It really too bad that you haven't.
It is rather telling and bemusing when the first reaction is too attack the messenger if and not the message.
In another observation, most of the con-cornflakes here don't really argue and seems for the Stockwell Day school of though (pulling arguments and facts out of thin air). And they say the Liberals are the touchy-feelie ones...
The choice of title for this thread is really what caused the problem. Unfortunate, because the article is quite interesting, and raises some new(ish) points, rather than rehashing the old. I understand your reaction, SINC and MF, but if you would ignore the barbs and go back and read the article, I'd be interested to hear what people think.
I have long struggled with the idea of a party striving to be "electable". I have criticised the NDP for attempting that strategy on this very forum, in fact. Frankly, it disgusts me, no matter which party is doing it, and I see it as yet another symptom of the horribly corrupt party system that runs this country.
"Courage, my friends; 'tis not too late to build a better world."
"Never confuse the faith with the supposedly faithful."
courtesy of S*P
AS: It's not the content of the threads--it's the outrageous number of new ones used to explore every microscopic nuance of Harper's Conservatives. I enjoy an argument, but I think I'm doing EhMac a disservice by helping to contribute to topic bloat. I don't keep stats but it appears to me that this type of posting is resulting in an overall decrease in usage of this board for people who once enjoyed it.
Interesting, especially in light of the fact that many Republicans in Congress are distancing themselves from Bush, especially if they face reelection this November. We shall see.
14" G4 iBook
15" MacBook Pro (July, 2009)
13" MacBooK Pro with Retina Display
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read these books." Mark Twain
The leader at the head of a party seems replaceable. Bush maybe pushed aside become he has because too galvanizing.
The way of presenting the information is interesting. Control of the language used (tax relief instead of tax cuts), personalize the message, talk about democracy and justice...
I think, that GW Bush is partly successful because he was able to personalize the message. Often Americans will tell me they don't agree with Bush on most issues but there is "one" that resonates with them. That one strong message is what makes them vote in the face of many absurd positions to them.
Here, the NDP and Libs, seem rather clueless compared to the Cons.