Stephen Harper in Belleville Yesterday

[Mark Fournier]

Principled conservatism, as a term used to describe a specific political point of view, belongs to Free Dominion. While the two words have surely been used in tandem before now, Free Dominion was the first to adopt them officially as a subsitute for the lame 'compassionate conservatism'. Last year we made a conscious decision to try to enter the term into the political lexicon. We made the same conscious decision about the term DoRC and it is being used on Parliament Hill regularly now.

Free Dominion immediately recognized the term principled conservatism has 'legs'. It is a very useful and highly descriptive term and we intend for it to become widely used in political discussions. It's a darned handy term to be able to reach for when you need it.

[Ipberg]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="geneva , Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Entropy Squared:
<strong>Principled conservatism, as a term used to describe a specific political point of view, belongs to Free Dominion. While the two words have surely been used in tandem before now, Free Dominion was the first to adopt them officially as a subsitute for the lame 'compassionate conservatism'. Last year we made a conscious decision to try to enter the term into the political lexicon. We made the same conscious decision about the term DoRC and it is being used on Parliament Hill regularly now.

Free Dominion immediately recognized the term principled conservatism has 'legs'. It is a very useful and highly descriptive term and we intend for it to become widely used in political discussions. It's a darned handy term to be able to reach for when you need it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Conservatism and principled conservatism are synonymous terms as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately I can't seem to find a definition on FD for this specific point of view you say belongs to Free Dominion. Can you provide a link?

Ian

[hiti]

Reform principles and principled conservatism are not exactly parallel. Even Liberals and NDP have some principles, sorta.

[conniew]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="geneva , Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ipberg:
<strong>You mean Stockwell Day visits FD? Cool.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I talked to Mr. Day on the weekend and he is well aware of Free Dominion. Also, Mrs. Day sent us recipes for our cookbook.

[nancy_jahn]

Hi All:

The decision to allow the DRC back in is not Stephen's to make either in Caucus or on National Council. It would require a majority vote of either/both bodies, because neither could make the decision for the other.

Regarding the terms of the amnesty -- did Stephen say what they would have to commit to in order to be "eligible" to return?

As far as I can determine, the DRC have no interest in returning if either Stock or Stephen are elected. I suspect Stephen knows this. There are some some of our grassroots members, however, who still sincerely believe that this was all about Stock. They are convinced that he must have done something really awful for people of Deb Grey's calibre to have left. They would want the "new" leader to give them an opportunity to return and if Stephen didn't this would cause more hard feelings.

If STephen is elected and does offers them one last opportunity to return and they refuse, maybe we will ALL conclude that this was not about Stock after at all. If so, then we can finally get on with building the party as we must.

Just something to think about!

Nancy

[conniew]

Here is a sound byte of Harper talking about this issue in Smith's Falls. <a href="http://www.freedominion.ca/harper.wav">Click Here.</a>

Note he admits that the final decision rests with caucus but he says he feels he can "sway them".

If you read the <a href="http://66.70.215.18/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=26&t=000025">document</a> describing the plan for Mr. Day's sabotage, it should be clear that these people do not belong in the Canadian Alliance.

If we were to be very charitable and allow them one more chance, it should only be done before the election of the new leader. If their return is dependent on the winner of this election (and we all know it is), we will be re-introducing a destructive element into the party. These are people who are motivated by selfish ambition and have absolutely no regard for the will of the grassroots. Letting them back in because they "give their word" that they will behave is simply unacceptable.

It could well mean the end of the Canadian Alliance as we know it.

[wildernessvoice]

The DoRKS were , are & will be a traitrous element to the grassroots. I wish there were a way to prove this once and for all. In medical history you read of Typhoid Mary. In Canadian Alliance history you will read of Typhoid Debbie! As the years slip by people will remember the "Birth Mother" of the party trying to kill it with a coat hanger or an art hanger or some type of hanger!

There are some actions people take that remove them from the realm of grace and forgiveness. The DoRCs are guilty of just such actions!

Stephen Harper shows his lack of leadership ability in even suggesting that the DORKs should return. After what the grassrooters have and are going through the man offers us more insult and scorn.

<h2>We have all heard it - WE'RE MAD AS HELL AND WERE NOT TAKING IT ANY MORE!</H2>

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: wildernessvoice ]</p>

[coteblanche]

My general impression was that he is a leader that I could stand behind if he wins the leadership race.

I think it is probably a good thing that we don't share the same brain after all [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] . This is a man I could not stand behind. I wish I could, because I am going to be in a fine fix should he win.

I think the most significant issue was his policy on the DoRCs. He takes a hard line position on their behaviour and does not believe that acted in a acceptable manner.

A hard line conniew, would be to reject a traitor to the Party, no ands ifs or buts. Harper doesn't do this. I could never support anyone who compromises with a traitor. I know this is a problem for you too conniew. I understand that compromise is sometimes necessary. On this, I can't compromise. I believe that Harper will say whatever the people want to hear. The DoRC's spat in the face of democracy. If Harper can compromise with that, he can never represent me.

Your report on the meetings on the weekend were superb conniew. I felt like I had been there. I sent snippets of your superior reporting to Susan Riley today [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] .