S
sk8rboiiii
Guest
Are Be how do you make sure you don't post the same article twice? Do you have a checklist? Do you simply go down political articles consecutively on thestar.com and make up ideas for threads? How do you do it?
|
|
|
M
michaelpfox
Guest
How about a special section for Are Be?
S
Suicidal Gingerbread Man
Guest
Are Be's a tad confuse. He seems to switch back and forth between liking and hating Martin. He calls Martin a conservative. Fine. So one assumes he likes him? Guess not.
After seeing Are Be's actual responses, I think someone made a mistake asking for his actual commentary. Just go back to posting articles and keep your nonsensical ramblings to yourself.
After seeing Are Be's actual responses, I think someone made a mistake asking for his actual commentary. Just go back to posting articles and keep your nonsensical ramblings to yourself.
A
Are Be
Guest
I get called an idiot and a racist if I post my ideas, so I hide behind the progressive shield of the Toronto Star.
I actually do like Martin, the friend of the banks, the billionaire industrial capitalist who shares your pain, but I am a Conservative supporter. I take great pleasure in poking those who think the Liberal party is a progressive party in the eye by reminding them that this is not the party for Sheila Copps.
Many on this forum were conditioned to be Liberal party supporters. Many think that Conservative party supporters are anti immigrant, and choice, etc. Not so. Many are simply fiscal Conservatives.
Many Conservatives don't have a problem with gay marriage. Many conservatives don't have a problem with legalized pot. To be a Conservative means to recognize that Canada has to compete in an international marketplace, and to acknowledge that economic growth is better than economic decline.
Further, I think the Liberals are, at times, more right wing than the Conservatives, and that they can get away with it. Imagine if a PC Prime minister choked a protester? But if a Liberal does it, it's charming.
I am very optimistic that the Provincial Liberals will allow private, for profit, 100% OHIP funded CAT scans and MRI clinics. And people will, quite correctly, support such a policy, something they would go ape shit over if Conservatives were to do it.
I actually do like Martin, the friend of the banks, the billionaire industrial capitalist who shares your pain, but I am a Conservative supporter. I take great pleasure in poking those who think the Liberal party is a progressive party in the eye by reminding them that this is not the party for Sheila Copps.
Many on this forum were conditioned to be Liberal party supporters. Many think that Conservative party supporters are anti immigrant, and choice, etc. Not so. Many are simply fiscal Conservatives.
Many Conservatives don't have a problem with gay marriage. Many conservatives don't have a problem with legalized pot. To be a Conservative means to recognize that Canada has to compete in an international marketplace, and to acknowledge that economic growth is better than economic decline.
Further, I think the Liberals are, at times, more right wing than the Conservatives, and that they can get away with it. Imagine if a PC Prime minister choked a protester? But if a Liberal does it, it's charming.
I am very optimistic that the Provincial Liberals will allow private, for profit, 100% OHIP funded CAT scans and MRI clinics. And people will, quite correctly, support such a policy, something they would go ape shit over if Conservatives were to do it.
S
sk8rboiiii
Guest
But you can't ignore the regionalist issues involved on the federal level. The Conservatives in many ways have taken over the ideals of classic liberalism, so yes you are right that they may not be 'anti-everything', but they still would not represent Ontario very well because historically the Canadian Alliance and Conservatives have represented Western voters and gone after the Western agenda.
A
Are Be
Guest
There is truth in that.
Westerners are hard pressed to see the funny side of Ottawa's Quebec fixation, and Ontario, for some wacky reason goes along with the Quebec fixation. (Perhaps Ontario's never ending love in with the Liberals might be explained by the way the media loves the Liberals. Is the media is wearing Liberal -red rose clouded glasses? CBC and Toronto Star especially?)
Remember all the anger directed at the thieving provincial tories, who took a billion a year out of 416? But the adoration for the feds, who take out 10 billion? How do we explain that? I think it's a media love-in for the Liberals. I think the media truly believes that Conservatives are out to throw gays in jail and ban abortion, so steps must be taken to make sure the Conservatives don't win, regardless of how wacky and unreasonable the criticism against the Conservatives are, the criticisms must stick. I bet they learn to hate the conservatives when they studied journalism. (Conservative hating 101- mandatory jouranalism course)
Westerners are hard pressed to see the funny side of Ottawa's Quebec fixation, and Ontario, for some wacky reason goes along with the Quebec fixation. (Perhaps Ontario's never ending love in with the Liberals might be explained by the way the media loves the Liberals. Is the media is wearing Liberal -red rose clouded glasses? CBC and Toronto Star especially?)
Remember all the anger directed at the thieving provincial tories, who took a billion a year out of 416? But the adoration for the feds, who take out 10 billion? How do we explain that? I think it's a media love-in for the Liberals. I think the media truly believes that Conservatives are out to throw gays in jail and ban abortion, so steps must be taken to make sure the Conservatives don't win, regardless of how wacky and unreasonable the criticism against the Conservatives are, the criticisms must stick. I bet they learn to hate the conservatives when they studied journalism. (Conservative hating 101- mandatory jouranalism course)
A
Are Be
Guest
Copps and robbers
Photo: Jonathan Hayward/CP
Sheila Copps appears at a news conference in Ottawa in this March 10 file photo.
By ALEXANDER PANETTA
Canadian Press
UPDATED AT 9:02 PM EST         Sunday, Mar. 14, 2004
Advertisement
Ottawa — After watching Sheila Copps flout authority for nearly half a century, there's at least one long-time Liberal utterly unstartled by her ferocious battle with the party leadership.
The ex-cabinet heavyweight's lonely campaign against allies of Prime Minister Paul Martin may be the most high-stakes act of dissent she has ever staged — but it is by no means the first.
Ms. Copps's mother has been subjected to that same fiery disobedience since about 1956. She supports her daughter's current fight for political survival.
"I can remember when she was about four years old," Geraldine Copps recalled in an interview. "She'd fight with me all the time — about what was right, what was wrong.
"Her grandmother would ask me, 'How do you put up with this?' "
Mr. Martin must now be asking himself similar questions upon becoming the latest target to be scorched by the temper of Sheila.
The Prime Minister might have thought himself rid of his leadership rival after first turfing her from cabinet, then offering her a patronage post that she declined, and finally by stepping aside to watch Transport Minister Tony Valeri beat her for the Liberal nomination in Hamilton.
But Ms. Copps's response to her nomination loss shocked even old friends who had grown accustomed to her brass-knuckles brand of politics.
In appealing the result, she accused the Liberals of "a massive orchestrated fraud" to benefit Mr. Martin's pet candidate and called for a criminal investigation into her own party over alleged hacking of her office phone system.
Some of Ms. Copps's closest allies are now refusing to come to her defence.
When asked whether she still spoke to Ms. Copps, one wouldn't even acknowledge their two-decade friendship. "I'm friends with many Liberals," was the icy reply.
Another long-time Copps associate said her friends fear they would be committing career suicide by publicly backing her against the Prime Minister.
He said Ms. Copps, 51, was right to contest what he considered shabby treatment from Mr. Martin. But she went too far with the conspiracy allegations, he added, and her accusations of orchestrated fraud will only hurt an already-divided Liberal party.
"There definitely is no benefit to that for the Liberal party," said the Copps ally, who asked not to be named. "There is no benefit to that for Sheila Copps, and there definitely is no benefit to that for the Prime Minister."
But one former colleague said Ms. Copps is just being the same fervent non-conformist who gained prominence in the 1980s when she and a band of young Opposition MPs — the long-dispersed Liberal Rat Pack — terrorized the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney.
To fellow rat-packer John Nunziata, Ms. Copps remains the plucky MP who climbed over a desk to chase minister Sinclair Stevens at a committee meeting, and who defiantly declared "I'm nobody's baby" when another Mulroney-era minister, John Crosbie, called her "baby" during a House of Commons debate.
Ms. Copps went on to adopt the title Nobody's Baby for her autobiography. And she continued to cross verbal swords with Mr. Crosbie for years — including a memorable confrontation after he quoted a bawdy country song lyric to invite her to "Pass the tequila, Sheila."
"Sheila is a fighter — always has been, always will be," said Mr. Nunziata. "You cannot expect anything less from her. She is a tremendous ally to have on your side and if she's against you, watch out."
He lamented Ms. Copps's diminished rank in the Liberal pecking order, saying she deserved better treatment after helping the party rebuild following its electoral wipeout in 1984.
But Mr. Nunziata, who left the Liberals in 1996, suggested that Ms. Copps's career could come full circle if she runs as an Independent, wins a seat, and becomes a permanent thorn in the Martin government's side.
"She would be returning to her greatest strength," he said. "She was never more popular than when she took on the Mulroney government — when she was nobody's baby."
Others are far less generous in their assessment of Ms. Copps's legacy. One detractor watched with amusement last week as she outlined a conspiracy against her.
Ian Morrison, who dealt often with Ms. Copps in her years as heritage minister, said he grew skeptical of anything that came out of her mouth.
"I don't know that she knows the difference [between truth and fiction]," said Mr. Morrison, a lobbyist with the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.
"It's a sad characteristic, so the fate she appears to have suffered ... may be an inevitable result of that kind of behaviour. Words are a kind of commodity [for her]."
Ms. Copps has run afoul of her own government with comments in the past.
She once infuriated cabinet colleagues by declaring that corporate political donations bought influence with government. She called the SARS crisis an epidemic and a national emergency, stepping on the toes of then-health minister Anne McLellan and sharply contradicting the government line.
She famously promised to resign if the Liberals didn't rescind the GST, then finally had to make good under pressure, then easily won a subsequent by-election.
And as environment minister she once announced she was banning all problem chemicals in the Great Lakes. No such legislation was ever tabled.
Mr. Morrison's group ran a damning radio advertisement in 1997 featuring the line, "Which Sheila Ms. Copps do you believe?"
The ad included two audio clips: one where Ms. Copps said CBC funding cuts only resulted in 19 news employees being fired against their will, and a second where she denied having made the statement.
Ms. Copps joked about her reputation in a recent interview.
"I don't think the media has ever really seized on [my accomplishments] because they've got this rather tawdry stereotype of who I am," she told The Canadian Press last November.
"It's usually a five-letter word ... and it ain't 'sweet.'"
Those closest to Ms. Copps say she's now motivated by two things: a genuine belief that her cause is just, and by the desperation of a life-long political junkie terrified of entering the political afterlife.
There's little reason to suspect she'll suddenly reverse course and back down against Mr. Martin.
Mr. Nunziata remembers walking with Ms. Copps into her office after she jumped over the desk to question Mr. Stevens. They watched the scene together on TV, and Mr. Nunziata recalls wondering whether they'd gone too far.
"It didn't look very good on camera [but] she never regretted it." he said. "I've never known Sheila to ever regret doing anything."
© 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Photo: Jonathan Hayward/CP
Sheila Copps appears at a news conference in Ottawa in this March 10 file photo.
By ALEXANDER PANETTA
Canadian Press
UPDATED AT 9:02 PM EST         Sunday, Mar. 14, 2004
Advertisement
Ottawa — After watching Sheila Copps flout authority for nearly half a century, there's at least one long-time Liberal utterly unstartled by her ferocious battle with the party leadership.
The ex-cabinet heavyweight's lonely campaign against allies of Prime Minister Paul Martin may be the most high-stakes act of dissent she has ever staged — but it is by no means the first.
Ms. Copps's mother has been subjected to that same fiery disobedience since about 1956. She supports her daughter's current fight for political survival.
"I can remember when she was about four years old," Geraldine Copps recalled in an interview. "She'd fight with me all the time — about what was right, what was wrong.
"Her grandmother would ask me, 'How do you put up with this?' "
Mr. Martin must now be asking himself similar questions upon becoming the latest target to be scorched by the temper of Sheila.
The Prime Minister might have thought himself rid of his leadership rival after first turfing her from cabinet, then offering her a patronage post that she declined, and finally by stepping aside to watch Transport Minister Tony Valeri beat her for the Liberal nomination in Hamilton.
But Ms. Copps's response to her nomination loss shocked even old friends who had grown accustomed to her brass-knuckles brand of politics.
In appealing the result, she accused the Liberals of "a massive orchestrated fraud" to benefit Mr. Martin's pet candidate and called for a criminal investigation into her own party over alleged hacking of her office phone system.
Some of Ms. Copps's closest allies are now refusing to come to her defence.
When asked whether she still spoke to Ms. Copps, one wouldn't even acknowledge their two-decade friendship. "I'm friends with many Liberals," was the icy reply.
Another long-time Copps associate said her friends fear they would be committing career suicide by publicly backing her against the Prime Minister.
He said Ms. Copps, 51, was right to contest what he considered shabby treatment from Mr. Martin. But she went too far with the conspiracy allegations, he added, and her accusations of orchestrated fraud will only hurt an already-divided Liberal party.
"There definitely is no benefit to that for the Liberal party," said the Copps ally, who asked not to be named. "There is no benefit to that for Sheila Copps, and there definitely is no benefit to that for the Prime Minister."
But one former colleague said Ms. Copps is just being the same fervent non-conformist who gained prominence in the 1980s when she and a band of young Opposition MPs — the long-dispersed Liberal Rat Pack — terrorized the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney.
To fellow rat-packer John Nunziata, Ms. Copps remains the plucky MP who climbed over a desk to chase minister Sinclair Stevens at a committee meeting, and who defiantly declared "I'm nobody's baby" when another Mulroney-era minister, John Crosbie, called her "baby" during a House of Commons debate.
Ms. Copps went on to adopt the title Nobody's Baby for her autobiography. And she continued to cross verbal swords with Mr. Crosbie for years — including a memorable confrontation after he quoted a bawdy country song lyric to invite her to "Pass the tequila, Sheila."
"Sheila is a fighter — always has been, always will be," said Mr. Nunziata. "You cannot expect anything less from her. She is a tremendous ally to have on your side and if she's against you, watch out."
He lamented Ms. Copps's diminished rank in the Liberal pecking order, saying she deserved better treatment after helping the party rebuild following its electoral wipeout in 1984.
But Mr. Nunziata, who left the Liberals in 1996, suggested that Ms. Copps's career could come full circle if she runs as an Independent, wins a seat, and becomes a permanent thorn in the Martin government's side.
"She would be returning to her greatest strength," he said. "She was never more popular than when she took on the Mulroney government — when she was nobody's baby."
Others are far less generous in their assessment of Ms. Copps's legacy. One detractor watched with amusement last week as she outlined a conspiracy against her.
Ian Morrison, who dealt often with Ms. Copps in her years as heritage minister, said he grew skeptical of anything that came out of her mouth.
"I don't know that she knows the difference [between truth and fiction]," said Mr. Morrison, a lobbyist with the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.
"It's a sad characteristic, so the fate she appears to have suffered ... may be an inevitable result of that kind of behaviour. Words are a kind of commodity [for her]."
Ms. Copps has run afoul of her own government with comments in the past.
She once infuriated cabinet colleagues by declaring that corporate political donations bought influence with government. She called the SARS crisis an epidemic and a national emergency, stepping on the toes of then-health minister Anne McLellan and sharply contradicting the government line.
She famously promised to resign if the Liberals didn't rescind the GST, then finally had to make good under pressure, then easily won a subsequent by-election.
And as environment minister she once announced she was banning all problem chemicals in the Great Lakes. No such legislation was ever tabled.
Mr. Morrison's group ran a damning radio advertisement in 1997 featuring the line, "Which Sheila Ms. Copps do you believe?"
The ad included two audio clips: one where Ms. Copps said CBC funding cuts only resulted in 19 news employees being fired against their will, and a second where she denied having made the statement.
Ms. Copps joked about her reputation in a recent interview.
"I don't think the media has ever really seized on [my accomplishments] because they've got this rather tawdry stereotype of who I am," she told The Canadian Press last November.
"It's usually a five-letter word ... and it ain't 'sweet.'"
Those closest to Ms. Copps say she's now motivated by two things: a genuine belief that her cause is just, and by the desperation of a life-long political junkie terrified of entering the political afterlife.
There's little reason to suspect she'll suddenly reverse course and back down against Mr. Martin.
Mr. Nunziata remembers walking with Ms. Copps into her office after she jumped over the desk to question Mr. Stevens. They watched the scene together on TV, and Mr. Nunziata recalls wondering whether they'd gone too far.
"It didn't look very good on camera [but] she never regretted it." he said. "I've never known Sheila to ever regret doing anything."
© 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
A
Are Be
Guest
PM has bombed the bridges to the party's past
PM has bombed the bridges to the party's past
By JEFFREY SIMPSON
UPDATED AT 10:59 PM EST         Saturday, Mar. 27, 2004
Advertisement
We were supposed to have an election. It was to be called at the end of this week, or the beginning of the following one. Instead, we will have Liberal Party advertisements.
Read the Ipsos-Reid poll in today's Globe and Mail. It explains why there will be advertisements instead of an election. The numbers suggest the Liberals can't win a majority.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. The Liberals, with their new Prime Minister, were going to roll to another majority triumph. Not just a routine majority, but a whopper to eclipse any of former prime minister Jean Chrétien's.
The plan was simple, although deeply flawed. Break every link with the previous government. The day the new cabinet arrived would be the first day of a brand new government rather than another day of an ongoing Liberal government.
There would be a breathlessly expressed agenda full of vaulting ambitions, a Speech from the Throne, endless exposure to the popular and unsullied Prime Minister Paul Martin, a popular budget, an unpopular Conservative leader (the stiff Stephen Harper or somebody even less attractive), an election call and maybe 200 Liberal seats.
Gains in Quebec would more than offset Liberal losses in Ontario. They would gain a handful of seats in Atlantic Canada and, for the first time in a generation, penetrate various parts of Western Canada beyond the little Liberal beachheads in B.C.'s Lower Mainland, and in Winnipeg.
When Jean Chrétien left office, the Liberals were safely in majority-government territory. The arrival of Mr. Martin pushed the party's fortunes even higher.
Now Ipsos-Reid puts the Liberals at 38 per cent, minority-government territory. That's exactly where they were in the same poll two weeks ago, after the full force of the sponsorship scandal. The budget didn't help, according to Ipsos-Reid. Nor did Stephen Harper's arrival. Nor did all those seminars and speeches by Mr. Martin across the country.
The Liberals have their own polls, of course. The Martin crowd is transfixed by polls. They don't go to the bathroom without checking polls, holding focus groups. They gather people in rooms for the Finance Minister's budget speech quite literally to monitor their instantaneous reaction to his every utterance. Pardon the borrowed cliché, but this is government of the polls, by the polls and for the polls.
But the polls, at least the public ones, stink. Look a little behind the numbers. Ipsos-Reid asked Canadians if they will "definitely not vote for the Liberal Party under any circumstances." An amazing 47 per cent agreed.
Amazing, because the Liberals used to be the second choice of so many Canadians. Tories who couldn't abide the Reform or Alliance parties could consider voting Liberal. New Democrats who didn't support their party could vote Liberal. A lot of uncommitted and politically uninterested voters, if they bothered to vote, could consider the Liberals.
And yet, almost half the country -- and more than half of Quebeckers (56 per cent) -- tell Ipsos Reid they won't vote Liberal under any circumstances.
The opposition parties have hammered the Liberal brand name. They always do, usually unsuccessfully. This time the Liberals hammered their own brand name, or rather the Martinites did.
They gambled that by making a bad situation (the sponsorship scandal) worse, by inflating the whole affair into the biggest scandal ever to hit Canadian politics, that they would ultimately be redeemed by a grateful public.
If housecleaning were needed, the Martinites bet the government that Canadians would want them do it. We shall see. Ipsos-Reid finds that 45 per cent of Canadians (predictably more in B.C. and Alberta than elsewhere) say they may vote Conservative "to clean house in Ottawa and teach the Liberals a lesson."
Here's the bet. Do Canadians want the opposition Conservatives to clean house, or the Martinites? For the Martinites to win that strange bet, they have to outdo the Conservatives in stoking public anger and suggesting remedies. They have to out-opposition the opposition, a rather bizarre strategy for a government.
These times were supposed to be Liberal times. All the economic indicators were solid, and governments don't lose under those circumstances.
Other countries were sending emissaries to Canada to learn how, alone in the G8 group of industrial countries, Canada eliminated deficits, ran surpluses, reduced unemployment, raised productivity, dropped the national debt, trimmed social programs and maintained social cohesion.
That was yesterday, before the sponsorship scandal, and before the Martinites bombed the bridges to their party's past and the good things it had accomplished.
Now, as Mr. Martin says every day, the government needs a radical shakeup, a completely new way of doing things, a culture "shock" (he used the word yesterday in Winnipeg).
Given the poll results, it's rather his government that needs a radical shakeup.jsimpson@globeandmail.ca
© 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PM has bombed the bridges to the party's past
By JEFFREY SIMPSON
UPDATED AT 10:59 PM EST         Saturday, Mar. 27, 2004
Advertisement
We were supposed to have an election. It was to be called at the end of this week, or the beginning of the following one. Instead, we will have Liberal Party advertisements.
Read the Ipsos-Reid poll in today's Globe and Mail. It explains why there will be advertisements instead of an election. The numbers suggest the Liberals can't win a majority.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. The Liberals, with their new Prime Minister, were going to roll to another majority triumph. Not just a routine majority, but a whopper to eclipse any of former prime minister Jean Chrétien's.
The plan was simple, although deeply flawed. Break every link with the previous government. The day the new cabinet arrived would be the first day of a brand new government rather than another day of an ongoing Liberal government.
There would be a breathlessly expressed agenda full of vaulting ambitions, a Speech from the Throne, endless exposure to the popular and unsullied Prime Minister Paul Martin, a popular budget, an unpopular Conservative leader (the stiff Stephen Harper or somebody even less attractive), an election call and maybe 200 Liberal seats.
Gains in Quebec would more than offset Liberal losses in Ontario. They would gain a handful of seats in Atlantic Canada and, for the first time in a generation, penetrate various parts of Western Canada beyond the little Liberal beachheads in B.C.'s Lower Mainland, and in Winnipeg.
When Jean Chrétien left office, the Liberals were safely in majority-government territory. The arrival of Mr. Martin pushed the party's fortunes even higher.
Now Ipsos-Reid puts the Liberals at 38 per cent, minority-government territory. That's exactly where they were in the same poll two weeks ago, after the full force of the sponsorship scandal. The budget didn't help, according to Ipsos-Reid. Nor did Stephen Harper's arrival. Nor did all those seminars and speeches by Mr. Martin across the country.
The Liberals have their own polls, of course. The Martin crowd is transfixed by polls. They don't go to the bathroom without checking polls, holding focus groups. They gather people in rooms for the Finance Minister's budget speech quite literally to monitor their instantaneous reaction to his every utterance. Pardon the borrowed cliché, but this is government of the polls, by the polls and for the polls.
But the polls, at least the public ones, stink. Look a little behind the numbers. Ipsos-Reid asked Canadians if they will "definitely not vote for the Liberal Party under any circumstances." An amazing 47 per cent agreed.
Amazing, because the Liberals used to be the second choice of so many Canadians. Tories who couldn't abide the Reform or Alliance parties could consider voting Liberal. New Democrats who didn't support their party could vote Liberal. A lot of uncommitted and politically uninterested voters, if they bothered to vote, could consider the Liberals.
And yet, almost half the country -- and more than half of Quebeckers (56 per cent) -- tell Ipsos Reid they won't vote Liberal under any circumstances.
The opposition parties have hammered the Liberal brand name. They always do, usually unsuccessfully. This time the Liberals hammered their own brand name, or rather the Martinites did.
They gambled that by making a bad situation (the sponsorship scandal) worse, by inflating the whole affair into the biggest scandal ever to hit Canadian politics, that they would ultimately be redeemed by a grateful public.
If housecleaning were needed, the Martinites bet the government that Canadians would want them do it. We shall see. Ipsos-Reid finds that 45 per cent of Canadians (predictably more in B.C. and Alberta than elsewhere) say they may vote Conservative "to clean house in Ottawa and teach the Liberals a lesson."
Here's the bet. Do Canadians want the opposition Conservatives to clean house, or the Martinites? For the Martinites to win that strange bet, they have to outdo the Conservatives in stoking public anger and suggesting remedies. They have to out-opposition the opposition, a rather bizarre strategy for a government.
These times were supposed to be Liberal times. All the economic indicators were solid, and governments don't lose under those circumstances.
Other countries were sending emissaries to Canada to learn how, alone in the G8 group of industrial countries, Canada eliminated deficits, ran surpluses, reduced unemployment, raised productivity, dropped the national debt, trimmed social programs and maintained social cohesion.
That was yesterday, before the sponsorship scandal, and before the Martinites bombed the bridges to their party's past and the good things it had accomplished.
Now, as Mr. Martin says every day, the government needs a radical shakeup, a completely new way of doing things, a culture "shock" (he used the word yesterday in Winnipeg).
Given the poll results, it's rather his government that needs a radical shakeup.jsimpson@globeandmail.ca
© 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.