Open Letter to Canadian Conservatives

[HOZ]

An open letter to Canadian conservatives

I thought this blog was very interesting and well thought out. I think he hits a bunch of Nails on the head..such as...

A movement that can finally begin the process of building from the ground up, not running as the less liberal version of the Liberals.


AND

Argue not that the current pseudo-socialist policies need some tinkering, but show Canadians why the current system isn't working. Stick to the message no matter how unpopular it is.

[Cowperson]

How are those two points hitting the nail on the head?

The author readily admits The Reform Party, er, uh, the Conservative Party, will remain unelectable BECAUSE they are not close enough to the centre, all in spite of a scandalous Liberal government that is easily defeatable, a veritable sitting duck.

If you can't beat 'em now, when are you going to beat them?

The majority of Canadians want a viable alternative to the Liberals but do not appear to want a Conservative Party drifting even further to the right . . . . not then, not now and probably not in the future either.

How many times do you have to be hit on the head to figure that out? The author seems to be saying keep the mallet coming.

The Conservatives will be electable once the last of the Reform Party stench is eradicated at last, not when its influence is strengthened further.

Stockwell Day is a bright guy?

I got up grumpy this morning.

Cowperson

[Cheese]

yep as Cow says....

The Conservatives are unelectable in Canada. The vast majority have proven time and again we do not want right wing politics invading our lives. The further right...the further away the PCs get from being elected. Years ago when they had small C Conservatives or red Conservatives they had more success...and this guy says move further away from the centre?
Yep...thatll do it.

[tjinaz]

This is funny.

It seems like the right in Canada is like the left in the US. The party in power seems vulnerable but the opposition cannot get its message straight.

Here is what Carville (one of Clinton's smartest strategists) has to say about the current state of the Dems in the US. I personally don't like him but, you have to respect his accomplishments. If the Dems actually listen and come more to the center they would be formidable, right now they are so fragmented and have so very many issues they cannot win.

So much for Moveon.org making a difference. I think Karl Rove secretly supports them.

http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/vnews/dis...7/434637e79a469

Conservatives in Canada too far right, Dems in the US too far left.

and the beat goes on...

[I-Hate-Hulse]

What a laughable article for all of Cow's reasons above, standard HOZ drive by material.

I wonder if HOZ realizes that it's viewpoints like this author's that continue to keep the Liberals in power? It's one thing to cling to "grassroots" extreme right wing views, and another to actually get enough support to form a government.

Have fun viewing from the sidelines....

[Fuzzy McGillicuddy]

It's not the fiscal conservatism that turns people off the Conservatives, it's the social conservatism. It's things like the stance against gay marraige and trying to bring up the abortion debate again. That scares the beejeezus out of some people. The social conservative faction within the Conservatives (Canadian Family Action Coalition) will continue to be the albatross around the party's neck. The Conservatives are likely doomed in places like Ontario until the party can erase the perception that they are not the frikkin' boogie man. Better the devil you know, eh.

The liberal-apologist media (Toronto Star, Globe & Mail) loves to perpetrate this myth that the Conservatives would somehow dismantle health care, include the church into the parliamentary system and trample human rights by using the notwithstanding clause at every opportunity. They have a hey-dey everytime some stupid conservative MP has a brain fart on social issues. But when some wing nut like Carolyn Parrish slags Americans, well she's just a roque and it's not indicitive of the party thinking.

And part of the problem can be directly tied to leadership. Canadians don't want a political party that actually does anything. Chretien held power for a decade by doing as little as possible. Stephen Harper is a bright guy with some good ideas, but unfortunately for him he also has zip for charisma. He's about as appealing as a limp noodle. That's important to people who would prefer flash over substance from their elected leaders.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Fuzzy McGillicuddy@Oct 8 2005, 05:22 PM
It's not the fiscal conservatism that turns people off the Conservatives, it's the social conservatism. It's things like the stance against gay marraige and trying to bring up the abortion debate again. That scares the beejeezus out of some people.

I don’t think that anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion stances are right wing policies per se. They are Christian conservative policies.

IMO, true right winger has nothing against gay marriages. Anyone can marry anyone else, as long they get their consent. Marry a shoebox if you want to.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Oct 8 2005, 04:29 PM
I don’t think that anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion stances are right wing policies per se. They are Christian conservative policies.

IMO, true right winger has nothing against gay marriages. Anyone can marry anyone else, as long they get their consent. Marry a shoebox if you want to.

That may be true, tehcnically, philosophically, but it's not real. Anti-abortion and Anti-Gay-Marriage are clearly, thoroughly associated with the 'right-wing', and I don't think they mind that. Is there an inherent Christian element to it? Maybe, but I know lots of very non-religious right-wingers who are dead set against abortion/gay marriage, nothing to do with faith/spirituality.

[Clarkey]

Everyone slags Stephen Harper for his lack of charisma but I don't think he has any less than Paul Martin. They both come across as 'limp noodles'.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 8 2005, 01:52 PM
How are those two points hitting the nail on the head?

The author readily admits The Reform Party, er, uh, the Conservative Party, will remain unelectable BECAUSE they are not close enough to the centre, all in spite of a scandalous Liberal government that is easily defeatable, a veritable sitting duck.

If you can't beat 'em now, when are you going to beat them?

The majority of Canadians want a viable alternative to the Liberals but do not appear to want a Conservative Party drifting even further to the right . . . . not then, not now and probably not in the future either.

How many times do you have to be hit on the head to figure that out? The author seems to be saying keep the mallet coming.

The Conservatives will be electable once the last of the Reform Party stench is eradicated at last, not when its influence is strengthened further.

Stockwell Day is a bright guy?

I got up grumpy this morning.

Cowperson

Why do I think those 2 points hit the nail on the head.
**Added content***
He is saying is, that the strategy of out centering the Liberals is simply leading to an occasional Conservative win between Liberal dynasties. Which has happened. Why vote conservative if the liberals will do? Is there any difference?

You said yourself that the Conservatives need to go closer to the centre to beat them. Why not just join the Liberals and make a super party? His alternative to your thought, whether right or wrong, is to take the lumps and actually come back with a viable alternative. He uses the Republican example.

I don't think that means going farther to the right. Reforming the system we have doesn't mean they have to out-reform the Reform party.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Oct 8 2005, 03:48 PM
What a laughable article for all of Cow's reasons above, standard HOZ drive by material.

I wonder if HOZ realizes that it's viewpoints like this author's that continue to keep the Liberals in power? It's one thing to cling to "grassroots" extreme right wing views, and another to actually get enough support to form a government.

Have fun viewing from the sidelines....

Extreme? What is extreme about his views? Please elaborate! I mean, if it is one of my drive by postings...by all means enlighten us with your wisdom. Or are you taking a play from one of Agamemnon's play book. A throw away statement without backing it up with something concrete?

So what is so laughable about it? AND! What is so extreme about it?

[KipperandIggy]

Whatever

[HOZ]

Originally posted by KipperandIggy@Oct 9 2005, 02:57 PM
Whatever

LIKE..ya know, like I know...like...whatever eh?

Like thanks for post'n eh?

[Winsor_Pilates]

I can understand where the bloggers' frustration is coming from, but his solution doesn't even hit the nail, let alone on the head.
His idea will not win them any elections either. In fact, it will make them lose by even more.
In a system wher many voters still, accuse the conservatives of being too conservative, moving more right certainly won't help them.

The reality is, that these people are a small minority in Canada, and will not win an election on strict right wing policies. The compramises the the CPC has done and still need to do, is the only way they will win.
When CPC support is growing, and more people from the center of the spectrum are willing to give them a look, why would they benefit from going more extreme?
They would simply push away what ever support they had recently aquired.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Oct 9 2005, 04:47 PM
I can understand where the bloggers' frustration is coming from, but his solution doesn't even hit the nail, let alone on the head.
His idea will not win them any elections either. In fact, it will make them lose by even more.
In a system wher many voters still, accuse the conservatives of being too conservative, moving more right certainly won't help them.

The reality is, that these people are a small minority in Canada, and will not win an election on strict right wing policies. The compramises the the CPC has done and still need to do, is the only way they will win.
When CPC support is growing, and more people from the center of the spectrum are willing to give them a look, why would they benefit from going more extreme?
They would simply push away what ever support they had recently aquired.

He says exactly what you are said. The idea is not to win now but to win later and more often. He thinks that with a viable alternative with actual ideas will eventually attract the Canadian public late on.

Right now there is very little difference between the the Liberals and the Conservatives.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by HOZ@Oct 9 2005, 04:52 PM
He says exactly what you are said. The idea is not to win now but to win later and more often. He thinks that with a viable alternative with actual ideas will eventually attract the Canadian public late on.

Right now there is very little difference between the the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I get that, just disagree with the outcome. I don't see enough Canadians going that way for them to win later because their ideas would be further away from most of the populous.

[the crispy badger]

Originally posted by KipperandIggy@Oct 9 2005, 07:57 AM
Whatever

we really need a filter for the people joining CP..no offense Kipper but if "whatever" is going to be your response to a topic you probably know nothing about...don't bother even wasting your time or everyone elses

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by HOZ@Oct 9 2005, 05:37 AM
Why do I think those 2 points hit the nail on the head.
**Added content***
He is saying is, that the strategy of out centering the Liberals is simply leading to an occasional Conservative win between Liberal dynasties. Which has happened. Why vote conservative if the liberals will do? Is there any difference?

You said yourself that the Conservatives need to go closer to the centre to beat them. Why not just join the Liberals and make a super party? His alternative to your thought, whether right or wrong, is to take the lumps and actually come back with a viable alternative. He uses the Republican example.

I don't think that means going farther to the right. Reforming the system we have doesn't mean they have to out-reform the Reform party.

Why not just join the Liberals and make a super party?

That's the usual scare tactic cop-out reply from the Reform Party . . . . it has nothing to do with reality.

Canadians want a moderate left and a moderate right alternative.

You and the NDP can inhabit the fringes but that's not where you're going to get votes. That's the reality.

And quoting the Republicans as an example? Hello!!! Knock, knock!! This isn't America!! The centre - even the spelling of the word - is different here.

Cowperson

[Bobblehead]

This is all my opinion:
Canada's "Right" party lost me when they lost the "Progressive". I don't agree with many of the social policies of the Reform Party, no matter what they call themselves. I don't like the Liberals either - Paul Martin was fine when he was Finance minister and running surpluses instead of deficits; but as soon as he got into office he started trying to buy votes.

I want a party with solid economic principles, AND a progressive social agenda. The closest thing to that in the last election was the BQ or the Green party (IMHO).

The article linked seems to suggest the CPC should move further right and take their lumps in order to prove that they are principled. I think if they take their social platform further right they will lose more votes, and I can't see those votes changing their mind.

[Cube Inmate]

I'll agree with the writer on one point: if presented with two similar parties, people tend to vote for the status quo. Therefore, when the only distinguishing characteristics between the Cons and the Libs is their meaningless rhetoric, the Libs are going to win. Martin is a limp noodle (linguini) and Harper is another limp noodle (lasagna). Layton's a bread stick, and Duceppe is a block of head cheese.

As long as politics is 99.9% meaningless rhetoric (as above), there's no compelling reason to vote for one party over the other. Nobody is being represented well.

I don't want a "more fundamental" conservative party. I don't give a shinguard how the Cons compare with the Libs, or what the leader's religious beliefs are. I want a party that can convincingly show me that they are directed towards improving Canada, as opposed to being directed towards simply gaining and holding power.

A party should be able to win an election without ever mentioning opposing parties. All it would take is painting the right picture of the future country. Three "major" parties should yield 3 different pictures. To date, I haven't seen a single one. All we get is a vague picture that's obscured by allegations of lies flying in every directly.

Yeah...I know this post isn't much use...but you get what you pay for.
<sigh>