[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I have to disagree on this. I think Paul did a tremendous amount of damage in that debate. As did Taft. People wanted an alternative to Stelmach desperately. Hinman had to be sure to say nothing that made people think he was a right wing nut. He didn't do that. First social issue that came up, and he shot himself in the foot. Result? 0 seats rather than upwards of 10. Taft did the same thing. It was imperative for him to look like anything but a spend happy socialist. He didn't do that either. First fiscal issue that came up, and he's competing with Mason on who can drain the coffers faster. Result? Going from 16 seats to 7 seats rather than upwards of 30.

Iris Evans did damage for sure, but until there's an alternative, there's no real way to attack her. One by one, Stelmach's MLAs are either being made to look like idiots by poor policy (Blackett, Liepert), or doing the job themselves with incompetent remarks (Evans, Elniski)

I agree that a new leader must take the party to the next level, there's nowhere to go but up, really.

The final feedback is the election. I'd say the feedback was very poor.

They aren't the leaders. They are largely kept in line by party solidarity. If they were in charge, it would present an issue.

We could likely debate all of these at great length. I will leave these ones for now and agree to disagree.

I really do appreciate your opinion and view.

I'd have to disagree. Libertarians believe in the freedom and protection of rights, progression of society and the free-flow of knowledge. The religious right tends to be socially conservative, repressive, intolerant, and traditional. How can these views actually mesh? Yes, some simply want to be left alone, but there's a fine line between freedom to practice their religion, and freedom from "secular nonsense." Take the recent PC so-con Bill 44. Libertarians would encourage all types of theories, facts and myths, because people are free to learn and arrive at their own conclusions. The religious right feels compelled to defend their "freedom" to teach their kids whatever they want, even if its hateful, regressive, or overwhelmingly inaccurate.

Its a very small and vocal group, and right now, they permeate the PCs and have the appearance of that with your party as well. Despite their economic ineptitude, it makes the Liberals look appealing by comparison.

No patience for the religious right simply means no tolerance for regressive social policy, such as censoring education, temperance, aborton bans, stem cell bans, etc. (ironically, the PCs have already pushed two of those)

I agree Bill 44 is a prefect example of a good idea gone bad when the wrong people get involved.

The PC's are going down the socon road. I am still trying to figure out if he is pushing that because he truly wants the province to go there or if he is trying to appease Morton supporters or if they think that is where we are bleeding their support from.