Where did all of the CAers go???
Bruce Freeman
have evidently departed from this newsgroup. While a few individuals
(some posting under more than one name) continue to defend the party from
its newsgroup critics, they side with the Alliance not because they
particularly like the party and its leader but rather because they perceive
that there is no other Canadian party of the far right (As I remind them,
the Christian Heritage Party has principles (Biblical ones at that) and
would likely welcome them with open hearts into the fold).
Even the right-wing media has seem to have given up on Stockwell Day and his
troubled party. The _National Post_ distanced itself from the Alliance last
year with the rejection of an Ontario leader. The _Sun_ papers have grown
tired of defending the guy. Now, even Ted Byfield and his _Report Magazine_
admit that the great experiment has failed and seem to be jumping back on
the Alberta/Western separatist bandwagon.
Has the crisis reached the point where no one remains who is willing to take
a "principled" pro-Alliance stand?
Bruce Freeman
BW
> session, or any session that involved Jean da Cretin, the Prince of Thieves.
The Alliance could not possibly form a government as corrupt, secretive, or
morally bankrupt as the current group of hypocrites in power.
I will continue to support the Alliance party, whatever shape it may form.
Bruce Freeman
"BW" <bw...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > No one can name one positive thing they did in this past Parliamentary
> > session, or any session that involved Jean da Cretin, the Prince of
Thieves.
> The Alliance could not possibly form a government as corrupt, secretive,
or
> morally bankrupt as the current group of hypocrites in power.
Canadians would seem to disagree with you on this "HG". Perhaps you failed
to notice that the Liberals were returned to a third-term majority
government late last year? Polls show support for the Prime Minister
continues to increase while approval ratings of the Alliance leader plummet
further.
> I will continue to support the Alliance party, whatever shape it may form.
Surely why would one offering such strong, unconditional support want to
remain anonymous?
Bruce Freeman
Buglebum
real name... :O~)
Seriously though, most, if not all of the Alliance's current problems
are media driven. Has Stockwell said and done some idiotic things? Sure.
But Chretien does that every fucking day and the media (esp. the CBC)
rarely says thing one about it. After all, Chretien might then turn
around and cut their budget.
The most revealing thing that I have noticed about the Alliance is the
fact that the majority of them are amateurs, politically speaking. I
don't really consider this to be a bad thing, as we already have too
many bloody politicians in this country pissing away our money. But
their lack of experience makes them very vulnerable to exploitation by
the media.
Bottom line: Criticize Stockwell Day in caucus. Put the pressure on and
get the thumbscrews for all I care. But don't be so fucking stupid as to
speak to a media that displays such an obvious bias in favour of your
opponents.
Joe
Buglebum <jimgir...@nehotmailpas.com> wrote in message
news:3B3665AD...@nehotmailpas.com...
> With weirdos like you around, NOBODY in their right mind would use their
> real name... :O~)
>
> Seriously though, most, if not all of the Alliance's current problems
> are media driven. Has Stockwell said and done some idiotic things? Sure.
Sort of like the Titanic had a few problems.
BW
have bought into this
Liberal good, Alliance bad mentality that you perpetuate.
Again, you are incapable of naming anything positive that the Governemnt has
accomplished.
Bruce Freeman
"Buglebum" <jimgir...@nehotmailpas.com> wrote
> Seriously though, most, if not all of the Alliance's current problems
> are media driven. Has Stockwell said and done some idiotic things? Sure.
> But Chretien does that every fucking day and the media (esp. the CBC)
> rarely says thing one about it. After all, Chretien might then turn
> around and cut their budget.
Even if I was to accept your argument about the CBC, the _National Post_
and Byfield's _Report Magazine_ are not funded by the feds. And these
right-wing publishers have become even more critical of Stockwell and his
"alliance" than sources like the _Toronto Star_.
I agree that the press has been particularly hard on Mr Day and his caucus
but this is not because Canada's media is on the Liberal payroll. Rather,
the Canadian Alliance has proven itself to lack media savvy. The issue here
is that of competence (or, more correctly, incompetence).
> The most revealing thing that I have noticed about the Alliance is the
> fact that the majority of them are amateurs, politically speaking. I
> don't really consider this to be a bad thing, as we already have too
> many bloody politicians in this country pissing away our money.
Do you really think amateurs will be any more frugal with our money? As an
opposition party, Reform set out with many promises about how they would do
their part to reduce costs. We all know what happened! I believe ignorant
people tend to do stupid things.
> But
> their lack of experience makes them very vulnerable to exploitation by
> the media.
Not to mention they do not fully comprehend the issues. This is why we
teased Preston Manning about his first name. Presto was going to fix
everything, lickety-split!
> Bottom line: Criticize Stockwell Day in caucus. Put the pressure on and
> get the thumbscrews for all I care. But don't be so fucking stupid as to
> speak to a media that displays such an obvious bias in favour of your
> opponents.
Actually, Stockwell's former caucus critics are the "allies" with the best
skills for interacting with the media. You might object to their message
but you do not have grounds to criticize them for how they articulate their
concerns about Mr Day's lack of leadership skills.
If you really want to find fault for the Alliance implosion,, I think you
should look no further than the Alliance members who voted for Mr Day. As
one of those Canadians who has never thought very highly of Reform and the
Alliance, I was delighted when you guys went with Stock. You solved two
problems for me. First, you removed Stockwell from provincial politics here
in my province, Alberta. Had he remained, he likely would have been a
contender for the position of Premier. That will not happen now! Second,
there was every reason to believe that Mr Day would not be capable of
meeting the demands of his office. While I think he is doing the best he
can, what he is doing is simply not good enough. Having selected him in
haste, coupled with his Rambo-like personality, the Alliance membership
planted the seeds for the destruction of the party.
I think people who supported the CA are generally embarrassed by all of
this, as they should be. We like to criticize our politicians but we have
remember that we are the ones who put them there in the first place. I
think Alliance members (and ex-members) are beginning to realize this.
Hence, the anonymous posts are indicative of a sense of shame.
Bruce Freeman
Bruce Freeman
Bruce Freeman
"Joe" <nos...@dropdead.com> wrote in message
news:k7uZ6.255856$Z2.29...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
The difference being after striking the iceberg, Captain Smith and the
ship's designers went below, evaluated the damage, calculate the rate of
flooding, and came to the conclusion that the great ship only had
approximately one and one-half hours left afloat. Much to the dread of
many Alliance members, Stockwell Day doesn't even seem to realize that the
SS Alliance has deviated from course.
Bruce Freeman
HG
How did I get dragged into this?
Ron Wise
news:9h5qo7$1136$1...@nserve1.acs.ucalgary.ca...
>
> "Buglebum" <jimgir...@nehotmailpas.com> wrote
>
>
> > Seriously though, most, if not all of the Alliance's current problems
> > are media driven. Has Stockwell said and done some idiotic things? Sure.
> > But Chretien does that every fucking day and the media (esp. the CBC)
> > rarely says thing one about it. After all, Chretien might then turn
> > around and cut their budget.
>
>
> Even if I was to accept your argument about the CBC, the _National Post_
> and Byfield's _Report Magazine_ are not funded by the feds. And these
> right-wing publishers have become even more critical of Stockwell and his
> "alliance" than sources like the _Toronto Star_.
This is very true, one of the main problems is the social conservative in
the party think Day isn't a social conservative and the fiscal conservatives
think he is a social conservative and not a fiscal conservative. I think
both groups are right which means there is little difference between the
Alliance and the Tory party. The media of course portrays Day as a SoCon
but the SoCon's don't buy it so he doesn't get any support from them and the
fiscal's do buy it so he doesn't get any support from them. Day should
resign and a allow a convention to set a clear new course for the party. I
mean the SoCon's and the Fiscal conservatives are the two groups that
comprise the party so if neither group supports you at all your finnished.
Ron
John Smith
Bruce Freeman wrote in message <9h5qo7$1136$1...@nserve1.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
>Not to mention they do not fully comprehend the issues. This is why we
>teased Preston Manning about his first name. Presto was going to fix
>everything, lickety-split!
And by 'do not fully comprehend the issues' you mean of course 'do not fully
agree with my opinion on the issues'.
Bruce Freeman
"HG" <ganj...@sprint.ca> wrote in message news
> > Canadians would seem to disagree with you on this "HG".
> How did I get dragged into this?
My mistake! I was responding to "BW". Sorry.
Bruce
Reason
with the CA. Their membership and fundraising are on the rocks. It's only a
dwindling hardcore group that is standing by their leader in the face of a
complete turning away by the masses from Stockwell Day. I doubt their
fundamentalist prayers will be enough to fix all the problems he faces now.
"Bruce Freeman" <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:9h5iqo$meu$1...@nserve1.acs.ucalgary.ca...
Ian
The Alliance is only the "least bad" of a sour lot of parties, IMO.
Bruce Freeman
"Reason" <gr...@telusplanet.net> wrote
> I think most of the true conservatives have completely severed their ties
> with the CA. Their membership and fundraising are on the rocks. It's only
a
> dwindling hardcore group that is standing by their leader in the face of a
> complete turning away by the masses from Stockwell Day. I doubt their
> fundamentalist prayers will be enough to fix all the problems he faces
now.
Greg, what are using as your definition for "true conservative"? I know
many of the "Holy Rollers For Day" crowd considers themselves and Stockwell
"true conservatives". Unlike other federal political leaders, they perceive
that Day will get this country "back on track with God" by doing stuff like
criminalizing abortion, funding religious schools, requiring kids to recite
the Lord's Prayer, executing murderers, sending Sodomites to prison (instead
of marching with them in parades!), and so on. They like to think of this
stuff as a return to conservative "Christian" values, the only form of
"conservatism" they recognize.
But you seem to be talking about something radically different above. I
would appreciate if you explain what you mean. I recall as well that prior
to the election you were placing your support with Stockwell as alternative
to the "twisted veteran of the shady backroom political style". While I
expect you likely have not changed your opinion of Jean Chretien, can I
assume that you have revaluated your opinion in terms of the potential of
Stockwell Day?
Bruce Freeman
Reason
That just illustrates your polarization. My comments have been critical of
the leftwing on frequent occasions, so perhaps that's why you felt compelled
to apply the CA label to me. If you had been following my posts more
carefully, you would have seen from me just as much criticism of the
fundamentalist tendencies of the CA as well.
Bruce Freeman
"Ian" <ipb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> BW <bw...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > No one can name one positive thing they did in this past Parliamentary
> > > session, or any session that involved Jean da Cretin, the Prince of
Thieves.
> >
> > The Alliance could not possibly form a government as corrupt, secretive,
or
> > morally bankrupt as the current group of hypocrites in power.
> >
> > I will continue to support the Alliance party, whatever shape it may
form.
> The Alliance is only the "least bad" of a sour lot of parties, IMO.
Are you referring to the "Alliance 1" or the "Alliance 2", Ian? It would
seem quite possible that the latter could be large enough to be granted
official party status as early as this week.
Bruce Freeman
Bruce Freeman
"BW" <bw...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Canadians are really not that well informed or interested in
politics...they
> have bought into this
> Liberal good, Alliance bad mentality that you perpetuate.
As long as the Alliance (or, as the meltdown continues, its permutations)
insists on placing itself on the extreme margins of Canada's right-wing
fringe, this "mentality" will continue.
> Again, you are incapable of naming anything positive that the Government
has
> accomplished.
I rather liked Bill C-68. Registering guns is a good idea in my books.
Bruce.
Jay
Why is registering guns is a good idea ? What % of crooks have
registered ?
I have personally never owned a gun, nor do I have plans to do so.
Ian
>
>
> Are you referring to the "Alliance 1" or the "Alliance 2", Ian? It would
> seem quite possible that the latter could be large enough to be granted
> official party status as early as this week.
I'm referring to the Alliance party not the ten dissident MPs who
have left the Alliance caucus.
Ian
> Can.politics is becoming boring. All of the true-blue Reform/CA advocates
> have evidently departed from this newsgroup.
Today I'm an unaligned conservative. I was a supporter of the
Reform Party before it went ahead with the United Alternative (UA). I
voted no in the party referendum on the question of organizing into a
new party in spring, 1999. I had attended the UA Convention in Ottawa
in 1999 when Red Tory John Crosbie had screamed at us. How other
Reformers possibly thought we could unite with the likes of Joe Clark
and John Crosbie under the "united right" banner is beyond me! So you
can mark me as a true-blue Reform Party advocate who steered clear of
the Alliance.
I like Stockwell Day but I think a better leader would be Stephen
Harper or Ralph Klein: someone with prior experience on the national
stage and real leadership experience. Within the Alliance there's
people like Grant Hill and Randy White that could be leader who have
been on the Hill since 1993, have solid conservative credentials and
could still bring back the dissident MPs.
> Has the crisis reached the point where no one remains who is willing to take
> a "principled" pro-Alliance stand?
What I like about the Alliance are the positives that have were
carried-over by Reformers who went along with the silliness of forming
the new party such as parliamentary reform, balanced budgets, tax
relief, immigration rates tied to the unemployment rate,
decentralization of federal power especially in health care policy,
and most of its principles. The Reform Party would have done no worse
and probably a lot better in the last election if it had not become
the Alliance. In spite of my growing doubts of Preston Manning after
1997 I admit that at least he would have made fewer mistakes during
the election campaign than Stockwell Day.
Reason
Do you really think it will make the country safer? The facts seem to point
elsewhere in other countries that have done so.
Humble Wisdom
"Bruce Freeman" <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:9h8mno$o1e$1...@nserve1.acs.ucalgary.ca...
> has
> > accomplished.
>
> I rather liked Bill C-68. Registering guns is a good idea in my books.
I favour gun control. In fact, I'd like to see all guns in urban areas
stored in police stations. Hunters could pick them up on their
way out of town and replace them when they return. I'd like to
see long, severe penalties for the smuggling of weapons across
the border, the sale of restricted weapons, and the carrying of
weapons. I'd like to see even more severe penalties for those
who use firearms in the commission of crimes.
But Bill C-68 is nothing more than an immensely costly public
relations operation. It is largely useless in its stated purpose -
which is to make us safer from gun violence. For the hundred of
millions spent on this pointless exercise we could have put in
place tough anti smuggling programs which would do something to
restrict the almost undeterred flow of restricted firearms across
the border. We could have funded special police squads across
the country to focus on people who both smuggle and sell restricted
weapons.
Christ, the RCMP don't even have the manpower to investigate
most organized crime or smuggling rings, and Customs doesn't have
the manpower to man border crossings twenty four hours a day.
Almost all the illegal firearm crimes people are concerned about
is due to restricted weapons - most of which are smuggled
across the US border. And yet the government focuses on
rifles and shotguns instead.
Probably because it doesn't really care about anything but
being able to point to it and claim to be doing something.
Focusing on smuggling would have to involve actions against
the reserves which straddle the border, and this government
hasn't got the balls to do that. Instead we have hundreds of
clerks processing paperwork, and producing an error rate so
high that no police officer in his or her right mind would rely
on this database. This program is already ten times over
budget and years behind schedule, and it's accomplishing
absolutely nothing.
Jay
Hmmm, it sounds like they should lose their jobs to me.
Bruce Freeman
"Humble Wisdom" <A9...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> "Bruce Freeman" <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote
> > > Again, you are incapable of naming anything positive that the
Government
> > has
> > > accomplished.
> > I rather liked Bill C-68. Registering guns is a good idea in my books.
> I favour gun control. In fact, I'd like to see all guns in urban areas
> stored in police stations. Hunters could pick them up on their
> way out of town and replace them when they return.
I note below you are complaining about the cost of the registry program.
Yet here you are talking about additional costs! After all, you would still
need the registry program to match lawful gunowners to their guns. But here
you say you willing to absorb the significant ongoing cost of storing and
distributing weapons. It would seem to me that nothing the Liberals do
pleases you John.
> I'd like to
> see long, severe penalties for the smuggling of weapons across
> the border, the sale of restricted weapons, and the carrying of
> weapons. I'd like to see even more severe penalties for those
> who use firearms in the commission of crimes.
You ignore the fact that the Firearms Act does address these issues.
> But Bill C-68 is nothing more than an immensely costly public
> relations operation. It is largely useless in its stated purpose -
> which is to make us safer from gun violence.
I understand that already 3,000 individuals have been had licenses refused
or revoked. I suspect this number will increase substantially when the
300,000 or so gun owners who have not registered with program are tracked
down.
> For the hundred of
> millions spent on this pointless exercise
But you say above John that you would go even further than simply requiring
guns to be registered. You want the police to store and distribute them. I
should note that most of the cost of the registry program are fixed costs to
get the system up and running. Once in place, the cost of maintaining the
system is modest and paid by those choosing to own weapons. Of course, the
government could have required gun owners to bear the full cost of
implementing the program but I do not believe that this would have been
fair.
> we could have put in
> place tough anti smuggling programs which would do something to
> restrict the almost undeterred flow of restricted firearms across
> the border. We could have funded special police squads across
> the country to focus on people who both smuggle and sell restricted
> weapons.
Again, the Firearms Act is addressing these areas. Think how much more
effective police efforts will be with the registry fully in place.
Bruce Freeman
Bruce Freeman
"Reason" <gr...@telusplanet.net> wrote
> "Bruce Freeman" <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
> > But you seem to be talking about something radically different above. I
> > would appreciate if you explain what you mean. I recall as well that
> prior
> > to the election you were placing your support with Stockwell as
> alternative
> > to the "twisted veteran of the shady backroom political style". While I
> > expect you likely have not changed your opinion of Jean Chretien, can I
> > assume that you have revaluated your opinion in terms of the potential
of
> > Stockwell Day?
> That just illustrates your polarization. My comments have been critical of
> the leftwing on frequent occasions, so perhaps that's why you felt
compelled
> to apply the CA label to me. If you had been following my posts more
> carefully, you would have seen from me just as much criticism of the
> fundamentalist tendencies of the CA as well.
But Greg, excuse if I am wrong but I do recall that sometime before last
year's election you did endorse Stockwell's Alliance as a alternative to the
"twisted veteran of the shady backroom political style". You did say
this, didn't you?
By no means am I saying that you are a "blowhard" Day/Alliance-backer.
However, it is my understanding that you were supporting him and his party
to the extent that you believed that Canadians should have given him the
mandate last year to form the government. That's fairly strong support in
my books. I'm simply asking above if you still hold Day in high enough
regard that you believe that he is more suited to the position of Prime
Minister than Jean Chretien.
Bruce Freeman
Reason
I would defend good policies whatever their source, the Liberals, the CA,
the NDP, even the Rhinos if it made sense.
Because I am not as polarized as you.
Humble Wisdom
> "Humble Wisdom" <A9...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > I favour gun control. In fact, I'd like to see all guns in urban areas
> > stored in police stations. Hunters could pick them up on their
> > way out of town and replace them when they return.
>
> I note below you are complaining about the cost of the registry program.
I am complaining that the cost produces _no_ benefit whatever.
> Yet here you are talking about additional costs! After all, you would
still
> need the registry program to match lawful gunowners to their guns.
It needn't be nearly as complex as the registry program. Go to the cop
shop, leave the gun. They note it's serial number and you're licence
and ID. Simple.
> > I'd like to
> > see long, severe penalties for the smuggling of weapons across
> > the border, the sale of restricted weapons, and the carrying of
> > weapons. I'd like to see even more severe penalties for those
> > who use firearms in the commission of crimes.
>
> You ignore the fact that the Firearms Act does address these issues.
I'll continue to ignore it until that has some practical effect.
> > But Bill C-68 is nothing more than an immensely costly public
> > relations operation. It is largely useless in its stated purpose -
> > which is to make us safer from gun violence.
>
> I understand that already 3,000 individuals have been had licenses refused
> or revoked.
Which means what? That they failed some bureaucratic test and were
probably not much of a risk anyway. Besides which, anyone who actually
wants to misuse a firearm has no difficulty getting one. This is the grand
failure of this idiotic system. Guns are so easy to obtain illegally, and
there's
almost no penalty to it, that spending hundreds of millions on a registry
is completely pointless.
> > For the hundred of
> > millions spent on this pointless exercise
>
> But you say above John that you would go even further than simply
requiring
> guns to be registered.
I realize this is kind of a difficult concept for you to grasp. But money
spent
is not always money wasted. My objection is not to the cost but to the
pointlessness of the cost. For all the good it's doing us on the crime front
you might as well dump the cash from a helicopter over the Jane Finch
corridor. Maybe the junkies and dealers would cut back on their crime
for a while.
> You want the police to store and distribute them.
A large number of illegally used firearms are stolen from
people's homes. If there are no guns there it would make them
harder to obtain.
> > we could have put in
> > place tough anti smuggling programs which would do something to
> > restrict the almost undeterred flow of restricted firearms across
> > the border. We could have funded special police squads across
> > the country to focus on people who both smuggle and sell restricted
> > weapons.
>
> Again, the Firearms Act is addressing these areas. Think how much more
> effective police efforts will be with the registry fully in place.
Again, all you care about are appearances, not facts. There are NO plans
or programs in place to address the wide open smuggling of firearms, and no
funds
being considered for them. There are no plans to crack down on the illegal
sale of firearms, and no funds to mount operations against those who do. And
a firearms
registry to register deer rifles is going to have ZERO effect on a criminal
population
which uses glochs and Uzis they've bought from smugglers.
There are only two reasons to support C-68; dishonesty and stupidity.
Which is yours?
Bruce Freeman
"Reason" <gr...@telusplanet.net> wrote
> "Bruce Freeman" <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote
> > But Greg, excuse if I am wrong but I do recall that sometime before last
> > year's election you did endorse Stockwell's Alliance as a alternative to
> the
> > "twisted veteran of the shady backroom political style". You did say
> > this, didn't you?
> >
> > By no means am I saying that you are a "blowhard" Day/Alliance-backer.
> > However, it is my understanding that you were supporting him and his
party
> > to the extent that you believed that Canadians should have given him the
> > mandate last year to form the government. That's fairly strong support
in
> > my books. I'm simply asking above if you still hold Day in high enough
> > regard that you believe that he is more suited to the position of Prime
> > Minister than Jean Chretien.
> I would defend good policies whatever their source, the Liberals, the CA,
> the NDP, even the Rhinos if it made sense.
> Because I am not as polarized as you.
I believe people should take responsibility for their voting practices. We
tend to blame failures on individual politicians rather than ourselves, the
public who elected them in the first place. I think Canadians need to do
far better than to say, "let's give 'em a try and if we don't like 'em, we
can always boot 'em out in four years." There is too much at stake to adopt
this policy.
You were going much further that to "defend good policy" when you endorsed
Stockwell's Alliance immediately prior to the 2000 General Election. You
wrote that Canadians should give Stockwell and his candidates a chance as an
alterative to "the twisted veteran of the shady backroom political style".
Now it would seem that you have cooled somewhat to Stockwell Day and his
Alliance. But I'm uncertain whether you still consider him superior to Jean
Chretien. Which is why I asked the question (twice).
As to my own dislike of the Reform Party/Alliance, I admit that I am biased.
In the absence of sound policy and the continued presence of all too
contradictions, my opinion continues to be that that no only doese this
particular party lack credibility but it also potentially poses a threat to
this country. But that does not mean I am "polarized". I have said a
number of times that in this last election I voted for Joe Clark here in
Calgary Centre, supported the Liberals as the best party for a majority
government, but position myself ideologically closer to that of the NDP.
Bruce Freeman
Shane Penney
They were kicked out of caucus. :)
The Blue Puttee
Bruce Freeman
"Shane Penney" <sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> wrote in message
> They were kicked out of caucus. :)
Indeed! As well, some are saving the Alliance caucus the trouble of having
to determine whether they used that nasty "r" word by announcing that they
are leaving voluntarily. But what I'm interested in knowing is the status
of those allies who used to post to this newsgroup. We haven't heard from
Steven Britton for almost a month and he is never far from a computer or too
modest to express his opinion.
Aside from the Alliance critics, all we're left with is an assortment of
right-wingers who either used to support the Alliance _or_ don't like some
aspects of the party but maintain that it could not possibly be as bad as
Jean Chretien's government. Compared to the Alliance blowhards, these
people are downright boring!
Bruce Freeman
Micheal Wilson
Buglebum <jimgir...@nehotmailpas.com> wrote in message
> The most revealing thing that I have noticed about the Alliance is the
> fact that the majority of them are amateurs, politically speaking. I
> don't really consider this to be a bad thing, as we already have too
> many bloody politicians in this country pissing away our money. But
> their lack of experience makes them very vulnerable to exploitation by
> the media.
>
Many of these "political amateurs" have been through 3 federal elections
(also, Deb Grey and Preston Manning ran in 1988). Most have been through at
least 2 elections.
The majority of Alliance MPs have been sitting in the House of Commons for a
lot longer than Mike Harris had been an MPP when he became premier of
Ontario. So to excuse the fact that many Alliance MPs (not just Day) are
complete screw-ups in their jobs by claiming that they are "amateurs", just
doesn't wash.
The Alliance seems to attract people with no qualifications for the position
of MP, other than the fact that they were selected as a candidate by an
Alliance riding Association in an overwhelmingly Alliance-voting riding. In
some ridings out west, the Alliance could nominate the dead body of Elvis,
and he would win. Small wonder there is so little talent in that caucus.
Mike
EricĐ
> The Alliance seems to attract people with no qualifications for the position
> of MP, other than the fact that they were selected as a candidate by an
> Alliance riding Association in an overwhelmingly Alliance-voting riding. In
> some ridings out west, the Alliance could nominate the dead body of Elvis,
> and he would win. Small wonder there is so little talent in that caucus.
The same could be said for the Tories, I suppose, with their proposal
that a drooling stumbling nitwit be Canada's next PM. Again.
E.Schild
haff...@usa.net