I have totaly misread US politics

[train]

I'll grant you that eastern Canadians are somewhat suspicious of the religious extremists in the CPOC. But nowadays, IMHO, their fear of the CPOC is all about Harper's uncompromising, hyper-manipulative style of government. He is perceived by a great many Canadians as an extraordinarily tactical politician with rage issues and an exceptionally counterproductive "up yours" approach to his minority status in the house.

I think there is a tiny bit of wishful thinking in this on your part. While the Liberal and Conservative party's are virtually equal in popularity right per polls now a current poll shows Harper more popular than all othe leaders by a very wide margin.

This indicates that they like Harper but not the Conservative Party. The opposite of what you are postulating.

 

[Aardvark154]

I find it both interesting and puzzling how naieve/ignorant various Christian denominations are about the origin and
history of the New Testament.

I believe thinking about theology is always better, but then again that is the tradition from which I come. Biblical translation is a complicated subject which I don’t really want to get into. Unfortunately learning Koine Greek is both difficult and of marginal utility in the secular world.

 

[slowpoke]

So you don't have a problem with unelected officials holding up legislation passed by elected representatives? Legislation the majority of Canadians want? Legislation passed in the HOC with Liberal support?

Interesting.

If the Liberals had a problem with the Crime Bill, they could have made their case in the HOC (as they were elected to do). Apparently the only Liberal representatives with any balls are the appointed ones.

I never said I approved of the senate stalling Harper's legislation. Harper is accusing the Liberal senate of holding up his crime bill, for example, but this is a large bill with constitutional implications so I can't tell whether Harper's claim is valid or just more political bellyaching. The Liberals offered to fast track this bill in the last session but Harper didn't co-operate enough to get it done. Now this bill is before a senate committee who is going through it line by line. The fact that Harper is getting impatient should be no surprise to anyone. He was born impatient.

This is a description of the senate's responsibility with respect to legislation that has been passed by the HOC. You seem to think the senate's role is to just rubber stamp what the HOC passes but there is more to it than that:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canadian-senate-role-powers-operation#role

Chamber of Sober Second Thought
The Senate, in concert with the House of Commons, plays an important role in the operation of Canada’s government. In theory, any piece of government legislation must be approved by both the House of Commons and the Senate (as well as the Canadian Monarch) for it to become official law. This, however, raises the question: why does Canada have two legislative bodies to review and approve government legislation?

The ideal of democracy was cautiously accepted in the 1860s when the Canadian colonies negotiated Confederation. The primary worry was that the democratic participation of "regular citizens" in government would be detrimental to good government and policy making. As such, the Fathers of Confederation decided to provide an appointed body, the Senate, which would exercise “sober second thought” in the legislative process. The Senate was to comprise economic and social elites that would act as a check on the interests and policies of the “commoners” or “lower classes,” who were believed to dominate the democratically elected House of Commons. It is important to note, however, that this idea of an “elitist check” on the House no longer carries weight in contemporary Canadian politics. That said, the Senate continues to act as second legislative review on government legislation and action.

Routine Revising Chamber
Another role of the Senate, not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, is to act as a non-ideological, routine revising chamber that picks up flaws in legislation that have avoided notice during a bill’s passage through the House of Commons. Accordingly, the Senate might highlight confusing ideas or language in legislation, or raise questions about potential loopholes that may reduce the effectiveness of a particular law.

 

[slowpoke]

I think there is a tiny bit of wishful thinking in this on your part. While the Liberal and Conservative party's are virtually equal in popularity right per polls now a current poll shows Harper more popular than all othe leaders by a very wide margin.

This indicates that they like Harper but not the Conservative Party. The opposite of what you are postulating.

The two parties are in a dead heat. Dion has been all over the map and his perceived weakness is costing the Liberals. Harper is probably seen as more consistent and maybe even more competent so he gets higher marks for leadership etc. But the people don't like him personally which is holding the CPOC down.

This is from a really good Q&A piece about Harper by Geoffery Simpson in the Globe and Mail. He seems to agree with me about Harper being generally perceived as a prick. Maybe you can find a link to poll results showing that people actually like Harper.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv.../BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=4

..."And, look, Mr. Harper's disdain for the media doesn't bother most of us. I've been around a long time and I find his government's attitude towards the media amusing.

It's almost certainly counter-productive, because it reinforces the widespread public image of him of cold, aloof, forbidding and uncaring, which is among the reasons why his government hasn't gone up in public esteem, despite emptying the kitty.

Somebody said before in a question that this was some kind of conservative, reforming government. They should check the spending increases each year."

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I never said I approved of the senate stalling Harper's legislation. Harper is accusing the Liberal senate of holding up his crime bill, for example, but this is a large bill with constitutional implications so I can't tell whether Harper's claim is valid or just more political bellyaching. The Liberals offered to fast track this bill in the last session but Harper didn't co-operate enough to get it done. Now this bill is before a senate committee who is going through it line by line. The fact that Harper is getting impatient should be no surprise to anyone. He was born impatient.

This is a description of the senate's responsibility with respect to legislation that has been passed by the HOC. You seem to think the senate's role is to just rubber stamp what the HOC passes but there is more to it than that:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canadian-senate-role-powers-operation#role

Chamber of Sober Second Thought
The Senate, in concert with the House of Commons, plays an important role in the operation of Canada’s government. In theory, any piece of government legislation must be approved by both the House of Commons and the Senate (as well as the Canadian Monarch) for it to become official law. This, however, raises the question: why does Canada have two legislative bodies to review and approve government legislation?

The ideal of democracy was cautiously accepted in the 1860s when the Canadian colonies negotiated Confederation. The primary worry was that the democratic participation of "regular citizens" in government would be detrimental to good government and policy making. As such, the Fathers of Confederation decided to provide an appointed body, the Senate, which would exercise “sober second thought” in the legislative process. The Senate was to comprise economic and social elites that would act as a check on the interests and policies of the “commoners” or “lower classes,” who were believed to dominate the democratically elected House of Commons. It is important to note, however, that this idea of an “elitist check” on the House no longer carries weight in contemporary Canadian politics. That said, the Senate continues to act as second legislative review on government legislation and action.

Routine Revising Chamber
Another role of the Senate, not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, is to act as a non-ideological, routine revising chamber that picks up flaws in legislation that have avoided notice during a bill’s passage through the House of Commons. Accordingly, the Senate might highlight confusing ideas or language in legislation, or raise questions about potential loopholes that may reduce the effectiveness of a particular law.

Thank you for confirming why an unelected senate is not only inefficient, but undemocratic.

I'll take my chances with elected legislators. Even if that may sometimes require enduring governments like Trudeau's, Chretien's, Deifenbaker's and Martin's.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

The two parties are in a dead heat. Dion has been all over the map and his perceived weakness is costing the Liberals.

Perceived?

Yeah, the predominantly right wing media is falsely painting him with that brush. LMAO!

But the people don't like him personally which is holding the CPOC down.

Speak for yourself.

 

[slowpoke]

Thank you for confirming why an unelected senate is not only inefficient, but undemocratic.

I'll take my chances with elected legislators. Even if that may sometimes require enduring governments like Trudeau's, Chretien's and Martin's.

I wasn't paying attention when this crime bill was cleared by the HOC so I have no idea how closely the details and language were examined. I suspect that the HOC passes legislation without carefully considering every word because they know the senate will dissect it more carefully and suggest revisions if they find weaknesses. Appointed senators may be undemocratic but I'm not sure there is a more efficient way to carefully consider all the implications and the legal wording of large bills like this one.

If the senators were elected, the process could become too adversarial which might make this exercise of sober second thought almost impossible. I'd rather see senators appointed for 10 or 12 years but take the selection process out of the hands of the gov't. Maybe each community could nominate one of their own members to go before a non-partisan selection committee. There must be some way to have a non-partisan senate to double check bills passed in the house.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I wasn't paying attention when this crime bill was cleared by the HOC so I have no idea how closely the details and language were examined. I suspect that the HOC passes legislation without carefully considering every word because they know the senate will dissect it more carefully and suggest revisions if they find weaknesses. Appointed senators may be undemocratic but I'm not sure there is a more efficient way to carefully consider all the implications and the legal wording of large bills like this one.

If the senators were elected, the process could become too adversarial which might make this exercise of sober second thought almost impossible. I'd rather see senators appointed for 10 or 12 years but take the selection process out of the hands of the gov't. Maybe each community could nominate one of their own members to go before a non-partisan selection committee. There must be some way to have a non-partisan senate to double check bills passed in the house.

I have no problem with checks and balances as long as those doing the checking are elected.

It's called the democratic process and I've become comfortable with it.

 

[slowpoke]

Perceived?

Yeah, the predominantly right wing media is falsely painting him with that brush. LMAO!....

I don't get the sense that the media has unfairly labelled Dion as weak. He's creating that impression all by himself. Dion may have failed to connect with Canadians but we haven't yet seen an election campaign or any kind of political acid test so I'll stick with "perceived weakness" for the time being. He's trying to lead a divided party so his problems might be more situational than personal.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I don't get the sense that the media has unfairly labelled Dion as weak. He's creating that impression all by himself. Dion may have failed to connect with Canadians but we haven't yet seen an election campaign or any kind of political acid test so I'll stick with "perceived weakness" for the time being. He's trying to lead a divided party so his problems might be more situational than personal.

Truth be told, I actually like Dion. He's bright, thoughtful and appears to be honest.

Dion would make a good high level minister. Maybe Harper will find a portfolio for him after the next election.

 

[train]

But the people don't like him personally which is holding the CPOC down.

Maybe you can find a link to poll results showing that people actually like Harper.

."

In any poll, Harper consistently outpolls every other leader by a very large margin on any leadership question asked. I have never seen a simple "do you like him personally" poll question. However feel free to find a poll that shows people don't like him.

I believe that this is merely your own opinion, along with possibly a few newsprint reporters whom he has told to "piss off" ,