[longseason]

Here's what I don't understand... why the demands to the Conservatives to move to the center? Why tell the party to abandon most of the principles it stands for and alienate millions of supporters in the process?

[snip]

They want everyone to agree that a liberal, heavily statist (almost socialist) government is therefore not only the ideal, but a given, and then it just becomes a bidding war in terms of which party will spend more of your tax dollars on various plans. Where's the choice to the voters in that scenario? Where is the ability to truly examine and debate the issues?

[snip]

I want political parties to have a clear stand on issues, that way I know where they stand and I can make an informed voting choice. That is the problem with the Liberals today... they have no stand on issues, instead they run furiously to be everything to everyone and try to fool/bribe people to vote for them.

[snip]

And the Conservatives growing more extreme lately? Please! That just isn't borne out by their policies. In fact, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are seen by many as equivalent to the centrist/more sensible wing of the Democrats in the US. Does that sound extreme?

I'm not demanding anything from the Conservatives; merely stating that if they want to hold power in this country, then they'll have to accept that the majority of Canadians since the Mulroney era seem to think that Canada is somewhat statist, somewhat [gasp!] socialist, and this vision informs their choices.

Why risk alienating some voters? I don't know, to win? A gamble that may win them voters, potential leadership. It would allow them to initiate some of the reforms they've discussed -- many of them sensible and appealing.

Campaign-wise, the conservatives have failed to impress me thus far.

Look at Paul Martin, ramping up his criticism of the US over Kyoto and softwood. He stands in stark contrast to Stephen Haper who has for a long time held an appeasement based perspective to further positive trade relations with the U.S., a policy that has failed to stop trade disputes.

When the conservatives finally perceived that a harder approach would pqiue the interests of voters, Harper yesterday recommended taking a hard-line approach with the U.S. on the softwood lumber dispute.

He properly said there is nothing to negotiate if we had already won the NAFTA appeal -- something that Martin's maintained for a while.

Floppy Mclipperson, er I mean Stephen Harper, meanwhile was also "set the record straight" with the Washington Post because they had published a column suggesting Mr. Harper was pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto and socially conservative. Bullshit.

If Paul Martin's fooling me and running around everywhere trying to grab votes, well, I say keep fooling me. I like it.

Banning handguns? Fooled! Harldine approach against the states vis a vis trade and Kyoto! Fooled again! Same sex marriage? Ah you got me again!

Keep running and fooling Paulie!