, 10.27.2019 10:20 AM

The ten reasons Andrew Scheer lost the election

1. He’s a Western social conservative and most Canadian voters are neither Westerners nor social conservatives.

2. He allowed himself to be defined (see above) before he defined himself.

3. He was running against a celebrity, not a politician – and he forgot that people are a lot more forgiving of celebrities than politicians.

4. His platform wasn’t just uninspiring, it was duller than a laundry list.

5. He needed to balance his enthusiasm for pipelines with better ideas on climate change – but he didn’t.

6. He knew the national media favour the Liberals between elections, but he still seemed shocked when they kept favouring the Liberals during the election, too.

7. We knew he wanted Trudeau out, but we didn’t know why he wanted Trudeau’s job.

8. He had Tim Hudak syndrome – genial and easy-going in person, stiff and awkward on TV.

9. His campaign team were great on analyzing data, but not so great on mobilizing people – the Liberals actually beat them on voter ID and GOTV.

10. His inability to answer predictable questions – on abortion, equal marriage, his citizenship, etc. – screamed “hidden agenda,” even if he didn’t have one.

Those are my reasons. What are yours? Comments are open.

94 Comments

  1. PJH says:

    Spot on analysis, Mr. Kinsella…..When you are going up against a rock star, (even a disgraced one), and lack charisma, you’d better have an armamentarium of reasons why you are better suited for the top job. Joe Clark was able to pull off his minority win in 1979 with that approach(only to blow it 9 months later with a severe case o’ hubris-but that’s another story). I’d like to see Mr. Scheer get another kick at the can(after all, Mr. Stanfield got three) but he and his minions better take your analysis and run with it. If not, disappointed and disgruntled Tories will be giving him the heave in April faster than you can say Joe Clark.

  2. Roy Sinclair says:

    1. Utterly predictable & biased national media who were cheerleaders for Trudeau 24/7.
    2. Predictable but loathsome unionism. Unions should be banned from using membership money to campaign or or against political parties. Election interference.
    3. 3rd party advertising and funding. let’s make no mistake, all parties were likely recipients of this largesse but I believe that the #LPC got the lion’s share & thanks to Gerry Butts knew how to use it.
    4. I don’t want to see us descend to this level but when your opponent goes dirty (and possible illegal) “you gotta do what you gotta do”. Too much on the line to be a boy scout.
    5. Election interference. The funding of the Canadian Muslim Voting Guide by the Canadian Islamophobia Industry Research Project in which the leaders were “rated” on their views on Islam. I am not a racist whatsoever but this publication went way over the line.

  3. Al Price says:

    Agree with your points. Biggest issue with him is his complete lack of any level of charismas. He just has nothing to offer voters to engage with or like. Hard to see him getting a second chance to lead come next April or sooner.

    • Joseph Taylor says:

      I like Scheer, but I think you are right. Urban establishment types and the media will beat him up on social issues because his views are heresy to the secular fundamentalist religion they subscribe to. They completely gloss over the fact that a solid majority of immigrants that live in suburban Vancouver and Toronto have very traditional viewpoints. My biggest question about Scheer is whether he has the personality to win in age where the common man values celebrity above all and wants to be entertained by their political leaders.

      • Susan says:

        Oh for heavens sakes Joseph, Politicians ARE NOT & SHOULD NOT be there for voters entertainment! They are elected to look after your security, Canadian finances & budgets, deal with foreign affairs, immigration, education, health care etc.. It is a serious and important.
        If you or Kinsela believe that, then I have one question . If politicians are for your entertainment then are mivie stars, musicians for running the Country?

  4. Pedro says:

    Me – lifelong Con who didn’t even have Scheer on his list of 10 I sent in. Was disillusioned. Early in the campaign was seriously parking my vote elsewhere. Thank Providence for a wonderful, young woman candidate in my riding even my daughters could get behind – who lost to a middling Liberal. After the campaign, I must say, admire the disciplined campaign the Cons and Scheer led. He was disciplined and rational – as best as could be in the soup he was buffeted in. He has learned well or, he has always been principled. I hope he stays. My two cents.

    • lyn says:

      Pedro: I like you two cents. If Scheer had of gone after Trudeau with a loud voice I am afraid Trudeau would have said how nasty Scheer has become and more. Scheer had to control himself or the Trudeau/Butts dirt would fly all being lies.

    • Roy Sinclair says:

      I agree. It was refreshing to have a leader campaigning who knew the issues, could speak to them intelligently, who answered straightforward questions with straightforward replies. This, in contrast to Trudeau, who I am not certain actually answered any question head on.

  5. Pipes says:

    11. The omnipresent smirk on his face. He looked like he was going to break out laughing at any minute which affected his sincerity.

    • ABB says:

      Plus Scheer’s badly fitting suit jackets and shirts with over-stretched buttons indicate an unfit and portly image as compared to the svelth and energetic Trudeau.

    • lyn says:

      Pipes: Small potatoes better than sock puppets crying eyes of fake!!

    • Joseph Taylor says:

      Not sure what you were looking at. I rarely saw a picture of Scheer in the last 9 months where he didn’t look angry or annoyed. I am not sure if this is just the way he is or if this is how the media was trying to subtly frame him.

  6. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    How in heaven’s name did Scheer’s war room manage to lose GOTV? As a former CPC member, I can tell you that’s all I’d need as a member to give him the heave-ho next April.

    • Joseph Taylor says:

      Things kind of fell apart organizationally after Nigel Wright left the CPC in 2013. There is only so much ground that can be made back up in 2 years of a new administration in terms of voter data.

  7. FM says:

    Scheer lost because we have a very left-biased media who treated Trudeau as a celebrity, as you alluded to in your article. My big concern is; how are we going to have a functioning democracy with a biased media, that clearly favours the Liberals. If any other party leader had been caught in blackface multiple times, they would have been forced to resign. Instead, we had CBC and others saying this was a teachable moment for the country, instead of skewering the blackface leader, mr trudeau

    • Anthony says:

      The National Post have never, and will never support and endorse a Progressive Canadian national party.

      The Globe and Mail is owned on run by wealthy Conservative owners.

      What national news organizations are you referring to when you state that they are very left-biased media?

      Surely not the public carrier that Mr. Harper sowed with Conservative weed seeds.

      • Joseph Taylor says:

        I’m tired of this canard argument. If the 95% of the journalists are at a minimum urban establishment small L liberals and their reporting day in and day out reflects this, does it really matter who the editorial board endorses every 4 years?

  8. The Doctor says:

    Good points WK. Especially #4. Whoever put policy and platform together, and advised Scheer on same, is an incompetent idiot. Totally scattershot, incoherent and unmemorable. Nothing for the average voter to grab onto. Just a massive fail.

    I’m begging for him to be forced out, but I fear he’ll be sticking around to guarantee JT a stint as PM For Life.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Doc,

      Of course they won’t force him out. They saw Harper lose in 2004 and win two years later. They actually think Scheer is another Harper-in-training. He isn’t.

    • Joseph Taylor says:

      That’s a little harsh considering the difficult hand they were dealt in most of the fundamental drivers of voting behaviour. What conservative wedge issue would you have run on when the are not going to win on the environment, the economy accelerated dramatically in Q3 2019, job creation was strong and most provinces have lowest unemployment rate in 40 years? Very few people are voting based on the deficit and when the Liberals don’t care how much they borrow to match your tax cuts, you end up running a campaign about affordability to try to entice the suburban Toronto and Vancouver by default.

      • The Doctor says:

        Joseph, those are good points. I would counter by simply saying that Scheer is also a lousy politician and has the charisma of a pair of brown socks. It’s shocking to me how a job — Tory Leader — which gives you a roughly 5o% chance of leading a G7 country attracts so few quality candidates.

        On the policy side, I agree with what you say about the challenges, but the Tory platform was utterly muddled and unmemorable. Go ask a bunch of people what Scheer’s major policy planks and proposals were. I guarantee you’ll get a bunch of blank stares and shrugs.

        • Joseph Taylor says:

          The problem with the Conservative leadership race was that Trudeau looked unbeatable until about March 2018. It’s not exactly a dream job for high potential candidates to give up their successful lives to be the leader of the opposition for 6+ years.

  9. 1. Who likes a career politician who wasn’t even a licensed insurance broker!
    2. He lost me when he came out with that disrespectful Trudeau intro vitriol at the debate.
    3. He is a follower not a leader. This is obvious and he doesn’t deserve another run. You can’t make a follower into a leader.

  10. Douglas W says:

    The Conservative war room was dismal. Fire the lot.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Douglas,

      Or better yet, have them join their contemporaries in quality in Trudeau’s PMO. Trudeau should be thanking Broadhurst at least once a day going forward cause the rest of them…

  11. Shelley A Belsky says:

    People need to look at the final results.
    The conservatives picked up seats, the Liberals and the N.D.P. lost seats.
    Trudeau can learn from this if he chooses to.

  12. Steve says:

    When he waffled on questions around minority rights, his dual citizenship, his employment history he looked shifty. Always a problem when you’re dealing with a media that’s going to have a natural hate-on for you.

    He continued to focus on SNC Lavalin long after voter reaction had been baked in… including announcing he’d call an inquiry… when he was in Papineau. You know, in Quebec, where the PM said he was defending jobs?

    He failed to invoke Harper’s strategy of defining yourself before your opponent does it for you. He was always trying to grab the “talking stick” back, rather than keeping it from the Liberals.

    He should have tried to leverage Ford Nation… after all Ford won a number of the ridings provincially that went to the Liberal’s federally. Trudeau dragged Ford in every day, so Ford was already a factor; should have let him respond (tactfully) and stop that narrative cold.

    There’s more, but it’s more than enough. He has to go if we have any hope of removing Trudeau.

    • Douglas W says:

      Scheer definitely has to go. But who’s waiting in the wings? My choices: Leona Alleslev, Alain Rayes, John Tory.

      • Chris says:

        Alleslev? Rayes? Who are these people?
        Tory? The same Tory who rescued defeat from the jaws of victory against McGuinty in Ontario?

        How about Bernard Lord from New Brunswick? Or Ambrose or Rempel?

      • MF says:

        I like Tory. I’ve voted for him in 4 elections now. But as mayor, he’s been boring and doesn’t seem to have a broader vision. Maybe that’s what we needed after the previous administration. At this point, I expected more from him.

        • The Doctor says:

          I’d say Ambrose, Rempel or Erin O’Toole. I realize Erin has that white guy problem, but he’s leagues above Scheer in terms of substance. He would wear and last way better than Scheer under sustained scrutiny.

          Still I’d prefer Ambrose, Rempel or even Raitt. I think the Liberals would have a very hard time with Ambrose.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Steve,

      This deliberate exclusion no doubt suited Ford to a tee what with his own not so subtle national aspirations. Seeing Scheer blow it might have put a knowing smile on Doug’s face. (But then I’m more cynical than most.)

  13. Sam Davies says:

    10. His inability to answer predictable questions – on abortion, equal marriage, his citizenship, etc. – screamed “hidden agenda,” even if he didn’t have one

    Scheer’s primary attack mantra against Trudeau was “Not as advertised”. It seems this was flipped on him.
    His inability to answer those above questions (as well as fluffing his resume and keeping dual citizenship on the down low) made many people feel he could not be trusted. Many Etobicoke locals I spoke with voted strategically, opting to choose 1 shit sandwich to prevent the other shit sandwich from winning. Neither Scheer nor Trudeau have impressive resumes outside of politics.

  14. Rosemary says:

    I was disappointed by many of these things and hope that Sheer and team can learn from their mistakes. They will need to learn quickly to be available for the next round.

  15. ABB says:

    The biggest factor was the revelations late in campaign about his US passport. Came at exactly the time voters were solidifying their scrutiny of the campaigns. A massive cock-up for CPC and completely avoidable. Dopey Scheer left that unaddressed until his filing request with US authorities in August? Astonishing ineptitude. He has to go.

    • FM says:

      I agree he should have ditched American citizenship as soon as he became leader of the opposition. However, he worked hard, the conservatives gained many additional seats, and he deserves to stay as leader to fight in next election, which should happen within two years. I think the next 18-24 month’s will see some explosive revelations with Liberals no longer able to shut down inquisitive committees

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        FM,

        So-called explosive revelations don’t work against politicians in the North American context at the national level. See Clinton, Trump, etc.

        The only people who don’t get that is the naturally inclined holier-than-thou Reform party crowd. (Lucky CPC!)

      • Chris says:

        Chances are Trudeau might be gone within a year and the Conservatives will be up against a Liberal party led by a decent and capable leader in the next election. All the more reason to send Sheer away.

        • RKJ says:

          Scheer needs to go. His citizenship issue sealed it. His smarmy reply – “no one asked me” was insulting to even we CPC supporters. He is old enough to understand dual citizenship is an issue for someone who wants to be PM. He gave others the gears over the same issue. What an embarrassment.

  16. the real Sean says:

    I think you missed a few things…

    1. No meat and potatoes for Quebec. If you want a Tory minority, some pandering to Quebec is always necessary. Ontario usually follows Quebec’s lead.

    2. Canada almost never votes out a 1st term PM.

    3. Ontario PC / Canada L. etc… and vice versa. Ford wasn’t out on the hustings but it was just as big a story that he was *not out on the hustings.* Fed into the idea they had something to hide.

    4. Why the heck is everyone down playing the popular vote issue? I’m fairly certain that’s only happened once before: JC v. PET 1979. Am I wrong? You can’t ditch a guy who wins the popular vote FFS.

  17. Gilbert says:

    I think Andrew Scheer learned a lot from the campaign. The issue of American citizenship definitely hurt him, and he shouldn’t have distanced himself so much from Doug Ford. The NDP wasn’t enough of a factor to split the vote on the left.

  18. Walter says:

    #10 is by far the worst. He knew these questions would come up, because we know the Liberals will always pull the hidden agenda card. I could have come up with a response in 5 minutes.
    Abortion: personal view same as Trudeau, public view same as Trudeau – no change.
    Gay Marriage: Like many Liberals, I believed there were other means of achieving improved rights and equality for Gays. Parliament chose not to explore those and passed the current laws. Just like other Liberals, I agree not to change current laws.

    Most of the others were open to some debate.
    His platform may have been dull – but it was by far the best. In Ontario, Bill Davis always said bland works. On the environment, he stress clean land, water and air and not just CO2. He did win over Grassy Narrows (Kenora riding), but Toronto said they can’t have their clean water.

  19. Walter says:

    A big events that aren’t mentioned;
    1) The staged event by Singh with the “cut off the turban” incident. On top of the Blackface story breaking, that helped maintain momentum for the NDP as pro minority.
    2) The staged event in Mississauga where Trudeau claimed death threats and increased security. He spun this as conservative campaigning inspired the threats and how brave he was to soldier on.
    3) The foreign interference of Gretta and Obama.
    Unfortunately, Scheer didn’t stage any memorable events.

  20. Steve says:

    I agree with all 10 of your points, but chief among them is the “SoCon” agenda. As my 20 something daughter pointed out, there are lots of people, including young people, who do not believe that “more government” is the answer to every problem and as such, for whom the Conservative party should be a natural home. But as long as voting Conservative means voting for a leader and by extension possibly a party that does not appear to be comfortable with established law and broadly accepted social norms with respect to same sex marriage and women’s rights, that party will not get their vote. Sadly, I think that means that Mr. Scheer, decent fellow that he may be, must go.

    • Joseph Taylor says:

      With all due respect to you, conservative governments are not won on the backs of 20 something women and the fact that this is your opinion belies a significant lack of understanding of electoral demographics. A conservative government trying to appeal to young women will result in electoral disaster. Young women are the least likely voters to vote, and in aggregate the most left wing demographic in politics basically in any western country no matter who the leaders are or what the campaign messages are. If we are going to get another conservative government in Ottawa it will be because a near majority of men and voters 45+ vote conservative on election day.

      • Steve says:

        Hey, thanks for the lesson on “electoral demographics”. Always ready to learn. But wouldn’t it be nice to think about a Conservative party, with clear, conservative thinking on economic/fiscal issues and a sensible modern stance on social issues, that could then be more than just the party of old men like me and from the sound it, probably you? Just a thought …

        • Joseph Taylor says:

          Canada is the only democracy in the world that legally permits abortion on demand for any reason at any point in the pregnancy. We are far more permissive that even the most permissive left wing European countries like Sweden and Germany which generally outlaw abortion after 15 weeks gestational age. There are literally no abortion laws in Canada. The Conservative Party’s official platform proposed no changes to the status quo. Have we really become that extremist as a country that holding pro-life views is a thought crime that disqualifies someone holding office even if they are not proposing any changes to said issue? Also I’m a millenial 🙂

          • Nicole says:

            Medical boards in the provinces do not permit abortion on demand past a certain amount of weeks so stop with the US anti choice talking point.

            Women of all ages don’t like being told that they can’t control their own body. The sooner that the conservatives get that, the sooner they will access the votes of the young women, who later become middle aged women who are voting in larger and larger numbers as time goes on.

            Get Rona Ambrose back. She comes off as a centrist and would pose a threat to Trudeau.

          • Fred from BC says:

            “Medical boards in the provinces do not permit abortion on demand past a certain amount of weeks

            FALSE.

            Medical boards only control *funding* for abortion, not access. Abortion is legal in Canada at ANY STAGE of the pregnancy, right up until birth. Look it up.

            “so stop with the US anti choice talking point. ”

            Stop with the radical feminist talking points.

            “Women of all ages don’t like being told that they can’t control their own body. ”

            Except by those mythical medical boards you mentioned above, right? Interesting.

            (and I’m pro-choice, by the way; I just take it personally when people try to bullshit me…)

          • Walter says:

            Have we really become that extremist as a country that holding pro-life views is a thought crime that disqualifies someone holding office even if they are not proposing any changes to said issue?

            Yes.

          • The Doctor says:

            Nicole, how are conservatives telling women that they can’t control their own bodies? For multiple election cycles now, it has been a plank of the federal Tory platform that they will not bring in any law restricting abortion.

            Please explain.

    • Walter says:

      Problem is that there was ZERO SoCon agenda in this election. Let’s just admit that Canada has freedom of Religion as long you hide your religion (if Christian).
      I am guessing you are referring to point #10 in Warrens list – that Scheer had difficulties counteracting the Liberal and Media (maybe same thing) barrage. But I don’t think anyone that paid attention thought Scheer would change any of these social policies.

      • Fred from BC says:

        “Problem is that there was ZERO SoCon agenda in this election. Let’s just admit that Canada has freedom of Religion as long you hide your religion (if Christian).”

        I second that.

        The very idea that Andrew Scheer could have restricted abortion even if he had won a majority government is laughable; he just doesn’t have the numbers, even in the CPC itself. Why didn’t the CPC run an election ad to clarify that? Are they too afraid to alienate the social conservatives?

  21. Joseph Taylor says:

    I think you are 99% correct here Warren. The biggest failure in my opinion is despite having a large fundraising advantage they did not create and define Andrew’s brand, which given his innate lack of charisma may be a mortal wound. Their failure to do this let the opposition brand him with the complicity of the media and it’s unclear whether his brand is so tarnished that he needs to be replaced.

  22. Doug Brown says:

    11) Not going after Butts. I know that staff are generally off limits to opposition campaigns, but Butts is the true leader of the Liberal party. They should have raised issues about his departure as Principal Secretary. If he was a distraction due to the SNC scandal, why isn’t he a distraction to the campaign? What were the terms of his severance when he left as Principal Secretary?

  23. Martin says:

    On point 6, he should have taken a page out of Ford’s and Trump’s playbooks and gone after the media. How could they have treated him any worse? Just one small example. He should have been unapologetic about the contract with the Daisy Group and asked Katie Simpson if she had a problem with going after racists. Easy to say in hindsight but they probably should not have kept Ford under wraps. Once again, how could the impact have been any worse? He could have been the guy that called out the media bs.

    • Westcoastjim says:

      He couldn’t go after racists because he was currying their vote.

      He couldn’t go after the media because they accurately and fairly covered him and his agenda.

      Like many Republicans and Ford loyalists you seem to be suggesting that Scheer lie in order to gain political advantage. Scheer did that. Repeatedly. Unfortunately for him Canadians saw through his bs and called him on it.

      • Fred from BC says:

        “He couldn’t go after the media because they accurately and fairly covered him and his agenda. ”

        I get it, now: aspiring comedian, right? That was a good one…:)

        • Martin says:

          I note that now that the CBC’s boy is safely back at the helm, they decided on P and P yesterday that it was safe to bring up the Mark Norman affair again.

      • Martin says:

        I guess you are suggesting that he take a cue from JT’s playbook. The two biggest lies of the last two elections were by JT himself.

        “We are committed to ensuring that the 2015 election will be the last federal election using first-past-the-post”

        Good thing he told that whopper or he would now be in opposition.

        And the even more laughable:

        “I am looking straight at Canadians and being honest the way I always have. We’ve said we are committed to balanced budgets and we are. We will balance that budget in 2019.”

  24. A. Voter says:

    I assume the main reason Scheer lost the election would be his campaign was run by the people who ran his leadership bid instead of the best people for the job.

  25. PK says:

    Scheer lost because he’s more conservative than Canadian voters.

  26. Harry Belafonte says:

    Re: #9 – you say he lost the GOTV, but didn’t say why. Scheer started talking like he was winning the election. This was a colossally stupid thing to do. If you’re a Liberal or nobody kind of person, of which there are many, you probably stay home this election unless you think the party you hate most is going to win. It also made him look ridiculous on election night when he wasn’t even close. He did more to rally the Lib voters than anything Justin did.

    • The Doctor says:

      I used to work in politics, and GOTV has a lot to do with plain old enthusiasm (as well as money, of course). There just wasn’t a lot of enthusiasm out there for Scheer IMO, even among Tory rank and file.

      As WK would say, stick a fork in him.

  27. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Watch and see how MacKay plays it.

  28. WestcoastJim says:

    1. Scheer did not want to be PM of all Canadians. Only those Canadians who thought like him. This made him very popular in Alberta and Saskatchewan but much less so in the rest of the country.
    2. Scheer gleefully drove into the ditch whenever he had the chance often promoting entirely false stories.
    3. Scheer lied repeatedly and often. And really, really badly. Called out on his falsehoods almost every day.
    4. Not only did Scheer lie about the campaign he lied about who he was. His work history. His citizenship. At some point most Canadians concluded that he was a dishonest creep and the facts supported that assessment.

    Furthermore there is no way to correct this. He is perceived by the vast majority of Canadians, quite rightly by his acts, as a lying hypocrite who only cares about people like him. And that means that 34% is his ceiling not his base. Canada will be much better off when the CPC punts this loser high and hard and puts true leader into his position.

    • Fred from BC says:

      Are you aware that almost every point you made could also be applied to Justin Trudeau?

      • Westcoastjim says:

        Fred

        I have to assume you either did not follow the election, did not read my post or are so partisan that any criticism of Scheer impacts you emotionally and clouds your vision of what a dishonest campaign he ran.

        • Martin says:

          What does that have to do with his point?

          • Fred from BC says:

            Thanks, Martin. He dodges my point completely, like any good little Trudeau fanboy.

            (especially in light of more than one past statement here expressing my disrespect for Scheer shamelessly capitulating to the Quebec dairy cartel, as well as my intention to vote for Jody Wilson-Raybould)

          • westcoastjim says:

            First this is about Scheer’s failures and your whataboutisms is irrelevant. However both you and Fred seem absolutely blind to the truth that Scheer ran the dirtiest and dishonest campaign in Canadian history.

            For example he had the CPC website quote obviously fabricated stories from the Buffalo Chronicle alleging outrageous fabrications without fact checking them in circumstances where he either knew they were lies or was willfully blind to their fabricated nature.

            Further he personally hired Warren and Daisy to attack and discredit Max Bernier and the PPC and when confronted with it he refused to tell the Canadian people the obvious truth of what had occurred.

            Andrew Scheer is a bad politician and a horrible human being. The fact that he cloaks himself in his so-called “Christianity” is indicative of what a dishonest hypocrite he is.

            Get you head out of your obviously partisan ass, open your eyes and call for a new leader of the CPC. The Party and the country deserve better then Andres Scheer.

          • Fred from BC says:

            “both you and Fred seem absolutely blind to the truth that Scheer ran the dirtiest and dishonest campaign in Canadian history. ”

            Really? All 200+ years of it? Was Andrew Scheer out there on the streets handing out cash for votes? Sending goon squads to beat up the opposition?

            “For example he had the CPC website quote obviously fabricated stories from the Buffalo Chronicle alleging outrageous fabrications without fact checking them in circumstances where he either knew they were lies or was willfully blind to their fabricated nature.”

            Damn, really? Andrew Scheer did that? Did he carry a laptop everywhere on the campaign trail so he could update and do maintenance on the website, too?

            “Further he personally hired Warren and Daisy to attack and discredit Max Bernier and the PPC and when confronted with it he refused to tell the Canadian people the obvious truth of what had occurred.

            “Personally”, you say?

            Who told you that, Jim?

            “Andrew Scheer is a bad politician and a horrible human being. ”

            A bad politician, sure…but a horrible human being? Compared to who, Hitler? Stalin? Ted Bundy?

            ” The fact that he cloaks himself in his so-called “Christianity” ”

            Oh, wow…so now hes a FAKE Christian, too?

            Get a grip, Jim…

    • Walter says:

      Agree that Scheer did not want to be PM of all Canadians.
      1) He did not represent those who support misogynists.
      2) He did not represent those who support racism.
      3) He did not represent those who support increase in crime.
      4) He did not support those who like corrupt government.
      5) He did not represent those who want to support stealing the economy from future generations.

  29. Douglas,

    Not so sure about that. MacKay has two major problems:

    1. O-R-C-H-A-R-D…

    2. The So-Cons saw that they couldn’t win it with Scheer, a Catholic So-Con. So, they will still want to control the party via a western-based leader. Thus, even though she’s a bit too moderate for them, they will likely line up behind Ambrose to keep MacKay out.

    • Martin says:

      She would probably be PM right now if she had run for the leadership.

    • Douglas W says:

      MacKay’s marketable, with a super smart wife. Winning combination.

    • Fred from BC says:

      “1. O-R-C-H-A-R-D…”

      Correct me if I’m wrong, Ronald (and it has been known to happen), but after McKay had assumed leadership and promised David Orchard (about as Conservative as Michael Chong in my opinion) that he wouldn’t merge with Reform, didn’t the party membership decide in favor of the merger (leaving McKay little choice in the matter)?

      • Fred,

        I have to be careful here as I do not have the text but you are right that both legacy parties voted massively in favour of what we later termed the Alliance takeover.

        Again, with reservation, I think MacKay’s pledge to Orchard had been not to initiate or go into merger talks with the Alliance at any point. But I could be corrected by more knowledgeable sources with first-hand experience regarding this matter.

        (P.S. I voted NO as a PCP member.)

        • Robert White says:

          David Orchard was sold a bill of goods by MacKay’s treachery & Janus faced double dealing on the matter. MacKay had no right to take decision making to a direct vote for Alliance amalgamation. I was a PCP member back then too. And I complained bitterly to the party brass lawyers & Elections Canada about the whole raw dirty deal.

          RW

  30. Mr. Scheer *refuses* to march in a gay pride parade.
    Why? He could not explain…
    If you are running for PM, you need to be PM for *all* Canadians and you need to show that by participating at these gay celebrations. You march in the parade *not* because you support raunchy gay sex! But because you support freedom of choice which *is* the Canadian way Mr. Scheer. You are going to represent *all* Canadians.
    You can have your personal beliefs at home, but when you are PM you cheer for all Canadians and support their right to have a march and to marry whomever they want. That after all is God’s way; he respects your personal free will to choose for yourself.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Mike,

      Social issues, or more particularly, an accurate or inaccurate perception of same kills more potential CPC voters than any other issues. Everyone can see that except non-moderate (non-centrist) right-wingers. Go figure…

      Economic right-wingers get it. SoCons, not so much.

    • Fred from BC says:

      Completely disagree.

      You make it sound as if a Prime Minister should have *no choice* in the matter. That he or she should be *forced* to march in one of these parades. I reject that completely and would support anyone who resisted such BULLYING. Funny how the “freedom of choice” you mention doesn’t seem to apply to Conservative politicians, isn’t it?

      (…and you know full well that the only reason certain people want Conservative politicians to march in these parades is so the TV cameras can record them being booed and catcalled, right? What kind of fool would deliberately allow that to happen?)

      You know how a politician expresses support for gay rights? By SAYING SO.

      • mike jeffries says:

        Mr Scheer did have choice. He exercised it! It’s the Canadian way.
        Sure, exercise your choice: but explain it if you are running for PM. He couldn’t. He’s not a leader.
        “Forced”! It’s *not* the Canadian Way.
        As a leader each action must be explainable to the public. A good leader can march in a gay pride parade and make it known (boldly) that the *reason* he does is freedom to choose — a basic right that even gay people possess.
        His words are cheap; actions are costly. Good leaders understand that. They learn how to build bridges and expand their base if they want a majority gov’t in this *secular* country!

        • Mike,

          Got to agree with this comment. Sums things up pretty nicely, IMHO. A party leader has to have the balls to do what’s right — not what’s comfortable for the leader, or part/most of his membership. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

          (Fred and I don’t often disagree but we do on this one.)

        • Fred from BC says:

          “Sure, exercise your choice: but explain it if you are running for PM. He couldn’t. He’s not a leader.”

          So now it’s not the fact that he didn’t march, it’s because he didn’t explain why?

          “His words are cheap; actions are costly. Good leaders understand that. ”

          They also understand that actions can be irrelevant if you don’t mean them, and that words can be very effective if you do.

          “if they want a majority gov’t in this *secular* country!”

          You’re mistaken. Canada is not a secular country, since 65% of the population believes in God (not to mention the fact that Christians built the country). We have a secular *government*, if that’s what you were trying to express.

          Oh, and you don’t need the support of a such a small group (what are they, 3 % or so? ) to win a majority government, either…ask Stephen Harper.

  31. Vancouverois says:

    11. The vast majority of voters don’t pay attention to issues, repeat what they’re told to believe is important rather than thinking about it for themselves, don’t pay attention to a politician’s actual record, and are more concerned with appearing to support the “right” things than with actually doing the right things.

    But then, perhaps I’m stating the obvious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*