose? This totally baffles me.

 
At 5:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter.

If you are baffled....consider the Bloc support of SSM, that the libs owe a debt of gratitude for.

That works okay, doesn't it?

and we know that the libs gave money to separatists from the Gomery probe.

"if most people are left leaning in this country....."

Totally skewed logic Peter, you must be including the theatre of the absurd....in Quebec.

You don't grasp or care that the libs were illegitimate for a 9 day period, until they bought themselves a Cabinet Minister.

Your causes survive with them....

Quebec is liberal and separatist, what a fine partner for a Liberal Canada.

The libs couldn't govern without a rogue Quebec.

You libs are already fracturing the country.

Frank.

 
At 6:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous.

I've seen Peter support the current form of Gov't, as a means to an end.

I've also seen him recently propose a different form of Gov't based on percentage of vote.

That's two positions.

How do you pin that down?

He's toast on the first position.

Frank.

 
At 8:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Peter. Let me ask you a question.

On the lead up to May's confidence vote in the house to topple the Liberals (one that the Liberals would win, of course), poll after poll consistently showed that a majority of Canadians did not want an early election and were upset that Harper was trying to bring down the government.

I just want to know where you stand on this issue.

Do you believe the people were right or do you believe that leadership sometimes requires tough decisons to be made?

Were the people right or was Harper right?

I'm just curious.

 
At 9:28 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

I think the people were right. Cadman made the right decision after he polled his community and they said no, don't topple the government. We can dicker over what makes a democracy in terms of percentages, but I don't think that we can argue over the fact that democracies should reflect the will of the people. The people spoke and Harper's fall in the polls reflects that. They did not want a vote and felt that Harper was just playing the political game for his own gain (and whether this is true or not is debatable).

 
At 9:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ANALYZING DODSON PART II

(Dodson is back with a vengeance and more hypocrital than ever!)

Coming soon to a theatre near you …. Check your local listings for details.


“Was I surprised that Belinda Stronach crossed over to the Liberals? Yes, anybody who said they weren’t is a liar. Am I happy? Undoubtedly. I for one would rather have a corrupt government than Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.” – Dodson.

On this issue Dodson clearly (and shamelessly) exposes his hypocrisy for all that it is.

Dodson believes that the results produced by polls carry more significance than election results themselves.

How, you ask? Let me elaborate.

First of all, let us examine the differences between polls and what they reveal and compare and contrast them with elections results.

What do we know about polls and what do we know about election results?

Polls generate a snapshot of public sentiment on any given issue, using a sample of around 1,000 and then polling firms (and the media who feed the results to the public) extrapolate the data and apply it to millions of voting Canadians. As a result, polls are unscientific.

Election results, by contrast, ARE scientific, tangible, binding and final in that they show not mere opinion expressed but how those opinions translated into final results at the ballot box.

Dodson states that Harper was going against public sentiment because the Conservative leader wasn’t listening to what a few people had said in various public opinion polls on the issue of whether or not to have an early election. But Dodson is happy that Belinda “BS” Stronach is thumbing her nose at her constituents who, by casting ballots, democratically chose to have a Conservative member represent their views in parliament and not a Liberal.

Dodson’s support for Stronach’s decision demonstrates clearly his shameless inconsistency and hypocrisy on this issue. He will cite polls when the “majority” opinion expressed agree with his own (benefiting his cas du jour) but will applaud when Belinda “BS” Stronach goes against the wishes of the majority of people who cast ballots in her Newmarket-Aurora riding.

DODSON and BS are one in the same.

 
At 10:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ANALYZING DODSON PART III

“You got to wonder when the West will get it. People in the East, namely Ontario and Quebec, are much more socially progressive than those in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. (except for the coastal area). They won't vote for Harper because they do not share his social values. They believe that homosexuals have the right to marry.”

“’People’ in the East,” says Dodson, “believe homosexuals have the right to marry.”

Who are these “people” Dodson refers to?

Is it you and me, average citizens in the public? No.In the case with Ontario, which is where I live, he is referring to 3 Ontario Superior Court justices.That’s who the “people” are.

With complete arrogance and leftist elitism, Dodson assumes here – just as many on the left do – that they speak for the public at large. Again. Compare and contrast his opinions in his quote above with how he applauds that the people of Newmarket-Aurora are now being undemocratically represented by a party they chose not to elect.

In the first instance he has no proof that the people of Ontario support gay marriage (opinion polls, Dodson???) but will arrogantly assume they do because he supports gay marriage himself. And because he does, then the “people” must as well. Right, Dodson?

But to the majority in Belinda’s riding, Dodson would say, “TOUGH!” all because the final result of what happened – Stronach leaving the Conservatives – is something he supports.

People like Dodson are very scarey. These are the type of people that should be kept from the levers of power. But unlike Dodson, I will leave that decision for the “people” (the true majority, not 3 justices or 1000 people in a public opinion poll) to decide.

 
At 1:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter & Anonymous

The final paragraph by Anonymous in analyzing Dodson II, is a good one.

It does illustrate two positions that you have supported throughout these debates.

Anonymous is also close to being correct on polls.

The real question about polls is this?

How scientific are they?

There is scientific research that argues both sides of the coin.

But going back to Anonymous' point.

He well describes two colliding opinions that you hold.

Ms Stronach circumvented the mandate in her riding as a member of the CPC, by crossing over to the Liberals.

This made the 'lefties' delerious in applause.

Mr Cadman would not circumvent the mandate in his riding.....

more applause....

In this case it was noble to adhere to the wishes of a constituency.

In a nutshell.

Ok for Linda to cross her constituency in favour of joinging the Libs...and saving their Gov't.

Also okay for Mr Cadman to listen to his constituency....and not vote against the Liberals.

Thus saving their Liberal Gov't.

There is a contradictory common denominator in both examples.

Saving the Lib Gov't.

Anonymous illustrated an excellent point.

Peter, you've defended both positions.

That's undeniable bias and hypocrisy. If truth is of great importance to you....this contradiction should help you find it.

Just make sure you use both sides of your brain.

Frank.

 
At 3:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frank is right.

Peter, you seem to have this inability to admit when you are wrong.

This is especially bad considering that you are the author of the following quotes, found at your own blog site… (note: for anyone reading these, notice the contradiction he makes in the first paragraph – where he accuses the right of “vilifying” others – and then goes on in the other paragraph to use the rhetorical langauge he does … it’s all consistent in Dodson’s Bizarro world.)

“One of the things that I have learned about the right over the years is that they hate to be wrong. So much so, that they will lie, deny and vilify others in order to prove that they were never wrong.” – Peter Dodson

“What happens if right wing, capitlalist, gas guzzling fundamentalist Christians [you forgot “hood-wearing klansmen,” Peter] admit that they were wrong about something. Is there belief system so weak, so fragile, that it will not allow its members to admit to being wrong, to being fallible human beings?” – Peter Dodson.

That last sentence is rich coming from you, Peter.

 
At 3:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Below is an excerpt from Dodson’s musings on Stronach’s defection to the Liberals…

“You know what really bothered me about this whole thing? MP's from the Conservative party saying sexist things about her. One provincial Alberta MP stated that Stronach was "a little rich girl basically whoring herself out to the Liberals." Another stated that she was "something of a dipstick -- an attractive one, but still a dipstick." That will really help the image of a party who is seen as having out dated and ignorant values such as those they hold towards homosexuals, First Nations and women.” – Peter Dodson

(Note: go to Peter’s blog and when you are there, press CTRL F to bring up the Windows “word search”, then type “dipstick” *(results yielded) and then, for your next search, type “Klan” and you’ll see that it says “finished searching the document with no results.”

Dodson finds terms like “dipstick” to be more offensive than the Liberals reference to the Conservatives as being “hood-wearing members of the KKK” (Joe Volpe); “Holocaust-denyers” (frm Liberal MP Elenor Caplan); “facists” and “cross-burners” (Hedy Fry) etc., etc … so much so that he writes about the offense he took o the remarks against Stronach but says nothing about the comments made agaisnt the Conservatives (particularily Volpe’s since the remarks of the Liberal Immigration Minister came the day before those against Stronach), which are more personal, more abusive, more inflamatory, and more venomous in their sting than “dipstick” could ever be.

"Dipstick" is a subjective term, implying that someone doesn't have intelligence. What's not subjective is making claims that members of the Conservative Party are KK members, Holocaust-denyers,facists and cross-burners.

I can argue that YOU Dodson are a "dipstick." That would be one man's opinion. But what I can not say is that you're any one of the inflamatory remarks above because they are factually not true.

Why does Dodson not write commentary on these terrible remarks made by the Liberals? Because he agrees with them entiresly.

When it comes to abusive langauge directed at parties and the individuals in them, Dodson has one standard for the Conservatives, another for the Liberals.

More inconsistency.

It’s becoming DODSON 101.

 
At 4:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've also been reading a lot of Peter's blog.

As astonishing as it is, he believes it....and he's not alone by any stretch.

If Peter is any example, he helps prove the futility in debating them.

One of the cornerstones of their ideology, is the loathing and comtempt for anything traditional.

I don't see that the musings in Peter's blog offer much hope for compromse. As an example, conservatives offered 'civil unions' instead of SSM.

The left laughed at that, with similar inflammatory language like Peter offered-up, "Oh!...how big of you."

It's only one example, but it illustrates two different notions of democracy.

Liberal democracy appears less compromising.

Liberalism simply has its own hierarchy of ideals, that by design.....clash with ours.

The wisest course is to compromise, and see to it that one extreme 'wing' doesn't prevail over the other.

For the moment, compromise is lost on the 'left'. It's much more about 'winning', than Peter can dare to admit. That's why he keeps coming back here on his missionary quest.

Their 'zero tolerance' social dogma, has become integral to liberal policy, and now debate. The debate on SSM was shut-down, and the legislation hurried by the 'left'....this reflects 'zero-tolerance' in their debating practices. Zero tolerance mentality is extreme by premise, and promoted and by the 'left'.

I don't see how this builds a legacy of compromise and tolerance, when they point it at the 'right'.

One of the best examples of conservative 'principle' and consistency, is in the unabashed ouster of Brian Mulroneys Gov't.

Anonymous already made this point, but it bears repeating....as conservatives did not play political games or favorites, for the sake of ideology.

We did the right thing.

Frank.

 
At 5:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is just another example of how some people on the left view democracy (and I don’t pretend to apply this to all people on the left, but it’s worth pointing out.)

In the 1999 Ontario election, Mike Harris, seeking re-election, was at construction site (a photo-op admittedly by me) to announce a plank in his platform. A husband and wife couple was there amongst a handful of protesters (maybe 20). This husband and wife couple did not appear to be “professional protesters,” they appeared to be local residents.

When Harris began to speak, the woman began shouting him down … like a child, starting and stopping whenever he did.

A man next to him – also another area resident, it appeared – told her to stop, that he would like to here was the premier had to say.

What she said next was outrageous. She said, “He doesn’t have a right to speak!”

And there you have, in a nutshell, the mentality of the left. This is an ideology that claims to embrace freedom of speech, as there shouts would indicate when they are taken away by riot police at protest rallies. But when someone speaks whom they disagree with, then shut them down!

Definition of a liberal: one who supports freedom of speech up until a point that they disagree with what’s being said by the other side.

 
At 5:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will post this as my final blog since I believe Peter has been thoroughly trounced! LOL

Hey, Peter, I’m starting a petition and I want you to sign it. And I know you will, too, because I know you want to maintain that high standard of consistency inherent all the positions you take, specifically as it relates to polls vs. election results and when and when not to listen to “the people.”

I would like to change the Elections Act to create an asymmetrical type electoral system that would replace our current, unfair, deeply flawed one, which does not allow for the minority voice in any given riding to be recognized in parliament. (Damn the tyranny of the majority!)

How my proposal would work varies depending on the results in each riding, hence the reason it would be asymmetrical.

For example, if the candidate for my party finishes first amongst the other candidates, then normal rules shall apply. My candidate would be declared winner and would take the riding for my party.

If, however, my candidate finishes second to, let’s say a Liberal, then the second place finisher, my candidate, will be declared winner and take that riding as well; all votes cast for the first place finisher will become null and void.

And if my candidate finishes third, then another rule will apply, which would also see my candidate declared winner in that riding. This process would continue to repeat itself, no matter where my candidates finish.

And these rules would ONLY apply to my party because the issues I believe in -Kyoto, same-sex marriage, $4 billion in new spending by a party (the NDP) who hold just 6% of the seats in parliament - are consistent with what “the people” want. I speak for them, Peter. A poll I had commissioned told me so, as well as the 3 Ontario Superior Court justices I was having cocktails and caviar with last night.

Peter, my proposal is perfect! It’s everything you want, and what “the people” want as well, with the exception of the citizenry in some Ontario riding called Newmarket-Aurora who, for some strange reason, seem very angry at me and the changes I am proposing. (They voted Conservative in 2004??? What’s the matter with them! They must be knuckle-dragging Neanderthals with outdated beliefs and ideas. It’s a damn good thing that they now have the “natural governing party” representing them, even if it is against their will …. heheheh).

Peter, I want to hire you as my official PR man to try and convince the people of Newmarket-Aurora that my proposal is a good one … if you can’t convince them, to Hell with ‘em, I say! It won’t matter anyway, because even if I finish second in the next election, I still win their seat.

I’m hoping and keeping my fingers crossed that with such changes to the Election Act that I could represent “the people” and win all 308 seats in parliament. And with such changes, I think I would have a good shot at achieving this. What do you think, Peter?

I need your signature, Peter, I need you on my team, because I only have one other signature besides my own. I’m not even sure whose signature this is on my petition and whether I can even accept it. She didn’t leave her last name. She simply wrote “Belinda.”

As a result, I guess I will just have to disregard it and treat her as “illegitimate.”

And because I have been trying to get signatures for many months now – without ANY success whatsoever – then I will simply have to write “the people” on my petition and send it in as is, hoping that Jean-Pierre Kinsley, Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer, will accept it and make these most needed changes I am proposing … changes that “the people” want.

 
At 10:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Peter...

You have some guy that has started his own blog.

He seems to be your antethisis, hence the name of his blog site.

http://antidodosville.blogspot.com/

LOL

 
At 1:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting reading at antidodosville.blogspot.com

Too bad the site doesn't facilitate anonymous responses. It might attract more 'traffic' that way.

Also too bad that Dodson seems unphased, by ANY of the contradictory logic offered by the 'right'.

I think a part of what makes him seem 'extreme-left' to us, has to do with with his prejudicial ignorance, and misguided hatred for the 'right'.

The very premise of a liberal iniative often has to do with an attack or demonization of the 'right'.

That's an historically old political strategy, that's well utilized by todays.....ahem, "progressives".

Frank.

 
At 1:35 PM, Blogger William said...

Oh, it doesn't allow anonymous responses? I'm a newbie to this blogging thing. I just stumbled across it. I will have to sort that out some how.

William.

 
At 1:37 PM, Blogger William said...

Oh, it doesn't allow for anonymous postings? I'm anewbie to this blogging. I just happen to stumble across it. I will have to sorrt the issue somehow.

 
At 3:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks William.

Good luck with it.

Frank.

 
At 5:57 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Wow. Interesting stuff. Good thing I was away for 36 hours. I will have to catch up on my reading and reply to you guys in time.

 
At 5:59 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

But I do have to say, that I really must have touched a nerve - a website dedicated to vanquishing me? I am almost at O'Reilly level here!

 
At 6:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh really?....doesn't he have an audience?

(poof)

 
At 7:04 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Look, I'll make this easy. I don't like to make one statement and have it reflect each and every decision I make from now until eternity. I believe in making decisions based on the situation at hand. If that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes, that's fine.

Cadman believed that he was doing the right thing for his constituency as he was elected to do. Stronach crossed the floor for a myriad of reasons including political ambition. You say that she was elected as a Conservative, I say that she was elected as Bellinda Stronach (lets be honest, she would have won regardless of what party she ran for. The vote margin was very narrow and if she had run as a Liberal, there is no way she would have lost. She is a name and that's why people voted for her). Her constituents elected her to serve their interests which she felt she was doing (while also serving her own AS ALL POLITICIANS, including Conservatives, DO).

I find it interesting that you don't condemn the Liberal MP who became an independent over the ssm bill. Isn't he going against his constituents? Wasn't he elected as Liberal? if you say no, then you are a hypocrite. I would really like an answer to this one.

"Dodson finds terms like “dipstick” to be more offensive than the Liberals reference to the Conservatives as being “hood-wearing members of the KKK” (Joe Volpe); “Holocaust-denyers” (frm Liberal MP Elenor Caplan); “facists” and “cross-burners” (Hedy Fry) etc., etc …

...Why does Dodson not write commentary on these terrible remarks made by the Liberals? Because he agrees with them entiresly."

So what am I supposed to do? Denounce every single name caller in the history of the world? I was referring to the Stronach affair and the Stronach affair only. I think those other comments are wrong as well. If you knew me, which you don't, you would know that when Fry said what she did I was against it. I am from B.C. and knew the area she was referring too and knew of the work they were making against racism.

Your side-stepping manuver, however, does not take away from what those two Conservatives said. They were said in a sexist and demeaning tone. Would you like your wife or mother called a whore and a dipstick. I think not.

I should also point out your own hypocrisy again. You take Liberals to tasks for their comments, but not the Conservatives, one of whom stated that she was whoring. So where is the line for you guys? Just curious, but I doubt you will answer.

"Peter, you seem to have this inability to admit when you are wrong."

Actually, I am quite good at admitting when I am wrong, including at one point during this discussion. Frank on the other hand was totally wrong in our last debate and when he realized it he blew it off and said "well, I was focusing on that anyway." He was wrong because he was using stats that refered to a certain aspect of youth crime rather than youth crime in general (which was what I was trying to talk about in response to the original post).

I would also like to point out another hypocricy (the word of the day) of the people posting against me and my views.

"I think a part of what makes him seem 'extreme-left' to us, has to do with with his prejudicial ignorance, and misguided hatred for the 'right'"

"And there you have, in a nutshell, the mentality of the left."

"Definition of a liberal: one who supports freedom of speech up until a point that they disagree with what’s being said by the other side."

You guys state that I am anti-right, but you guys are just as anti-left. I have been called dumb, stupid, illiterate, a clown etc.. by you righties, but I have never called any of you a name (ok, I once called Frank a behind, but he was being one and he knew it). You hate us.

Your posts show your contempt for people on the other side, yet when we do it you vilify us for it. You stereotype us at every turn and group us all together as if we are one brain. You need to confront this before you call others out on it. Again, I doubt you will reply to this.

Well, that's it for me. I'm sure there will be more for me to respond to in the future.

 
At 7:19 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Oh really?....doesn't he have an audience?

(poof)"

Well you guys seemed to have read it....:)

 
At 9:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter.

Slow down boy.

Just refer back to our last debate, you'll see me talking about violent youth crime right from the start.

I also agreed that other youth crime had dropped.

And yes, I did realise.....thanks to you, that I had later lumped all youth crime together.

And regardless of that, it doesn't detract one iota from the problem of violent youth crime, and all the reliable stats that backed me up.

Frank being "totally wrong" in "our last debate", only belongs in Dodosville.

You talk about us hating you ("us").

Probably too strong a word, yet on the other hand....I can't speak for all conservatives.

Contempt....I think I'll have to agree with that.

Compromise is lacking from the 'left', which in my estimation....can breed contempt.

I told you that I'm an ex-liberal.

Got many ex-conservatives on your side? That could be telling.....yet, they would be interesting to hear from.

"I would really like an answer to this one."

Tradition Peter.

Or how about....CDN politcal decorum.

Rare as it is, some MP's will openly disagree with their Party....and usually with the backing of their constituency (you should understand that), they become 'Independants' as a form of dissension and protest.

Belinda sold-out on her political affiliation, and her countless anti-liberal quotes by crossing-over, and better yet....she receives a 'plumb post' in return.

Don't allow yourself to become too cynical Peter.

Your argument of her 'star'power' does nothing to render her political affiliation as nothing.

That was a reach....and also cynical.

I guess Ken Dryden is less of a liberal, because by your estimation....he could have won for any Party (which is probably true, of course). Yet, Mr Dryden is the darling, and real 'up and comer'....in the Liberal Party, as the architect of National daycare.

Mr Dryden 'walks and talks' like a liberal, and he chose the Liberal Party because he apparently seems to hold their ideals to heart.

Being true to one's beliefs, merits respect.

Linda's approach doesn't.

I also think it wasn't too smart of the CPC to take her 'into the fold'.

A fatal move to appease Ontario conservatives.

Ya' live and learn Peter.

Frank.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home