Conservative Blood Bath

The Conservative Party has enough problems to worry about without having it's own people stab it incessantly over and over again with out end in the back. Shooting ourselves in the foot isn't going to help.

Case in point: Adam Daifallah, and Bound By Gravity.

I've had it.

If you're not a social conservative and you agree with same sex marriage get over it. Policy in this party is decided at national conventions where debates are held and votes taken. And the party voted against SSM. You may not like it. I didn't like the party voting to essentially make this a pro-choice party by banning any legislation from ever being brought forward on abortion, but I don't make a big deal over it. Making a big deal about it would only play into the Liberals hands. And quite frankly I agree with most of you on most points so why would I shoot the party in the foot over a single issue of contention?

If you don't like Harper get over it. I don't like lots of people. But if I agree with them on most points I don't start a back stabbing campaign for blood.

Get over it. Get some gonads. Critize if you want to, but stop the stabbing please. Let the Liberals do that.


  1. For the record, the reason why I think Harper has to go is not b/c of ideology, but b/c he's incompetant & lacks many necessary qualties to defeat the Liberals

  2. Then who would you get to replace him?

    Bernard Lord refused to step up to the plate when it counted. Peter MacKay won't run anytime too soon - so who will it be?

    Harper's not perfect. He has his flaws. But by no means do they make him "incompetent." He brought the Liberals to within a single vote of defeat. He brought two national parties together. He came within a hairs-breath of forming a government... To me that's not someone who lacks the many necessary qualities to defeat the Liberals - that's someone who's been the most successful federal conservative leader since the 80's.

    But hey that's my opinion.

  3. Let's not forget the fact that media bias and anonymous sourcing are the critics here... If I was a special interest group (the media) I'd be concerned about Harpers victories and try to buff up his defeats.

    Other sources cited a climate of "extreme frustration" in the leader's communications shop. His aloof style and disdain for most outside counsel has been a lightning rod for criticism.

    Sources say Harper's cold-fish persona is only part of the problem.

    I support Stephen Harper for not being a greasy say anything politician. And if I were in the official opposition you're damn right I'd be angry.

  4. Verheyden: In all seriousness?? Rona Ambrose

  5. "Policy in this party is decided at national conventions where debates are held and votes taken. And the party voted against SSM. You may not like it."

    Exactly my point. We decided on a bunch of great policies, and we're only talking about ONE of them. Seems like democracy has been hijacked, does it not?

  6. First of all I don't think all were talking about is one issue. It's just that the media is only reporting on that one issue. Particularly right now because of the SSM vote. We are talking about other things.

    I've read what Harper has said just as well as you have probably done. I don't understand how you can think that Harper is fixated on the issue. If he gives a half hour speech and the media pulls out the one quote about SSM. That to me doesn't sound like a fixation on particular issue. That's sounds to me like the media is fixated on that one issue.

    Democracy hijacked? How is democracy hijacked when we actually talk about what we stand for?