Like a number of other Canadians the Liberals are dead to me. They will reside in histories wastebasket for many years. I just do not see any of their leadership capable of leading them past this recent defeat and into the future. Until they let go of this self-destructive socialist ideology and political graft they risk becoming a fringe party.

Posted by: The Missing Link at August 22, 2006 12:18 AM

---

Agreed, Link.

Posted by: Jack Kerouac at August 22, 2006 06:08 AM

---

The thought of the Libs winning the next election scares the bejesus out of me. Anyone whose paid any attention to recent world events knows we face horrendous problems, not solved by group hugs, cheap shots at the US,and unchecked immigration. As for Warren Kinsella, when he was big Jean's hatchet man I despised him. Judging by his writings of late, I would have to say the blinders must have come off. He gets it,but I don't think the libleft's scorn will be too hard for him to bear. If you happen to read this Warren, punk music is an oxymoron.

Posted by: rick at August 22, 2006 06:15 AM

---

"The Liberal Party might split."

I read your site regularly, but I have to say that either you are understating this so as not to alarm the lib-left that come browsing, or you didn't pick up on this since the Chretien-Martin ongoing war started.

The fact is the liberal party has always been split. They've always managed to convince their supporters however that you can be on both sides of an issue, therefore vote liberal.
The problem of course is eventually doing nothing about an issue is not a strategy to deal with it.
You can only play both sides of the political spectrum until the situation or issue becomes too polorizing.
The mid-east is just such an issue. On one side is Israel, trying to protect its citizens after Lebanon is unable (either through weakness or intent) of disarming the terrorists. On the other is Hezbolla, with its stated intent is the destruction of Israel and as a side note the stated desire is not up for negotiation. Regardless of how you, I, or anyone else feels about Israels existence, its a bit of a stretch to endorse the terrorist option no matter the cause. Oh yes lets also not forget that Hezbolla also has the west firmly in its sights as the next target once its finished with Israel.
But I digress.
The one liberal party understands this, and knows it must oppose terrorism. however the other part of that party which sold its soul to win elections operates on a methodology of pandering to interest groups (just have a look at the groups that get automatic delegate status at the LPC conventions). Because of this pandering liberal MP's have to continously talk the talk that the local interest group want to hear...the same interest groups that make up the bulk of insta-liberals.
As a collary to this was some talk a couple months back about how the liberal party needed to change their practices to prevent the creation of those same insta-members, but shucks now just ain't the time, maybe "after we elect a new leader or after the next election..till then its business as usual".
The point of this overtly long post?
The liberal party has been split since Chretien became leader, its just that the issues are now too polarizing to straddle the political fence.

Posted by: at August 22, 2006 06:23 AM

---

And the young libs are pointing their cameras to the right to find "outspoken" conservatives - me thinks they need to look behind them.

Funny though - if a Conservative has made this remark, the MSM, Libs, Dippers, Greens, CAW, Buz Hargrove, NOW, and every other namby pamby trough feeder would be screeching from every newspaper, TV screen and blog about how this points to why the Conservatives cannot govern Canada. It would be held up as evidence of intolerance and non-acceptance within the ranks of the CPC and therefore Steven Harper must be defeated before he destroys "Canadian Values"!!!

I wonder how that shoe fits on the other foot?

Posted by: Alberta Girl at August 22, 2006 06:39 AM

---

Posted by_ ; I fervently hope if and when the Liberal party finds unity it's as a party that understands the threat the west is facing from radical Islam. Pretty sad when I have to worry about being called a racist for the previous sentence. That's what political correctness has done for us.

Posted by: rick at August 22, 2006 06:43 AM

---

I love it! It's like watching a pair of deranged lab rats in a bloody gashing feud over who gets to eat their offspring.

Check the crazed foamy-mouthed zealot shreiking about "Zionist aggression"...I suppose he's so wrapped up in his dogma that he misses the hypocricy of his position (supporting Irael-hating Jihadi aggression and mistaking defensive force as "aggression) ;-)

It is these type of demented political dogmas which pervades the Liberal political camp...they have been there for some time and have gained a policy foot hold. This latest snarling and snapping at the minority party moderates is just another display as to why Liberal politics and policy, arising from this extremist dogmas and bizarre
ideologies, are anything but "liberal"...and certainly not relevant to the mainstream rationale of Canadians.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at August 22, 2006 09:22 AM

---

Does this effectively end the papparazzi contest to find "scary" Conservaives? If the Young Liberals truly want to ferret out the hidden agenda, they should be using mirrors instead of cameras for their ill-conceived campaign.

Posted by: at August 22, 2006 09:27 AM

---

And yet, after all this, after years of sleaze and corruption and infighting and graft and heaven knows what--after all this, still, 30% of Canadians would vote Liberal tomorrow, given a chance. What does this say about Canada?

Posted by: BillBC at August 22, 2006 09:46 AM

---

Is it worth mentioning that the bright but misguided Thomas Hubert is evidently only 16 (possibly 17) years old? Since when are the views of a teenager who can't yet vote representative or even symptomatic of the views of an entire political party? Canvas enough Conservative-, NDP-, Bloc-, Green-, or Socialist-supporting teenagers, and somebody's bound to say something offensive to somebody else, mostly because they're still maturing teenagers. The only difference is that Mr. Hubert held a YLP(BC) position, so now this is suddenly says something about the entire Liberal Party.

Posted by: A at August 22, 2006 10:01 AM

---

The adults in the Liberal party need to make the position clear, it may cause them pain and members in the short run.

But look a Kennedy's statement....even that is a "mugwhump" (Diefenbakers wonderful description of Liberals, mug on one side and whump on the other).....last line, restore a tradition of seeking peaceful solutions....so this means that Kennedy thinks Israel's response was uncalled for, that kidnappings and border intrusions should go unanswered. He has opened it up, so what would Gerrard Kennedy advise if he were sitting around the Israeli Cabinet table.....

What a himbo, he says little and knows less.

Posted by: Stephen at August 22, 2006 10:05 AM

---

Agree with BillBC. I would guess that a large number of Canadians share the same anti-Israel views, the same appeasement of the devil views. The Liberals have the support of about 30% of Canadians in the polling, even with all the dirty laundry of all the various "scams" they committed over the years. It baffles the mind that people will vote for this group, let alone proudly admit out loud that they support this party! Doesn't say much for the quality of a large portion of our citizenry, does it?

Posted by: Soccermom at August 22, 2006 10:11 AM

---

Rick: "I fervently hope if and when the Liberal party finds unity it's as a party that understands the threat the west is facing from radical Islam. Pretty sad when I have to worry about being called a racist for the previous sentence. That's what political correctness has done for us.

Not to worry, your first sentence is not racist at all. However, depending on what your solution is to the "threat" posed by radical Islam(ic terrorists), then it may or may not be racist. This would be so not because of "political correctness" but because of, among other things, an understanding of proportionality, a sensitivity towards other cultures and faiths, a resistance to xenophobia, a recognition of human nature, and a good-faith desire to broker a lasting peace.

Posted by: A at August 22, 2006 10:12 AM

---

Stephen: "...so this means that Kennedy thinks Israel's response was uncalled for, that kidnappings and border intrusions should go unanswered.

Actually, no. I don't know any mainstream politician who thinks Israel should've simply turned the other cheek. It's not a black-and-white issue, neither "Blindly support Israel's every move!" nor "Blindly denouce Israel's every move!" Virtually everyone, including Kennedy, acknowledges and supports Israel's right of self-defense. The question, as it's always been, is one of proportionality of response -- that in order to avoid criticisms and (unwarranted) claims of moral equivalence with Hezbollah terrorists, Israel needed to exercise extreme caution in protecting the lives of innocent Lebanese civilians. Given the civilian toll and the infrastructure damage throughout Lebanon, this extreme caution may not have been sufficiently heeded.

Posted by: A at August 22, 2006 10:31 AM

---

A, he's a party official, for heaven's sake. His age, which was reported elswhere to be 19, is irrelevant. Imagine him at party executive meetings when the subject of Liberal policy towards the Middle East came up, expressing his views. Did they recoil in horror? Did they tell him to go sit in the corner, or throw him out of the party? Seems not. It's absurd to pretend he was just some random teenager. He was a member of the party youth hierarchy, expressing violently anti-Semitic views, and yes, by his very presence, he represents at least one aspect of the party.

Posted by: BillBC at August 22, 2006 10:34 AM

---

"Israel needed to exercise extreme caution in protecting the lives of innocent Lebanese civilians. Given the civilian toll and the infrastructure damage throughout Lebanon, this extreme caution may not have been sufficiently heeded."

I just don't know how Israel was to do that. Hezbollah fires rocket launchers at Israel from the middle of civilian houses, apartment buildings. What does Israel do in return? It warns civilians to leave, I guess, and if they don't, or can't, then what?

Posted by: at August 22, 2006 10:38 AM

---

A,

Well I dont think thats what Kennedy's "have it both ways" statement implies. It is facile to say that you can defend yourself but then turn around and say you are for seeking peaceful solutions first.

The logical implication is that the non peaceful response was not correct. He said nothing about proportional response, and for those who do open that up it is never defined as to what proportional means, equal deaths, equal weight of explosives used, eye for an eye....so Israel should only have gone and kidnapped two Hesbo's?

It means nothing, but sounds good.

That being said I am critical of Israel because I think they engaged in overreach and left themselves open to failure and certainly perception of failure, a "cats paw" meaning a swift cutting response was more in keeping with their objectives. This larger item of degrading infrastructure and disarming Hesbo was a mistaken public statement.

Nonetheless, statements such as the one from the Kennedy camp show he he is mugwhumped. Does he really know what he believes and what he would do at the adults table....drop the tradion of seeking peaceful solutions "tack on" and state what you really think for good or ill.

I think Liberals and Canadians would respect a well thought out position properly argued as opposed to properly nuanced. I think Kennedy has a chance to be the Joe Clark of the Liberal convention, coming up the middle between Rae and Iggy but he will be out of his depth to be honest

Posted by: Stephen at August 22, 2006 11:22 AM

---