[kenmore]

ridenrain ridenrain:

The Liberal party at it's best. No position, no memory, no platform.
Do anything, say anything, promise anything to get in power.

You are a typical brain washed tory.. you don't want to listen to the liberal platform ( and its a good one) you would rather support the asshole who thinks 500.000 people out of work is ok... and oh ya the stimulus package.. well its only for tory ridings... You also have made statements about liberals digging up Mulroney's terrible years, but you perseverate about M. Chrétien. One of the three great PMs of Canada!

[EyeBrock]

Do you have to be rich to be a Liberal leader?

It looks that way. None of the other party leaders come close on this. We have 'left of centre' guys telling us how we should live from their mansions.

Iggy will be telling us "Let them eat cake." next.

And you die-hards think this is a positive thing?
Another rich guy in charge of the Libs?
I'm sure those rich guys can really empathise with 500,000 out of work or a single mum, or those of us just scraping by, even though they never have ever 'just scraped by'.

Piffle and not even worthy of a spirited defence by obvious workers.

Harper is looking better all the time.

Iggy, "just visiting from his posh French villa."

That's French as in France and posh as in has millions.
A real Liberal and a man of the people.

This has just made this 'Red Tory's mind up.

[kenmore]

Do you have to be rich to be a leader of any party.. Mulroney is a millionaire.. ( some of it questionable eh?) The answer would be no.. but if you have it before you are elected leader big deal. The only time I would question it is if you gained financially after the fact... Personal assets have nothing to do with it.

[EyeBrock]

We poor plebs are happy that such rich guys choose to lead us......

[kenmore]

Well maybe I will run for the leadership of some party... I'm poor

[EyeBrock]

I'll vote for ya Ken!

[OrangeRhyme]

$1:

Well until he actually proposes a policy, I guess I'll just worry 'bout where he vacations for now.

I do think the Liberals are missing an opportunity there. If you want to challenge an incumbent, you have to differentiate yourself from him. You need either a bold, clear, alternative vision or a dynamite personal attack.

It's especially important if you're a centrist party, and you have bolder alternatives on the other side of you from the incumbent.

[Apollo]

I find it ironic that Liberals try to paint Harper as out of touch when it's clear that their leader REALLY is out of touch. 34 years out of touch.

[ridenrain]

OrangeRhyme OrangeRhyme:

$1:

Well until he actually proposes a policy, I guess I'll just worry 'bout where he vacations for now.

I do think the Liberals are missing an opportunity there. If you want to challenge an incumbent, you have to differentiate yourself from him. You need either a bold, clear, alternative vision or a dynamite personal attack.

It's especially important if you're a centrist party, and you have bolder alternatives on the other side of you from the incumbent.

I agree. You need to show yourself as different. You need to tell Canadians "you can do better".

.. but this is a party that's set itself as the default, natural governing party and pretend they are the status quo. They are the rule to the Conservative excepion. Considering this is the longest running minority govrnment in the history of Canada they just might be on to something.

[Apollo]

$1:

Considering this is the longest running minority govrnment in the history of Canada they just might be on to something.

Whats even more impressive is that the opposition has forced an election almost every year tryng to bring it down.

[OrangeRhyme]

ridenrain ridenrain:

OrangeRhyme OrangeRhyme:

$1:

Well until he actually proposes a policy, I guess I'll just worry 'bout where he vacations for now.

I do think the Liberals are missing an opportunity there. If you want to challenge an incumbent, you have to differentiate yourself from him. You need either a bold, clear, alternative vision or a dynamite personal attack.

It's especially important if you're a centrist party, and you have bolder alternatives on the other side of you from the incumbent.

I agree. You need to show yourself as different. You need to tell Canadians "you can do better".

.. but this is a party that's set itself as the default, natural governing party and pretend they are the status quo. They are the rule to the Conservative excepion. Considering this is the longest running minority govrnment in the history of Canada they just might be on to something.

Looking at the last one and a half decades, is there some way of slicing the political spectrum that doesn't make the median voter a Liberal? You can't blame a party so large, occupying the fulcrum, for thinking it's in a natural position to lead, though a combination of factors can get in the way of government leadership. That's our political system for you.

Granted, if the Cons get a majority, that line of argument becomes ineffective. But IMHO that would also probably have to be ascribed to the lack of boldness on the Liberals' part. When the center challenges an incumbent and doesn't have either a bold vision or a powerful way to undermine trust in the incumbent (corruption charges, personal scandals, etc.), it doesn't have much to go on. It just opens them up to flak from both the right and the left.

[kenmore]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I'll vote for ya Ken!

I knew I could count on you

[gigs]

kenmore kenmore:

Do you have to be rich to be a leader of any party.. Mulroney is a millionaire.. ( some of it questionable eh?) The answer would be no.. but if you have it before you are elected leader big deal. The only time I would question it is if you gained financially after the fact... Personal assets have nothing to do with it.

Mulroney , Chretien, Trudeau , Martin , all of them were rich or lawyers who owed somebody favors, Iggy is in the same boat. That's the difference between Harper and all of them.

[EyeBrock]

gigs gigs:

kenmore kenmore:

Do you have to be rich to be a leader of any party.. Mulroney is a millionaire.. ( some of it questionable eh?) The answer would be no.. but if you have it before you are elected leader big deal. The only time I would question it is if you gained financially after the fact... Personal assets have nothing to do with it.

Mulroney , Chretien, Trudeau , Martin , all of them were rich or lawyers who owed somebody favors, Iggy is in the same boat. That's the difference between Harper and all of them.

I agree. That's why he and Ken get my vote.

[martin14]

gigs gigs:

kenmore kenmore:

Do you have to be rich to be a leader of any party.. Mulroney is a millionaire.. ( some of it questionable eh?) The answer would be no.. but if you have it before you are elected leader big deal. The only time I would question it is if you gained financially after the fact... Personal assets have nothing to do with it.

Mulroney , Chretien, Trudeau , Martin , all of them were rich or lawyers who owed somebody favors, Iggy is in the same boat. That's the difference between Harper and all of them.

If you think Harper doesnt owe anybody anything, you are more stupid
than your avatar suggests.

All politicians are in someone's pocket...