I have been having a bit of a discussion on this post with one of my readers regarding Chuck Cadman.
He has challenged me to reply to his comments.
Bill makes the comment that Cadman using his position to get something out of the government is ok and it is politics as usual. In general, I agree that this is how they usually operate. Certain groups support certain parties and they expect that party to push their agenda/pet project. The same with people. However, we come to trouble when trying to figure out which came first. If you vote/work for the Liberals because they support your views on victims' rights that is one thing. If they say they will pass your victims' rights legislation if you vote for them on something else, that is completely different. Now, Cadman's situation is not clear and there is no evidence of anyone's vote being "for sale". However, based on what we have seen with Belinda and the Grewal tapes, I believe Cadman sold out. He met with the PM and he, or more likely one of his flunkies, spoke to him just like Tim Murphy spoke to Grewal, and a "not deal" was made.
Of course, vote buying is illegal, but the Libs are experts at it, so it would be very hard to prove.
Now, taking the innocent view, let's assume that nothing was discussed and no one suggested he would get a reward. First of all, in the tit for tat Liberal world, I believe that Cadman knew they would do something for him, and they knew he would have to be paid. Both parties have been in the game for long enough to know what happens without having to say it. Is that a crime? Not technically, but it sure is sleazy.
Which brings me to my main point. I feel that all of this vote buying has greatly damaged Canadian democracy. We appear to be more like Zimbabwe than a modern, western democracy. I think the Libs need to be thrown out to demonstrate that their actions are wrong, immoral, and will not be stood for in this country. I am mad because Chuck Cadman had a chance to send this message, on behalf of all Canadians, that these actions will not be tolerated. He failed to put the good of the country ahead of his own personal political pet projects.
Chuck had leverage over the Libs and decided to get something he thought was important with that leverage. However, the damage done by Liberal actions may make it even more difficult for projects like Cadman's to ever get done in the future. The long term damage to the system outweights any good done by passing Cadman's bill.
Now on to Bill's second comment, regarding the actions of the Conservative party.
Bill makes the same, boring argument that the "rabid" politics that the Conservative practice "leaves a lot of normal non-Fiberal Canadians turned off by the Conservatives". Bullshit. This sounds like something off of the Liberal talking points. If Bill is a normal Canadian, then we are surely doomed, as normal Canadians are now parroting Liberal talking points. All other parties should give up and go home, as it is impossible to break that level of brainwashing.
Bill then goes on to talk about how the Conservatives could win if they just would ..... wait for it... be more like the Liberals!
Bill talks about being an alternative to the Liberals. Personally, I prefer my alternatives to be a bit more different. I can just see the lawn signs:
Conservatives, just like the Liberals but with less corruption
I would like to see a party that is not Liberal lite. If Canadians want the Liberal agenda, then they can take the corruption with it.
Bill also makes comments about the Conservatives being more centrist, kicking out "rabid" elements, blagh, blagh, blaghblaghblagh.
Personally, if I was a Liberal strategist, this would be my best message. Make your enemy just like you, then say to the voters, "See, they have no principles" or "Why vote for pretend Liberals when you can have the real thing" or "See they must have a hidden agenda. They are pretending to be us just to get your vote".
If conservatives change just to try to get elected, I think they will lose. I, and I think many other Canadians, are looking for a principled party that will do what it says. If Conservatives say what they are going to do and then do it, I think they will be elected. This is similar to what happened in Ontario under Mike Harris. Harris stated clearly his platform and then did it. I remember hearing from people in Ontario that, even though they hated Harris and his platform, they respected him for doing what he said. Remember that this guy won re-election. This is the model the federal Conservative party should follow.
Bill also mentions a bunch of stuff about social conservatives and "turning back the clock", I guess conservatives are against the forward movement of time, or something. Destroy all clocks!
There seems to be some myth out their that Conservatives are controlled by some group known as "social conservatives" that, if elected, will have everyone going to church, etc.
I really get tired of this argument. It may be true, but in reality, "social conservatives" have no other mainstream party, so they are unlikely to be able to hijack the Conservatives. I would be more worried about the left hijacking the Liberals. Lefties can choose between the NDP and Liberals, which is why you see the Liberals tacking left at election time.
To Bill: Get some new talking points, preferably ones not lifted directly off of Scott Reid's desk.
5 comments:
Marcel;
"I really get tired of this argument. It may be true, but in reality, "social conservatives" have no other mainstream party, so they are unlikely to be able to hijack the Conservatives. I would be more worried about the left hijacking the Liberals. Lefties can choose between the NDP and Liberals, which is why you see the Liberals tacking left at election time."
Man, you are really naive. It is unlikely that the social conservatives would hijack a right wing party? Which one are you refering to that would not fall to rabid conservatives: the Nazi Party of Canada? Because last time I checked they were the lodestone around the neck of the Conservative Party of Canada.
You can spew insults about the viewpoint all you like, the centre is where you govern and the centre is where you garner the votes of those who still vote. The differentiation is the problem for the Conservatives because whenit comes down to numbers, they will continue to lose. Rather than complaining that it is a hard thing to do to claim a clear policy, why not at least agree that it is social policy that holds back the Conservatives from power.
And if you are going to sit around all day in your underwear wiping burrito off your beard you might try and come up with something more witty as a rebuttal (perhaps in your case re-but-ill) than I am a Liberal hack- which I am not. This took me less time than it takes for you to calm down after reading the Globe and Mail...
Bill
Please point out to me how the SoCons control the CPC?
As I stated in my post, if the SoCons truly controlled the Conservatives, then repealing the abortion law would be part of the CPC agenda, would it not? Isn't being against abortion a key pint to being a SoCon? Oh wait, since you obviously share a brain with Scott Reid, getting rid of legal abortion in Canada must be part of the CPC "hidden agenda(TM)".
Nazis?? What are you talking about. Is this one of the usual lefty things where you compare someone you don't like to the Nazis?
The center is where you govern? That is also a load of crap. The Libs govern from the center because all they care about is being in power. In my opinion, a true political party comes up with a platform that they think is best for the country and then convinces Canadians to follow their plan. Political parties should be leading, not following.
However, I recognize your right to vote for a party without principle, that changes its platform like I change my underwear (once every few days).
Regarding having social policy that is from the center, I feel the CPC has that, and I think their position on SSM is one that the majority of Canadians support. Whether that translates into votes or not, I do not know.
You may not be a Liberal hack, but you sure sound like one.
Marcel:
Your total lack of conscious thought is the major reason why you can't seem to grasp the basic concepts in play. It seems you have a grasp of English, although tenuous. I have deduced this from the facts at hand, you respond with knee jerk responses and without much wit.
"What? Are you sum kinnda liberal?"
It is clear to me that when I opined that it is likely that a social conservative group could control a party that you forgot what the question was. You are naive to think that social conservatives who are part of the CPC will not demand some influence on CPC party policies for all the volunteering, donations, or whatever. And just because they do not right now have enough political influence to push toward some of their more right wing policies it is still possible that they will in the future. Not unlike the voters of Quebec sending separatists to Ottawa to voice their concerns without a mandate for secession it does not mean that it wouldn't become part of the policy in a hurry. So there is a chance that the political right socons that exist in the CPC may get enough leverage to put some of their policies on the agenda.
And the reference to Nazis was just another example of a Right wing party. If you feel more comfortable in your dogma, please insert "Fascist Party of Canada" in lieu of Nazi Party of Canada. It was not the point of the discussion.
What you fail to grasp is the common viewpoint, which is not the Liberal handbook, but the belief of people who get up and go to work everyday and not spend all day analyzing the blogs.
Common people do some simple math:
Liberal = fiscal restraint (recent but not committed) + social liberalism
Conservative = fiscal restraint (proven but not recent) + right wing social policy (possible or not)
When you get right down to it, people in general think all politicians are crooks, with the cynnicism of Ontario at the top of the list. And whether or not you like to admit it, all politicians are brand name knock-offs of the leader. So they choose the lesser of two evils and go for a more centrist government.
What you fail to realize is rather than getting upset at reality and crying about the injustices of the Fiberals, that your energies should be spent trying to deal with the perception problem of right wing policies. Rather than attacking naysayers which only makes you look rabid as well, you should work towards tackling the task of proving to Canadians that while right wing people vote for the CPC, they are entitled to their personal beliefs but will not likely have a say in changing social policies that average Canadians want.
Canadians do not want the government in their bedrooms, their doctor's offices, or their churches. As a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, I believe that the less the government does in these areas to govern means less tax dollars wasted. I want the cheapest government I can get. All killer no filler. And the more it regulates the more it costs.
So if we had a conservative government for the past 10 years, we might have seen a homosexual registry instead of a gun registry as a political bone thrown to the more extreme elements of the party. That is politics.
What I see in you is a really grounded set of principles, common to many conservatives idealogues, without an appreciation of the mean and nasty side of life. The Fiberals have won every round recently because they keep poking at the perception problem of right wing social policies and the CPC has not done a good enough job convincing the average Canadian s that it is just a smokescreen for the Fiberal lack of vision, integrity, and scruples.
Whether or not the problem exists, the perception problem that it might exist is the problem. Deal with the perception problem first.
So vent your frustration in a more creative way, come up with a policy idea that allows social conservatives to share the table at the CPC without giving the average Canadian the shivers.
I have been having a bit of a discussion on this post with one of my readers regarding Chuck Cadman.
He has challenged me to reply to his comments.
Bill makes the comment that Cadman using his position to get something out of the government is ok and it is politics as usual. In general, I agree that this is how they usually operate. Certain groups support certain parties and they expect that party to push their agenda/pet project. The same with people. However, we come to trouble when trying to figure out which came first. If you vote/work for the Liberals because they support your views on victims' rights that is one thing. If they say they will pass your victims' rights legislation if you vote for them on something else, that is completely different. Now, Cadman's situation is not clear and there is no evidence of anyone's vote being "for sale". However, based on what we have seen with Belinda and the Grewal tapes, I believe Cadman sold out. He met with the PM and he, or more likely one of his flunkies, spoke to him just like Tim Murphy spoke to Grewal, and a "not deal" was made.
See, you can't even see your own hypocrisy. In this comment you agree that
"Certain groups support certain parties and they expect that party to push their agenda/pet project."
And yet you don't think that socons could not hijack a party? This is the flaw in you logic:
If "parties practise politics"
and
Certain groups support certain parties and they expect that party to push their agenda/pet project.
then why is it unlikely that socons could hijack the CPC?
Please re-read my posts and comments again. You are claiming I am sayings things that I am not saying.
Anything is possible in an infinate universe. Could the SoCons control the CPC? Could monkeys fly out of my butt? Both are possible, which one is more likely I leave for another debate.
You seem to claim, when you are not insulting me, that I am dumb not to see that SoCons control the CPC, Harper is their puppet, etc.
I say again, Please point out to me how the SoCon control the CPC.
Do they have a majority of high positions within the party? Do they control policy? Are all CPC policies just taken from the SoCon book? If you cannot offer some shred of proof, shut the hell up.
Again, I say that the SoCons are a minority in the CPC and they will never control the agenda because they have no where else to go, so the CPC does not have to placate them to ensure their support. Harper is not a SoCon like Stockwell Day is. Also, if they were controlled by the SoCons, CPC policy would reflect that. Yet in the area of abortion, CPC policy is not what you would expect a SoCon to support. You may have some proof on the issue of SSM, but since a large number Liberals do not support SSM, I think Harper's position is what a majority of Canadians think. Or perhaps a number of Liberal MP's are also under control of the SoCons.
My God they are everywhere! I better put my tin foil hat on before they target me with their mind control laser.
Post a Comment