The Shotgun Blog
« I like the National Post best | Main | Election prediction »
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Blame game II
In a way socons are responsible for some Conservative losses. For instance, Bev Shipley would have beat Rose-Marie Ur in Middlesex-Kent-Lambton if the CHP did not run a candidate. Shipley lost by 198 votes and the CHP garnered more than a 1000 votes.
Posted by Paul Tuns on June 29, 2004 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8345641a769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blame game II:
» Christian Heritage from Ghost of a flea
Remarks by someone calling himself "Hamilcar" to a post at The Shotgun sum up the attitude that lost the Conservatives the election. The zealots are trying to figure out why Ontario failed, once again, to follow what they claim is... [Read More]
Tracked on 2004-06-29 7:35:16 AM
Comments
I'm sure the Liberals are annoyed about the eight or so ridings in Quebec where Conservatives got more than the BQ margin of victory.
Posted by: John Thacker | 2004-06-29 12:07:58 AM
Well, maybe the lesson the Conservatives should learn is that they should not give people such a good reason to vote for the CHP! If they ignore or try to downplay social conservatives' concerns, you have to expect something like this.
Posted by: Joe | 2004-06-29 1:18:41 AM
Well, maybe the lesson the Conservatives should learn is that they should not give people such a good reason to vote for the CHP! If they ignore or try to downplay social conservatives' concerns, you have to expect something like this.
Posted by: Joe | 2004-06-29 1:18:44 AM
The Liberal who won is against abortion and same-sex marriage, so there was no harm done.
Posted by: Hamilcar | 2004-06-29 5:58:56 AM
Hamilcar's remark sums it up. You could care less if a Liberal or a Conservative took a seat provided your CHP values win the day. And you wonder why the right's combined share of the popular vote shrank by 7% despite * this * Liberal government? There is your answer. Most people disagree with you and you will never hold power in this country until you decide to respect their opinions.
It is not the Alliance take-over of the PCs that people should be talking about. It is the Christian Heritage Party take-over of the Alliance.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-06-29 7:26:06 AM
Flea: I believe the expression you're looking for is "couldn't care less".
Us amateur poli-wonks aside, most well informed voters think Martin IS pro-abortion and gay marriage. I've watched their faces contort as I've explained otherwise.
And he does nothing to discourage this opinion, which is a sin of omission shall we say. His performance during the debate made him sound like he was the leader of the Gay Abortion Party.
I'm not as convinced as you are that people will never agree with us. As amniocentisis advances it becomes harder for honest people to consider a fetus to be less than human. (Similarly, I predict the return of the death penalty as DNA makes wrongful convictions next to impossible.)
The Wall Street Journal just ran a piece arguing that by supporting/encouraging abortion, the Democrats are literally reducing their pool of future supporters. I can't help but think of Dean Martin who looked around at his wife and their many kids eating dinner and joked, "Hey, I #&$#%ed myself out of a place at the table!" Except of course the Dems are doing the opposite...
Does "respecting the opinions of others" mean never challenging them? It sounds like once again some of us are being advised to shut up because our viewpoints are making somebody "uncomfortable."
I would rather hold to my principles than win an election. "For what doth it profit a man...?"
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-06-29 8:27:13 AM
Not only is Ur against abortion and gay marriage, she is adamently against the gun registry and was one of the few Liberal MP's to vote against it. The Conservatives would do well to try to entice her to our side as she holds most of the same values anyway.
Posted by: Mark | 2004-06-30 8:32:40 AM
"It is not the Alliance take-over of the PCs that people should be talking about. It is the Christian Heritage Party take-over of the Alliance."
Flea, this is precisely why notions of what constitutes tolerance has to change. It can only change by confronting the double standard (see my post re: the word redneck).
We conservatives who are social moderates have to begin defending the right of the social right to speak and voice their concerns. They have to be given fair hearing, not denounced as extremist. This is not just crucial to the party remaining intact, it is crucial to the preservation of our democracy.
If there isn't popular support for their beliefs, in a democracy, their fondest hopes will not come to pass - just as many of the fondest hopes of the extreme left will not come to pass, though they continue to be welcome in the Liberals and NDP.
Big tent has to include the social conservatives, as their numbers are substancial. They don't have to get everything they want, but they have to feel they can have their say without being attacked and denounced by their own, out of fear of the rhetoric of the media and the political opposition'.
Posted by: Kate | 2004-06-30 9:02:34 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.