[EnviroTO]

I'm not voting for the Liberals because they have been unable to admit their own failings (i.e. Port Authority, airport rent, mission based military planning and appropriate equipment to handle going to the north of Canada, lack of progress on Kyoto, etc.).

I'm countering illogical "Liberals are corrupt" statements and a focus on unproven allegations of additional scandals beyond ad-scam (which has been dealt with) by replying with equally illogical statements because that is what illogical and unsubstantiated remarks deserve. There are over half a million people in the Liberal party who go to policy conventions and choose a leader which are not corrupt and had no part in the ad-scam. To say "Liberals are corrupt" because a few corrupt individuals are Liberals is like saying "Canadians are sexual predators" because Paul Bernardo and a few other sex offenders are Canadian.

I'm tired of hearing that the Liberals are corrupt as a blanket statement and surely if the Conservatives can say "Liberals are corrupt" because a few are then I can say "Conservatives are religious lunatics" because a few are and say "Conservatives may have planted a leak in the Liberal government" because it is possible... maybe not likely... but possible. I didn't say the Conservatives did it... I said they might have. That is equal to saying Goodale might have leaked the financial information at this point isn't it? There is no proof either way.

 

[bizorky]

This group is not that large, with only a hundred-plus MPs and their riding associations. However, I imagine this is the line of thinking the Liberals will use to defend the record of scandals. They are scandal-proof, since no matter what they do, they continue to win

You are suggesting guilt by association, and guilt until proven innocent. This is exactly what too many people are thinking when they look at the income trust issue. You need proof that a wrong-doing has been committed, and that has yet to happen.

Do you realize that members of the investment community were consulted during the process? They had to be since this is a complex investment issue for both government and business, with effects both nationally and internationally. There was communication between elected MP's in relevant positions, members of the public service and people in the investment community; so it was not a case of a small number of conspirators up to no good.

Going on to suggest that since there are only 100 or so MP's that they all must be in the know is just cynicism on your part. You sound as if you have already assumed that they are criminals, or at least in the know.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

Going on to suggest that since there are only 100 or so MP's that they all must be in the know is just cynicism on your part.

I'm sure that the vast majority of MPs outside of the JC/PM circle were not in the know. However that is not relevant, since under our parliamentary system by voting for even an innocent Liberal MP I have by default voting for the corrupt leadership.

I believe the best solution is one wherein I can vote for my local PM and my head of government. Otherwise, if I can't stand Martin and do not want to see him as PM, I have no choice but not to vote for an otherwise good and honest local MP. I imagine a lot of folks who will in the end vote for the CPC will share this view.

 

[bizorky]

So you vote for the party leader and not for your local MP? It might be surprise, but your local MP is the one who should know and understand local issues. The party leader can't be expected to know the details of all ridings. Besides, the party leader is also an MP, and represents his own ridings interests in parliament as well. Voting for another party because it is not being headed by a leader you dislike is odd too, since it suggests that party policies play no role in your decision.

When you say Martin is corrupt, what exactly do you mean? Do you have any proof of him committing a criminal act of some sort?