Inspired by CdM's Avatar, who do you think's the best President/PM/Chancellor you never had?
Preston Manning.
President Al Gore.
Goldwater.
Gore's response to 9/11 would have been moderate, and focused more on building Afghanistan than torture and madness. Sensible economic policies. Clinton-era talent. My entire generation would have been much better off.
EDIT: Maybe a third Teddy administration?
Quote from: Habbaku on November 09, 2012, 12:31:56 AM
Goldwater.
....would probably have been a total, complete, unimaginably terrible president.
Debs.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 09, 2012, 12:32:49 AM
Gore's response to 9/11 would have been moderate, and focused more on building Afghanistan than torture and madness. Sensible economic policies. Clinton-era talent. My entire generation would have been much better off.
EDIT: Maybe a third Teddy administration?
I think you can say that only W would have used 9/11 as grounds to invade Iraq.
But to think that a President Gore would have focused on "building Afghanistan"? I think the last 4 years have shown us there isn't a huge amount separating the two parties when it comes to foreign policy.
T.R. - 1912
Alexander Hamilton
Quote from: Queequeg on November 09, 2012, 12:34:01 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on November 09, 2012, 12:31:56 AM
Goldwater.
....would probably have been a total, complete, unimaginably terrible president.
You don't have to express your partisan hackery in every thread, you know.
Man, I sure do.
I can't think of the last time you did. Probably because you manage to express yourself in less douchey ways than Squeelus. :hmm:
I think my answer is obvious.
Maj. Denis Healey
Dukakis (though H.W. did some good things, also ran a nasty campaign and appointed Clarence Thomas). Maybe Humphrey.
Mogens Lykketoft. Before he tried to become PM.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2012, 12:41:41 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 09, 2012, 12:32:49 AM
Gore's response to 9/11 would have been moderate, and focused more on building Afghanistan than torture and madness. Sensible economic policies. Clinton-era talent. My entire generation would have been much better off.
EDIT: Maybe a third Teddy administration?
I think you can say that only W would have used 9/11 as grounds to invade Iraq.
But to think that a President Gore would have focused on "building Afghanistan"? I think the last 4 years have shown us there isn't a huge amount separating the two parties when it comes to foreign policy.
IMHO Obama's hands are pretty much tied in Afghanistan due to the election promise to
pull out from Afghanistan and Dubya's actions in the country.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 09, 2012, 12:54:28 AM
You don't have to express your partisan hackery in every thread, you know.
I don't think his legacy is entirely negative, and I think the man himself was always decent and thoughtful, and felt remorse over allying himself with the worst this country has to offer. But his foreign policy was unhinged, and he aligned himself with the Dixiecrats. His '64 campaign deserved to be defeated in a landslide. And it was.
Humphrey probably would have been decent, but LBJ keeping us out of Vietnam and winning a second term would have been wonderful.
All this Goldwater talk has made me wonder what a Rockefeller presidency would have meant for the country and party. :hmm:
President George Romney
President Mitt Romney
Henry Clay
Would a President Robert F. Kennedy have discovered his brother's murderers?
Quote from: celedhring on November 09, 2012, 05:23:42 AM
All this Goldwater talk has made me wonder what a Rockefeller presidency would have meant for the country and party. :hmm:
We'd have colonies on the moon, Communism would have collapsed 20 years earlier, and the AIDS crisis would have been avoided.
Quote from: Gups on November 09, 2012, 02:57:57 AM
Maj. Denis Healey
:lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstumptownblogger.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a010536b86d36970c017c318d5fb6970b-800wi&hash=b53c9fb35773d68a19d66ce5c6d6fe45960ad03d)
Quote from: Queequeg on November 09, 2012, 04:52:01 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on November 09, 2012, 12:54:28 AM
You don't have to express your partisan hackery in every thread, you know.
I don't think his legacy is entirely negative, and I think the man himself was always decent and thoughtful, and felt remorse over allying himself with the worst this country has to offer. But his foreign policy was unhinged, and he aligned himself with the Dixiecrats. His '64 campaign deserved to be defeated in a landslide. And it was.
Humphrey probably would have been decent, but LBJ keeping us out of Vietnam and winning a second term would have been wonderful.
Yeah, I mean the Goldwater a nice man, but he was sorta crazy. I could see why a guy from Georgia would support him though. Opposed the civil rights law of 1964 and all.
Hamilton possibly could have been great. Hamilton was a singular mind when it came to understanding just what exactly America needed in terms of the economy, and really what America needed in terms of its future. Not necessarily his constitutional plan we discussed in the other thread, but just the concept of us as a united nation etc. Jefferson wasn't entirely on board with that and never was, Jefferson penned a lot of works that, some 20 years after his Presidency was resurrected ideologically by the nullifiers.
I've gone back and forth on my feelings for Jefferson over the years, but basically I think he wanted a certain type of United States because he felt that was in the best ideological interests of the American people. The whole decentralized government, focus on yeomen farmers etc. I think his idealism maybe wasn't so terrible, but Hamilton knew the truth. A great power needed centralization of a sort, it needed strength. Confederacies are fine if you're a small state like Switzerland, but a great Empire cannot be ran in such a way.
Hamilton was pragmatic, when his ideal system didn't get much attention at the constitutional convention...he was especially miffed at his New York delegation that didn't support him, but once the new Constitution was agreed upon Hamilton was one of its most ardent supporters and advocates in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton recognized he didn't get what he wanted, but the new constitution at least would be a dagger to the heart of this foolish confederation style "association of free states" that was the status quo and was wholly unfit for the future of the country.
But the problem Hamilton had is he was great as a ministerial type, running the Treasury, he was good in the cloakroom with allies and building factions and etc. Where Hamilton fizzled is his ability to work at all with the opposition. The Democratic-Republicans basically ever expanded their big tent and their coalition until it was the entire electorate. Hamilton for whatever reason, maybe he was personally grating or whatever, was not able to do well at that sort of thing. He created an enemy for every friend he made.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2012, 12:25:25 AM
Inspired by CdM's Avatar, who do you think's the best President/PM/Chancellor you never had?
As much as I adored the General for his sensible and practical conservative economic plans, his solid but flexible anti-Communism through benevolent strength, and his insistence on holding both Reagan and subsequently Bush accountable for Iran Contra, I also believe Bob Dole in 1988 would've been a very, very good president as well.
But the man history would've embraced the most is Al Gore.
I liked 'southern senator' Gore. Hippy Gore? Not so much.
As for the question, William Walker. :wub:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 09, 2012, 07:48:30 AM
Hamilton was pragmatic, when his ideal system didn't get much attention at the constitutional convention...he was especially miffed at his New York delegation that didn't support him, but once the new Constitution was agreed upon Hamilton was one of its most ardent supporters and advocates in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton recognized he didn't get what he wanted, but the new constitution at least would be a dagger to the heart of this foolish confederation style "association of free states" that was the status quo and was wholly unfit for the future of the country.
But the problem Hamilton had is he was great as a ministerial type, running the Treasury, he was good in the cloakroom with allies and building factions and etc. Where Hamilton fizzled is his ability to work at all with the opposition. The Democratic-Republicans basically ever expanded their big tent and their coalition until it was the entire electorate. Hamilton for whatever reason, maybe he was personally grating or whatever, was not able to do well at that sort of thing. He created an enemy for every friend he made.
Hamilton was never embraced by his New York delegation because he never embraced New York, he wasn't from there, he didn't have the filial allegiance to it that so many other delegates held dear about their own states, and it struck many as a type of carpetbaggery.
He was far too exotic, and he always admitted as much himself, which turned some people off from him. The man was a genius and was adored by those who truly knew him, but he stood out like a big, foreign, elitist nail compared to the rest of the Convention.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 09, 2012, 07:58:41 AM
I liked 'southern senator' Gore. Hippy Gore? Not so much.
Hippy, populist Al Gore debuted about 10 years too early.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 09, 2012, 08:01:55 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 09, 2012, 07:48:30 AM
Hamilton was pragmatic, when his ideal system didn't get much attention at the constitutional convention...he was especially miffed at his New York delegation that didn't support him, but once the new Constitution was agreed upon Hamilton was one of its most ardent supporters and advocates in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton recognized he didn't get what he wanted, but the new constitution at least would be a dagger to the heart of this foolish confederation style "association of free states" that was the status quo and was wholly unfit for the future of the country.
But the problem Hamilton had is he was great as a ministerial type, running the Treasury, he was good in the cloakroom with allies and building factions and etc. Where Hamilton fizzled is his ability to work at all with the opposition. The Democratic-Republicans basically ever expanded their big tent and their coalition until it was the entire electorate. Hamilton for whatever reason, maybe he was personally grating or whatever, was not able to do well at that sort of thing. He created an enemy for every friend he made.
Hamilton was never embraced by his New York delegation because he never embraced New York, he wasn't from there, he didn't have the filial allegiance to it that so many other delegates held dear about their own states, and it struck many as a type of carpetbaggery.
He was far too exotic, and he always admitted as much himself, which turned some people off from him. The man was a genius and was adored by those who truly knew him, but he stood out like a big, foreign, elitist nail compared to the rest of the Convention.
In what accent did Hamilton speak English?
Quote from: Count on November 09, 2012, 03:27:01 AM
Dukakis (though H.W. did some good things, also ran a nasty campaign and appointed Clarence Thomas). Maybe Humphrey.
Dukakis, I think, would have been a disaster. If you want to name a liberal Democrat, I think Mondale would have made a better President than Dukakis, and probably even better than Humphrey (if you could ever get Mondale to admit that he's a liberal).
Of course, as a conservative, I'm not going with any of them. I'll say Jack Kemp. If you want to limit it to people who actually got nominated by a major party, and keep it fairly recent (say, post-WW2), then probably Tom Dewey. If that's not recent enough, Bob Dole.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 09, 2012, 08:10:34 AM
In what accent did Hamilton speak English?
He grew up in St. Croix with a Scottish father, but I don't know if he had a strong brogue or not; it wasn't his accent so much as the air he carried himself, a bit foppish. Adams called him a brat.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 09, 2012, 05:33:00 AM
President George Romney
President Mitt Romney
They would have had completely different economic policies. How can you approve of both?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 09, 2012, 08:22:19 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 09, 2012, 08:10:34 AM
In what accent did Hamilton speak English?
He grew up in St. Croix with a Scottish father, but I don't know if he had a strong brogue or not; it wasn't his accent so much as the air he carried himself, a bit foppish. Adams called him a brat.
I imagine a lot of people felt threatened by the fact the guy was a genius. Franklin was a genius as well, but he never disagreed with people. He just subtly manipulated them to the point they did what Franklin wanted and thought it was their own idea. Hamilton was a bit more forward with his intellect.
Quote from: dps on November 09, 2012, 08:20:28 AM
Of course, as a conservative, I'm not going with any of them. I'll say Jack Kemp.
One of the biggest advocates of an utterly discredited and never-should've-been-credited economic policy? Color me not surprised.
Oh, Kemp wasn't so bad. He was a stand up guy. He could also throw pretty well.
Anyway, I think my pick is Hannibal Hamlin. If only Lincoln kept him on as VP in 1864.
William Jennings Bryan...just kidding.
I guess the best never-was in American History was Henry Clay. Do they have to be guys who were likely to be elected?
W.T. Sherman
TR in 1912
Hubert Humphrey.
Two big republican names not yet mentioned: Seward and Dole.
EDIT: and Wendell Willkie.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2012, 10:47:01 AM
Two big republican names not yet mentioned: Seward and Dole.
PAY MOR ATTENTION :mad:
Touche'. <_<
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2012, 12:27:11 AM
Preston Manning.
I think that is true. But at the time he had a real shot at power he had too many MPs who were complete wack jobs and so while he was a compelling leader his cabinet would have been pretty scary.
Willkie is an interesting choice.
Maybe William H. Harrison. I mean technically, he was President for a bit, but still.
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2012, 08:50:50 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 09, 2012, 02:57:57 AM
Maj. Denis Healey
Really? No love for Kinnock?
I like Kinnock a lot. He was absolutely necessary to bring the Labour party back to electability and in fact I don't think anyone else could have done it. He also had a sense of humour, could take his drink and didn't mind getting in a ruck.
But he would have been a pretty shit PM IMO.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 09, 2012, 12:13:19 PM
Maybe William H. Harrison. I mean technically, he was President for a bit, but still.
Well he did pick John Tyler for VP. That doesn't bode well.
No idea. We don't remember losers in Sweden.
Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2012, 01:38:19 PM
No idea. We don't remember losers in Sweden.
SO that's why Swedish history is such an obscure subject.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2012, 12:27:11 AM
Preston Manning.
I think that is true. But at the time he had a real shot at power he had too many MPs who were complete wack jobs and so while he was a compelling leader his cabinet would have been pretty scary.
I agree with you. The very top of Reform was pretty good, but as you went down the hill, you rant into some people who would be doing the Tea Party thing if they were American. The unification provided them with some depth, especially in Eastern Canada.
Quote from: Syt on November 09, 2012, 01:42:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2012, 01:38:19 PM
No idea. We don't remember losers in Sweden.
SO that's why Swedish history is such an obscure subject.
We're too manly to care about history.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2012, 12:27:11 AM
Preston Manning.
I think that is true. But at the time he had a real shot at power he had too many MPs who were complete wack jobs and so while he was a compelling leader his cabinet would have been pretty scary.
Disagree.
Now in '93 Reform would have been a disaster as a government. Even in '97.
But when the Canadian Alliance was formed, Manning ran for leader. He was defeated by Stockwell Day (who to my eternal shame I supported over Manning). Day of course did disastrously as leader, but by 2000 many of the wingnuts were gone and there would have been a strong cabinet in a Manning-led government.
Another interesting historical "what if" would have been Robert Stanfield. While I think he'd have been an improvement over Trudeau, I suspect his government would have been fairly ineffective, and thus not the "best PM we never had".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2012, 10:47:01 AM
Hubert Humphrey.
Two big republican names not yet mentioned: Seward and Dole.
EDIT: and Wendell Willkie.
I was thinking Seward, but went with Hamlin as it would mean that Johnson wouldn't be president.
H. Ross Perot
George S. Patton
Quote from: PDH on November 09, 2012, 06:53:22 PM
George S. Patton
I shudder to think of the losses incurred to pass the National highways act.
Sherman
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2012, 06:14:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2012, 12:27:11 AM
Preston Manning.
I think that is true. But at the time he had a real shot at power he had too many MPs who were complete wack jobs and so while he was a compelling leader his cabinet would have been pretty scary.
Disagree.
Now in '93 Reform would have been a disaster as a government. Even in '97.
But when the Canadian Alliance was formed, Manning ran for leader. He was defeated by Stockwell Day (who to my eternal shame I supported over Manning). Day of course did disastrously as leader, but by 2000 many of the wingnuts were gone and there would have been a strong cabinet in a Manning-led government.
Another interesting historical "what if" would have been Robert Stanfield. While I think he'd have been an improvement over Trudeau, I suspect his government would have been fairly ineffective, and thus not the "best PM we never had".
You will recall I said when he had a real shot at power. By 2000 his time was over - hell even you didnt support him anymore. His time was in the 90s and during that time the Reform party was full of nutbars.
Stanfield seems to have been a nice amicable guy - exactly what the country did not need at that time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 09:58:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2012, 06:14:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2012, 12:27:11 AM
Preston Manning.
I think that is true. But at the time he had a real shot at power he had too many MPs who were complete wack jobs and so while he was a compelling leader his cabinet would have been pretty scary.
Disagree.
Now in '93 Reform would have been a disaster as a government. Even in '97.
But when the Canadian Alliance was formed, Manning ran for leader. He was defeated by Stockwell Day (who to my eternal shame I supported over Manning). Day of course did disastrously as leader, but by 2000 many of the wingnuts were gone and there would have been a strong cabinet in a Manning-led government.
Another interesting historical "what if" would have been Robert Stanfield. While I think he'd have been an improvement over Trudeau, I suspect his government would have been fairly ineffective, and thus not the "best PM we never had".
You will recall I said when he had a real shot at power. By 2000 his time was over - hell even you didnt support him anymore. His time was in the 90s and during that time the Reform party was full of nutbars.
Stanfield seems to have been a nice amicable guy - exactly what the country did not need at that time.
That was my own personal failing. And I didn't even get 30 peices of silver. :cry:
But Manning didn't lose that leadership race by that much. It's quite possible to imagine him winning the leadership race and then doing far, far better than Day did in the following election.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2012, 01:26:34 AM
That was my own personal failing. And I didn't even get 30 peices of silver. :cry:
But Manning didn't lose that leadership race by that much. It's quite possible to imagine him winning the leadership race and then doing far, far better than Day did in the following election.
On the bright side I now have someone to blame for Day's leadership win. Before I could just wonder at who might have supported him.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2012, 03:20:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2012, 01:26:34 AM
That was my own personal failing. And I didn't even get 30 peices of silver. :cry:
But Manning didn't lose that leadership race by that much. It's quite possible to imagine him winning the leadership race and then doing far, far better than Day did in the following election.
On the bright side I now have someone to blame for Day's leadership win. Before I could just wonder at who might have supported him.
If you want to get technical I voted for Diane Ablonczy. :contract:
God, Canadians. :rolleyes:
Petraeus. :cry:
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2012, 05:39:44 PM
God, Canadians. :rolleyes:
It must hurt you so, knowing that our dollar is worth more, our politics less corrupt, and our women more attractive. :console:
Yes, very hurt. I may shoot myself because of it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2012, 05:47:10 PM
Yes, very hurt. I may shoot myself because of it.
There, there. :console:
You have a very fine little country as well. No country can be #1 all of the time. Just enjoy the slide into mediocrity.
I don't even know what you are babbling about. I didn't even shout USA!
Canadians. :rolleyes:
Does Canada exist?
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2012, 05:45:37 PM
It must hurt you so, knowing that our dollar is worth more, our politics less corrupt, and our women more attractive. :console:
You people talk funny.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2012, 05:45:37 PM
it must hurt you so, knowing that our dollar is worth more, our politics less corrupt, and our women more attractive. :console:
Amazing how Canada pulls it off, since their grasp of the English language is so weak that they start posting about Canadian leaders in a "Best President you never had" thread despite the fact that the office of President does not exist in Canada.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 14, 2012, 10:50:10 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2012, 05:45:37 PM
it must hurt you so, knowing that our dollar is worth more, our politics less corrupt, and our women more attractive. :console:
Amazing how Canada pulls it off, since their grasp of the English language is so weak that they start posting about Canadian leaders in a "Best President you never had" thread despite the fact that the office of President does not exist in Canada.
Quote from: SheilbhInspired by CdM's Avatar, who do you think's the best President/PM/Chancellor you never had?
:contract:
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 10:54:15 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 14, 2012, 10:50:10 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2012, 05:45:37 PM
it must hurt you so, knowing that our dollar is worth more, our politics less corrupt, and our women more attractive. :console:
Amazing how Canada pulls it off, since their grasp of the English language is so weak that they start posting about Canadian leaders in a "Best President you never had" thread despite the fact that the office of President does not exist in Canada.
Quote from: SheilbhInspired by CdM's Avatar, who do you think's the best President/PM/Chancellor you never had?
:contract:
:canucked: :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 11:05:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2012, 11:03:05 AM
:canucked: :lol:
Is that like being Munsoned?
It means being owned by Canada, or Canadians.
Kind of like America's banks. :P
Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2012, 11:19:50 AM
It means being owned by Canada, or Canadians.
That explains why I'd never heard the term before.
It's so adorable when Canadians try to be superior.
Quote from: katmai on November 14, 2012, 11:36:32 AM
It's so adorable when Canadians try to be superior.
It's the advantage of being Canadian. Even when we're smug and arrogant, the worrld still sees us as adorable. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 11:25:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2012, 11:19:50 AM
It means being owned by Canada, or Canadians.
That explains why I'd never heard the term before.
Yeah Americans are known for not knowing stuff.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: katmai on November 14, 2012, 11:36:32 AM
It's so adorable when Canadians try to be superior.
It's the advantage of being Canadian. Even when we're smug and arrogant, the worrld still sees us as adorable. :)
So different from Americans. :D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 14, 2012, 10:50:10 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2012, 05:45:37 PM
it must hurt you so, knowing that our dollar is worth more, our politics less corrupt, and our women more attractive. :console:
Amazing how Canada pulls it off, since their grasp of the English language is so weak that they start posting about Canadian leaders in a "Best President you never had" thread despite the fact that the office of President does not exist in Canada.
On the other hand the lack of attention to detail Americans seem to suffer explains much.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2012, 03:43:12 PM
If you want to get technical I voted for Diane Ablonczy. :contract:
Not your best moment, was it?
Quote from: Neil on November 14, 2012, 12:01:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2012, 03:43:12 PM
If you want to get technical I voted for Diane Ablonczy. :contract:
Not your best moment, was it?
Why not? Diane was a fabulous MP and very nice person. Plus she was running as the most pro-merger candidate.
But she is no Preston Manning. :(
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 14, 2012, 12:01:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2012, 03:43:12 PM
If you want to get technical I voted for Diane Ablonczy. :contract:
Not your best moment, was it?
Why not? Diane was a fabulous MP and very nice person. Plus she was running as the most pro-merger candidate.
But she is no Preston Manning. :(
If Manning had won the Reform/Canadian Alliance/ or whatever they decided to call themselves next would have continued on to split the vote and we would currently have Prime Minister Martin leading an increasingly corrupt and corruptable Liberal party.
In hindsight Day needed to win in order to make way for the eventual merger of the parties. If a competent leader had been elected you Reformers would have still clung to hope.
We will see if the Liberals are able to come back from the dead after the leadership convention. If it does then we will be back to the robust politics we had in the 80s with the Liberals and Conservatives fighting for power and a marginalized NDP. Balance will be restored.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2012, 12:43:17 PM
If Manning had won the Reform/Canadian Alliance/ or whatever they decided to call themselves next would have continued on to split the vote and we would currently have Prime Minister Martin leading an increasingly corrupt and corruptable Liberal party.
In hindsight Day needed to win in order to make way for the eventual merger of the parties. If a competent leader had been elected you Reformers would have still clung to hope.
We will see if the Liberals are able to come back from the dead after the leadership convention. If it does then we will be back to the robust politics we had in the 80s with the Liberals and Conservatives fighting for power and a marginalized NDP. Balance will be restored.
Nonsense. The opposition to a merger was always coming from the PCs, not Reform/Alliance. It mattered little who led the Alliance - it mattered who led the PC Party. It was only when Joe Clarke stepped down and Peter McKay became leader that the two parties merged just a few months later.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 01:18:26 PM
Nonsense. The opposition to a merger was always coming from the PCs, not Reform/Alliance. It mattered little who led the Alliance - it mattered who led the PC Party. It was only when Joe Clarke stepped down and Peter McKay became leader that the two parties merged just a few months later.
Ok Reform Fanboi, but do you seriously think that if Day hadnt fallen flat on his face that the Alliance would still have been interested in a merger? Dont think so. If was only because they saw they had no political future that a merger began to make sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2012, 01:21:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 01:18:26 PM
Nonsense. The opposition to a merger was always coming from the PCs, not Reform/Alliance. It mattered little who led the Alliance - it mattered who led the PC Party. It was only when Joe Clarke stepped down and Peter McKay became leader that the two parties merged just a few months later.
Ok Reform Fanboi, but do you seriously think that if Day hadnt fallen flat on his face that the Alliance would still have been interested in a merger? Dont think so. If was only because they saw they had no political future that a merger began to make sense.
Did you forget the entire purpose of the whole "Canadian Alliance"? It was to try and unite the parties. The full name was the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 01:54:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2012, 01:21:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 01:18:26 PM
Nonsense. The opposition to a merger was always coming from the PCs, not Reform/Alliance. It mattered little who led the Alliance - it mattered who led the PC Party. It was only when Joe Clarke stepped down and Peter McKay became leader that the two parties merged just a few months later.
Ok Reform Fanboi, but do you seriously think that if Day hadnt fallen flat on his face that the Alliance would still have been interested in a merger? Dont think so. If was only because they saw they had no political future that a merger began to make sense.
Did you forget the entire purpose of the whole "Canadian Alliance"? It was to try and unite the parties. The full name was the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance.
You drank the cool aid my friend. The whole purpose of the Canadian Alliance was to try to rebrand the Reform party to make it more palatable. That rebranding effort failed when it elected Day.
No, you're both right. The whole point of the Alliance was to merge Reform and Conservative, and in that it was a partial success. However, cc is right hat when Day became leader, it became difficult to shake the perception that the Alliance was just a rebranding of the Reform Party.
You guys killed a perfectly good "let's all make fun of the silly Yanks" hijack with Canadian Reform politics. :(
Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2012, 04:39:01 PM
You guys killed a perfectly good "let's all make fun of the silly Yanks" hijack with Canadian Reform politics. :(
:canucked: :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 04:55:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2012, 04:39:01 PM
You guys killed a perfectly good "let's all make fun of the silly Yanks" hijack with Canadian Reform politics. :(
:canucked: :(
:lol:
See, you guys are letting the Yanks have the last laugh with your earnest politicking. :(
Of course, then we can think of the circus that is US politics, and feel much better. :D
You Canucks are just so.......boring.
:(
Sink a Spanish fishing vessel or something.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 14, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
You Canucks are just so.......boring.
:(
Sink a Spanish fishing vessel or something.
We had a big conference to decide whether to be really exciting and drive our economy into the ground while revoking universal medical care in favour of mandatory private insurance but we all decided it was a bad idea.
That doesn't work on me, thanks. :)
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: katmai on November 14, 2012, 11:36:32 AM
It's so adorable when Canadians try to be superior.
It's the advantage of being Canadian. Even when we're smug and arrogant, the worrld still sees us as adorable. :)
Of course the reverse is true. Even when you're adorable the world still sees you as smug :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2012, 12:16:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: katmai on November 14, 2012, 11:36:32 AM
It's so adorable when Canadians try to be superior.
It's the advantage of being Canadian. Even when we're smug and arrogant, the worrld still sees us as adorable. :)
Of course the reverse is true. Even when you're adorable the world still sees you as smug :P
I'll take it. :D
Bleh
I've seen no evidence of adorableness in this thread. Katmai's word choice is suspect.
I think adorable was being used to mean something akin to irrelevant - at least as far as when BB used it.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 10:54:15 AM
:contract:
jimmy got me in the habit of ignoring first posts. :D