Project Alberta

Cannuckistan · Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:15 pm

Quote:

Canadiana
Written by Darcey
Monday, 07 January 2008

I've been writing for years that most Canadians, even the so called 'right-wingers' who are supposed to be walking in lock-step with George Bush are about as far right as Bill Clinton. For what it's worth here are the results from a neat little poll:

Quote:

If you're asking Canadians, it doesn't seem to matter much who wins Tuesday's New Hampshire primaries.

A new poll suggests Canadians so massively favour the U.S. Democratic party that they'd back any of its leading candidates in a presidential race against a Republican.

The Harris-Decima survey suggests the Democrats would trounce the Republicans by a four-to-one margin if the voters were Canadian.

U.S. President George W. Bush's Republican party would get creamed even in a hypothetical election in which only Canadian Conservatives voted.

The survey, provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, says 49 per cent of Canadians expressed a preference for Democrats while only 12 per cent did the same for Republicans.

Even self-described Conservatives â€” who are supposedly more ideologically in tune with the right-leaning Republicans â€” favoured the Democrats by a 47-23 margin. (CP)

If you've never read it, take a gander at this National Review article from December 2005 - Conscience of a Canadian - my favourite excerpt:

His main threat comes from Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative party of Canada, the least anti-American of the four parties competing in the election. Among the scare tactics Martin will use against Harper â€” and make no mistake, the thrust of the Martin campaign will be fear â€” will be the charge that a conservative government would turn Canada into a cesspool like the United States.

U.S. readers should understand that, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of the word "conservative" is. A Canadian conservative is similar to a moderate Democrat here. There is no true conservative party in Canada, as we know conservatism.

Nonetheless, Martin will attempt to do to Harper what he did in the last election, paint him as a right-wing lunatic with a "hidden agenda." In fact, apart from policy differences on immigration, Canada-U.S. relations, and possibly crime, there is little reason to believe Harper, especially with a minority government, would differ substantially from Martin except, one would hope, in competence and ethics.

I always thought it was neat that author Doug Gamble recognized the truth about being a 'pro-American' politician in Canada. How many bills or even thoughts get blasted down in parliament and in the media for being labelled American-style or too pro-American? Even good ideas? When you put it in objective perspective the thought process is pretty twisted.
http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option ... 1&Itemid=1

I like to assert that Canadian socialists don't think they're socialists because they compare themselves to Canadian communists...

Jerry Fortin · Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:43 pm

I like to assert that right wingers always paint everybody else to be socialists.

First Lady · Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:44 pm

Commonwealth wrote:

I like to assert that right wingers always paint everybody else to be socialists.

Touche.

Jerry Fortin · Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:45 pm

Thank you!

You see I can play nice!

Cannuckistan · Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:51 pm

Commonwealth wrote:

I like to assert that right wingers always paint everybody else to be socialists.

That's the point. It's all a matter of perspective. Most Canadians are so far to the left that they think, comparing themselves to other Canadians, that they're centrist. They look at themselves from the "Canadian perspective" as opposed to where they really are on a legitimate political scale...

Jerry Fortin · Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:58 pm

It is also very subjective. Unfortunately to broach the subject is divisive. What I think we need is, to coin a phrase, a bi-partisan approach. Neither the left or the right can claim to be the sole arbitrator of the truth. In some cases the left is correct in some cases the right is correct. From the basic reality, the left is usually out to lunch, but that is another matter. There are time when the right is out to lunch as well. The public needs a big stick to herd the political animals into a corner and force them to make decisions based on what the public, not the party wants.

Cannuckistan · Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:51 pm

Commonwealth wrote:

It is also very subjective.

That's why a legitimate political scale needs to be used.

Commonwealth wrote:

Unfortunately to broach the subject is divisive.

What's wrong with being devisive? What's wrong with making folks pick a side?

Commonwealth wrote:

What I think we need is, to coin a phrase, a bi-partisan approach.

Consider the following: Paul Bernardo thought it was cool to rape and kill some folks. Others thought it was wrong. Should they have taken a bi-partisan approach, met half way and determine that Paul should have stopped after the rape part?

Sometimes, some things are just wrong and there is no middle ground...

AlbertaForever · Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:42 pm

Commonwealth wrote:

I like to assert that right wingers always paint everybody else to be socialists.

No I call those on the far left comunists! :lol:

tanpro · Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:11 am

The only time to be bi-partisan is when there is no other way to get your policy into practice. Other than those rare situations, pick a side and commit to it.

Knave · Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:59 am

Cannuckistan wrote:

Commonwealth wrote:

It is also very subjective.

That's why a legitimate political scale needs to be used.

I personally deal with the ideas and points put forward, and leave the labels out of it.

Quote:

Commonwealth wrote:

Unfortunately to broach the subject is divisive.

What's wrong with being devisive? What's wrong with making folks pick a side?

Nothing wrong with being divisive at times, but I would propose that excessive degrees of partisanship are quite effective at turning off a large section of the electorate. That's the opposite of what I'd like to see happen....

Besides which, nobody has a monopoly on good ideas or solutions to real problems we have to deal with.

Quote:

Commonwealth wrote:

What I think we need is, to coin a phrase, a bi-partisan approach.

Consider the following: Paul Bernardo thought it was cool to rape and kill some folks. Others thought it was wrong. Should they have taken a bi-partisan approach, met half way and determine that Paul should have stopped after the rape part?

Sometimes, some things are just wrong and there is no middle ground...

Wow.....

Well, I suppose the best answer to your question is to state that murder is a crime defined by our criminal code; That's why it's dealt with in a Court of Law, and not the Court of Public Opinion.

This is a big difference from political issues, which are (supposed) to be the other way around.

Cannuckistan · Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:34 am

The thread is about Canada being so far to the left that it thinks lefties are centrists, centrists are right-wingers and that right-wingers are fascists. I shouldn't have let myself get misled by CW's deflection. But since I did...

Knave wrote:

Quote:

Sometimes, some things are just wrong and there is no middle ground...

Wow.....

Well, I suppose the best answer to your question is to state that murder is a crime defined by our criminal code; That's why it's dealt with in a Court of Law, and not the Court of Public Opinion.

This is a big difference from political issues, which are (supposed) to be the other way around.

Are the laws we're bound to live by not "political issues"? Consider the gay lobby. Homosexuality used to be illegal. Whether or not you agree with the lifestyle, you can't argue that they've "compromised" their way from being illegal all the way up to having the ability to get married and force the general population, through the HRT's, to have nothing but happy thoughts about the gay community.

I used the Bernardo example for it's clarity and to highlite the larger question; If we're to compromise for the sake of compromise, how far do we go? If we compromise with homosexuals, are we not then bound to compromise with pedophiles? We are a compromising nation after all right? What about islamofascist terrorists? Do we compromise with them?

Again, those are extreme examples. Lets bring it back to the political arena; Jack Layton wants to nationalize all of Canada's industry, do we compromise and let him nationalize only half of it?

Closer to home, how many billions of dollars did Steady Eddie's "bi-partisan" compromise on royalty rates cost the province?

I do think that compromise is sometimes required but a line has to be drawn somewhere and that those who are quick to scream "bi-partisan compromise" need to be looked at very closely...

Katie Robinette · Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:37 pm

I'll be the first to "compromise". I am too busy today (what with all the New Hampshire stuff) to give a rats ass about much other than how badly Mitt Romney will do today. So...Cannuckistan - the world is yours...or at least my part of it. So you get one little square millimeter of space to have for your "issues" for today. But tomorrow, I return and want my tiny little spec of a space back. No compromise. Except that I happen to agree with you on most issues, so this is just semantics....HAAHAHA

Cannuckistan · Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:59 pm

Project Alberta

Empowering Albertans

Who is online