did anyone hear jerry mention battersbox ?

The lineups:

Toronto

Johnson rf
Clark 1b
Cat lf
V Dub cf
Zaun c
Hinske 3b
Woowdward ss
Menechino 2b
Batista p

San Fran

Durham 2b
Tucker cf
Feliz 1b
Bonds lf
Pierzynski c
Alfonso 3b
Neifi! ss
Mohr rf
Schmidt p

whats the news on Hudson?

Rob Faulds mentioned that Hudson ran the bases at 100% before the game, and Tosca was pleased, but wanted to give him another day off. Sounds like he should be back tomorrow.

Man did Martin blow in the debates.

Yeah, Keith, Martin blew.

I'd rank the performances thusly:

1. Duceppe
2. Harper
3. Layton
4. Martin

All right, fess up! Who believed that the first IBB of this series woulbe given to Frank Menechino?

http://www.thewolfshack.com
And this is why I like the DH.
Sigh.

Barry walked. This is me surprised!

Superdevin, I heard it. He read one of Four Seamer's posts from the Tom Cheek Best Wishes thread.

Paul Martin was Rich Ankiel bad. I was going to vote for him too. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse: 'I could have swept it under the carpet!', he said that twice. Then that joke with Layton, what did he say: 'Do you always have to move your hands when you talk?'

Thought Rios might be in Right if Hudson wasnt activated, but nice to see "Tripod" out there, heres hoping he breaks his slump next AB.

Dave Stieb's now in the broadcast booth with Jerry (bottom of the 3rd inning).

Actually, Keith, Martin's joke at Layton's expense was, "Did your handlers tell you to talk *all* the time?" Layton took the obvious route: "I'm talking about missle defense, Mr. Martin, which I don't find a laughing matter . . ." etc. It was unbecoming.

Overall, I think this was the best national debate of the three I can remember.

Hm, I didn't really think anyone did poorly or great. Typical debate really. I think Martin said something to Layton about "Did your handlers tell you to talk all the time?"
Really, does anyone's mind ever change based on the debate? You're just going to think that the person you like did well, and that the person you don't like did poorly.

I would look it up, but apparently the Globe and Mail now requires you to sign in.
****** *******

Give that CAT a contract!

Ah! Walking the pitcher is very frustrating.
How good are pitchers at hitting? What would the negative of just firing 3 fastballs down the middle of the plate?

Paul D wrote: "Really, does anyone's mind ever change based on the debate? You're just going to think that the person you like did well, and that the person you don't like did poorly"

I agree with the first part, though not the second.

There seems to be a consensus among political scientists that barring huge calamity, political debates do little other than reinforce a person's prejudices going in.

This is not to say that you can't come away from the debate with the sense that "your guy" did better or worse then the others there; for example, I'm a Layton guy, but I think it was pretty clear that both Duceppe and Harper were his better this evening.

You're right, though. The value of these things are dubious. But I enjoy them.

In summation: meh.

How about Hinske breaking .240

Really, does anyone's mind ever change based on the debate? You're just going to think that the person you like did well, and that the person you don't like did poorly.

I think this year's a little different. I don't like any of those guys, everyone I talk to has no idea how to vote. They're all bad choices. Rationality and moderation tips to Martin's favour but he keeps making himself more and more undesirable.

http://www.thewolfshack.com
I don't like any of those guys, everyone I talk to has no idea how to vote.

Well Keith, if you'll just ask me I'll you how to vote.
:)

WHat I find weird is that Harper keeps gaining in the polls, and yet almost everyone I know is afraid of him, and many of them are switching from the NDP to him. This doesn't seem to be reflected in the polls, so I guess it's another lesson about small sample size.

I agree that the leaders debate was a good one. I think it helped a lot that this time it was mostly a series of one-on-one debates, which made for some interesting contrasts, and reduced (though not eliminated) the simultaneous talking. (All I remember from the previous debate was the cacophony of voices and Joe Clark making jokes.) The organizers deserve some credit for the new format.

This umpire's an ego-maniac

Agreed entirely, Stephen. The format was much, much improved.

If anything, Harper earned a lot of personality points these past two nights.

If anything, Harper earned a lot of personality points these past two nights.

I hate the artificial cute of this ballpark.

Schmidt should just never stop throwing his fastball. No-one can hit it. No need to fool around with a curveball when you have the fastball/change combination that he does.

What's happened to Vernon Wells?

I'm afraid of Stephen Harper because I'm afraid he'll cut back on infrastructure funding (especially to cities like Toronto), and because I'm afraid he'll get too close to the U.S.

Yeah, Toronto needs more cash. The TTC needs more cash. I can't believe how old the buses are here.

The fact I think Duceppe came out the best tonight is a troubling thought. Although in a way it makes sense. There's no pressure on him, he has nothing to lose and no expectations of winning a single seat outside Quebec so none of the other three are going to attack him, there's nothing for them to gain by it.

I can't stand these umpires who want to get on Sportscenter.

Awwww crap, don't tell me Wells is hurt. I must have missed it when I went outside; what happened?

I got a real hate-on tonight. But here's one more:

I hate this constant home run monitoring. 'The race to 500', yawn.

Remember 1996: we interrupt this great game to show you Sammy Sosa scratching himself on the on-deck circle.

Someone mentioned that everyone they know is afraid of Stephen Harper-I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you live in Toronto...my girlfriend does as well, and everyone I speak to down there is afraid of him as well. I tell you what though, the hinterland is sick and tired of the Liberals, and don't really have a problem with a lot of Harper's views (which essentially boil down to free votes, not imposing some social conservative agenda).

As an aside, it it makes anyone here feel better the Star's coverage of legal issues (that of the media at large to be honest) is just as bad as the Jays coverage. There has been much mention of the right to abortion throughout the campaign and Martin and Harper apparently got into a tiff tonight about using the notwithstanding clause...why Harper didn't just point out that it isn't a right I have no idea, although I guess the story the next day would be "Harper denies existence of abortion rights". What a country.

"Strained calf muscle" for Wells. That doesn't sound good.

Tell me about it, Keith.

I can at least partially understand if he's about to break a record or something, but it's just a number. Griffey is one HR away; barring him getting hit by a bus, he will hit number 500 eventually. I don't need an update every time he has an AB to see whether he hit it or not.

A homerun is exciting only in the context of the game. 'Here's # 499', 'Here's # 500' watch it live! Who cares?

A leadoff homerun by Menechino off RJ: now we're talking.

"Strained calf muscle" for Wells. That doesn't sound good.

Do we know how it happened? Maybe while swiping that bag?

Ugh. These Jays lineups are infuriating. I know Phelps (who is 26)has performed poorly this year, but playing Howie Clark who is 30 (or Menenchino who is 33) ahead of him is absurd. He's only had 7 ABs since June 6th. Rotoworld got it right on Phelps.

"Despite his troubles hitting against tough right-handers, Phelps should have been getting the majority of the starts at first base while Carlos Delgado recovers from his ribcage muscle injury. Instead, Phelps is platooning at DH with Frank Catalanotto. If the Jays won't play him ahead of Howie Clark and Dave Berg, what does that say about Phelps' stock in the organization?"

I ask you this. Is there a worse player in the major leagues than Dave Berg? (maybe Denny Hocking). Tosca will be gone by next year. I hope.

Best wishes for Tom Cheek. What an awful couple of weeks for him. So many of us grew up listening to him call every single game very well.

I just think it's funny Harper keeps insisting on using the notwithstanding clause to overrule the decision he thinks the Supreme Court made on child pornography. Won't somebody please think of the children!

Speaking of overreacting... yes. Batista was throwing at him. Of course. No other explanation.

I like the warning rule in theory. Shut things down before they get out of hand. But you have to use some common sense.

And how did gay marriage become so sacred so quickly? It was a goofy novelty six months ago...

http://www.thewolfshack.com
How much input do you think JP has into the lineup decisions?

If he really wanted Phelps to be playing, I think he would be. I imagine it's more than just Tosca that's not happy with him.

Toronto needs more cash

The Conservatives should be hammering on this: reduce fed taxes, and let the cities or provinces proportionally increase their taxes if they want. I guess in practice this would be done with GST or other tax refunds. In principle, presumably TO would be happy to increase local taxes to pay for all sorts of local programs for transport, housing, etc. I don't see why the feds need to be involved with this type of thing at all.

Meanwhile, somebody hits a ball off the wall (Cat I think) but only gets a single out of it.

And in other news, the Pistons just ended the Lakers' championship streak.

I don't see why the feds need to be involved with this type of thing at all.

My admittedly limited understanding of this is that the cities simply lack the powers to tax such that their current needs can be met. It's similar to the fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government, in that regard.

Come on, can't you count to three, Mr. Zaun? That really sucked.

And in other news, the Pistons just ended the Lakers' championship streak.

Uh, I mean the Pistons beak the Lakers, period (no streak, duh).

gid: Doesn't matter, as long as the Lakers lost. :)

Stieb stayed in the booth through the bottom of the 5th. When asked about Tom, Stieb remembered golfing with him. Jerry mentioned that Key and Cerutti also joined in the golf games. (This makes you realize how "tough" it is to be in profressional baseball sometimes :-) ).

Hey, look! You can pitch to Bonds without the world ending after all!

Nice play by the Cat.

Whether it's Tosca or Ricciardi's decision, playing Clark/Berg ahead of Phelps is ridiculous.

Homeplate ump blew the call: Pierzynski never touched the plate. The correct call would have been to make no call. Zaun would have then tagged Pierzynski for the final out.

Please. I have *no* faith at all that Josh Phelps can catch up with Schmidt's fastballs. It was likely a managerial decision to preserve what shreds of confidence Phelps has remaining.

The Lakers didn't have a championship streak - the Spurs won it last year.

I too am afraid of the prospect of Harper as the PM (and I live in Toronto). My views on the issues and his are almost mutually exclusive and his past as leader of an very right wing party with almost no commitment to federalism make it impossible for me to believe he is some sort of moderate conservative now.

Can't anyboby in 'blue' play this damn game? Our team defence sucks!

Other than a couple of fine catches by Cat these guys play like its their first time on a baseball field. Its tough enough getting 3 outs in an inning wthout having to get 4 and 5. Batista failed to make a routine play at first - something that they practised a hundred times in spring training - and Reid should have made the catch in right.

Will we win even 1 game in this series?

Time for a Bauxite contest: Top 10 Ways Josh Phelps Can Get Regular Playing Time.

Here's a few:
- Start writing for MAD Magazine.
- Steal Howie Clark's uniform.
- Learn how to throw 5 interceptions a game, then sign a contract with the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

Anyone else got some better ones?

Clark was also at fault for ranging too far to try to get the grounder instead of going back to the bag. A good 1B knows where his 2B is positioned and should know that that's an easy play for the 2B.

But of course Howie's hardly ever played first base.

cities simply lack the powers to tax

You don't say. Well, I guess that explains things. So, I guess GST or similar refunds are basically the way to go then, at least in the short/medium term.

It's similar to the fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government, in that regard.

Well, if the cities simply don't have the legal authority to impose an income tax, that's certainly different from the provincial situation (the provinces certainly have the power to tax income). Similar to the local /fed situation, I would think the natural Conservative position is to match fed tax decreases with provincial increases (to the extent the provinces desire it). This runs up against interprovince wealth redistribution, which seems to be somewhat of a sacred cow, at least to some extent.

If I know my NL strategy, since Gomez replaced Clark, is this where Phelps comes in to play first (batting ninth) and the new pitcher bats second, replacing Gomez?

Of course, Gomez homers as I say that.

THOR STRIKES AGAIN!!! THE HAMMER IS CHANNELING HIM ACROSS THE CONTINENT!

Well, that was a hell of a swing. Was that Christiansen's vaunted slider? Because Gomez didn't seem to be impressed.

Oh, and to answer Rob's question, the change in both spots must be made at the same time. They need to make a substitution of two position players at the same time as the pitcher is taken out for a hitter.

Time for a Bauxite contest: Top 10 Ways Josh Phelps Can Get Regular Playing Time.

Change his name to Rudi Stein?

I was hoping for this. The Giants' pen is rather ungood. Even their best, Herges and F-Rod, are prone to blowing chunks.

Globe & Mail

Try bselig/bselig

I was quite surprised that someone already created it...

jc

Quick: How many players have the Jays used at 1B this year?

Oh, and to answer Rob's question, the change in both spots must be made at the same time.

Heh...spot the American League fan, eh?

Quick: How many players have the Jays used at 1B this year?

I'll guess Delgado, Phelps, Clark, Berg...so 4.

5? Too bad Tom Wilson isn't around to pad that total.

For some reason I recall Gomez getting a couple of innings at first.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teamfieldstats?team=tor
Congratulations, Paul. Delgado, Phelps, Clark, Berg, and Gomez (COMN) are the players. Here's your cuttlefish:



Man, that's freaky.

Nice to see Tucker stealing Hinske's gestures and verbiage for when he hits a pop up :)

From having my IP mistakenly banned to Cuttlefish! Life is good!

Speier wears the highsocks? How did I never notice that before. He just became my favorite Jays reliever.

This should be interesting. F-Rod has a great fastball, but throws little else. Can they pin him down?

If Berg is the spare OF for the rest of the game, what happens if two outfielders get hurt? Does Josh Towers play left?

Someone mentioned that everyone they know is afraid of Stephen Harper-I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you live in Toronto...my girlfriend does as well, and everyone I speak to down there is afraid of him as well. I tell you what though, the hinterland is sick and tired of the Liberals, and don't really have a problem with a lot of Harper's views (which essentially boil down to free votes, not imposing some social conservative agenda).

That's the whole problem. I don't want hinterland people imposing their social conservative agenda on me through free votes.

I'm sick and tired of the Liberals as well, but not enough to vote for Harper. Hello Green Party...

jc

Maybe it's me, but I would leave Speier in there. Berg doesn't really...well, you know.

And Berg's mighty .164 avg causes a Giants pitching change.

What's with this ump overdoing the strike/strike out calls to impress the home fans? He looks like Leslie Nielsen from that scene in Naked Gun.

Wow, the mighty Dave Berg just scared Felix Rodriguez out of the game :)

BTW, that third strike to Menechino looked pretty far inside to me...

Jobu: got a better description for the TV-less among us? Is he just doing it for the Giants' pitchers' strikeouts?

BTW, that third strike to Menechino looked pretty far inside to me...

Couldn't agree more, hence my previous comment.

Berg: If you get a hit here, I will never badmouth you again.

Damn you Berg! :(

NL ball at its best. When Dave Berg is an improvement at the plate, and Frank Menechino draws a 2 out IBB, there's something wrong. When the average pitcher can hit at least at Neifi Perez levels, then maybe DH haters will have a point.

Oh man Frasor vs Bonds. And Jason is going after him!

OK seriously, if another outfielder gets hurt, who plays out there?

Rob: I haven't been seeing much of the game having just returned home from the argo game, but from what i've seen so far for a strike to a Giant (who is batting) he gives a slightly more enthusiastic than most umps "finger-point" for a strike and a hard fist pump for a K. But on the Jay (batting) strikes or strike outs I've seen he's been a little too "into it" for my liking, punching hard and screaming for a strike and going into a full double arm pump karate punch thingy for Jay strike outs (think Elvis in his later years or that scene from Naked Gun). Im surprised he doesnt turn to the crowd afterwards and bask in applause.

Wow. That was ballsy as hell. And it paid off. Big ups, Jason!

Way to go Frasor, atleast someone has the balls to go at Bonds.

Thanks Jobu -- wait a second...Argos game? People still go to those? ;)
Actually, did the new turf look any good? Did Avery look any better?

Ron Kulpa, by the way, is the umpire who had the notorious incident with Carl Everett back in 2000 - the line in the dirt, the head butt, the suspension.

Now this is an interesting strategic situation worth staying up for. 2 Outs, men on 1st & 3rd, 8th inning and the closer is on deck. Do you walk the batter? Was Grissom a decoy or did Alou really intend to have him pinch-hit? Either way Im glad it came up.

On the flip side, there's a fun side to NL ball.

I got primo seats from a friend in the Club 200 fancy pants level so it was a blast to hang out there and watch the game from the bar area.

It wont last probably, but they drew over 26K today and the place sounded great, I had a ball.

From where I was sitting the turf looked fantastic, it actually looked like real grass except for the wrinkles in some places. I still couldnt get used to the cloud of little black rubber pellets that flew up like sand everytime a player pivoted. It looked really weird and I couldnt tell where it was coming from or why it wasnt making them slip.

Avery was a surpring non-factor in the game. After Nealon Greene went down hard and left the game in the first, Damon was the man and got the CFL record for most TD passes. 1,300 something i think.

Bashir Livingston also returned a 105yrd failed field goal attempt for a TD which was a thrill to watch.

All I need now is a Jay win to cap the night. And if looks tell me anything, the ump will soon tackle the Queen sitting in the front row. Of course Queen could mean something completley different from the movie in San Fran.

Well, another double play is hardly a good thing...

Man, I just realized: if Wells is out, how many Jays are left that can knock one out of the park? I'm thinking if Hinske is ruly "back," he could be the last player left on the team that can pose as a power hitter. :(

If Wells is out, what kind of lineup do the Jays have?

Johnson-Menechino-Cat-Zaun-Hinske-Clark/Berg-Phelps-Woodward-Rios?

Wow.

Marvin Benard, come on down.

This evening's debate had a very clever format that I thoroughly enjoyed, however, in terms of substantive responses, it proved that no one was willing to step up and talk concrete policy.

Although I don't believe Jack Layton did a bad job, as a supporter I was somewhat disappointed with his performance (I certainly won't be diverting my support because of this disappointment). The NDP has some great planks to its platform this time 'round and in comparison to years past, the party looks as though it could form a very competant third party (in terms of seats and integrity), but this evening Jack stood up there and shot down Paul Martin and Stephen Harper at every possible turn instead of talking about his own positive ideas. This approach wouldn't be so bad for Stephen Harper (he shouldn't want to talk policy with urbanites watching everywhere) but because the NDP has gone through a process of innovative policy development, Jack needed to take this opportunity and introduce these ideas to Canadians.

On a related topic...For all the folks who are so scared of Harper that they're willing to go out and vote strategically (Liberal) to see him stopped, pleeeeaaaassssseeeeee don't. First and fore most, Paul Martin isn't a whole lot different. If he's just a watered down Stephen Harper, are you going to want to take responsibility for giving him your vote of confidence when he starts to divert billions of dollars to something like Star Wars?
...Should that not be reason enough, with the new election rules, your vote is essentially worth $1.75. That amount of money will be allocated to each party that gains 5%+ of the vote for each vote they receive as a means to replacing the dollars lost when the Liberals passed legislation barring corporate and union donations. Should you like a party such as the NDP, extending them your vote isn't just sending a stronger voice to Ottawa to advocate for the changes you want to see but also helping to build your preferred party's resources for things like conducting research and being a meaningful opposition to the governing party (whether it's Grits or Cons, we're gonna need strong opposition).

Someone mentioned voting green...Not sure if you've read the platform but these guys are Ontario-style Tories draped in trees and granola. I think the NDP has a stronger environmental platform because it won't have the same negative effects on labour; instead they've actually gone out and worked with labour to find a compromise that'll allow Kyoto to be implemented and keep Canada's labour force on track.

And how did gay marriage become so sacred so quickly? It was a goofy novelty six months ago...

You must have totally missed the point here, Keith. It's not about a sacred ceremony, it's about equality under the law.

Anyone interested in a debate closer to home...Tomorrow evening at 6:30 Adam Vaughan will be hosting The Great Waterfront Debate located at Harbourfront's outdoor stage. This debate will feature Olivia Chow (NDP), Tony Ianno (Liberal), David Watters (Conservative) and Neil Spiegel (Green). Although the first three candidates are all from the riding of Trinity-Spadina, the debate will be based on party platform regarding the waterfront, not local issues pertaining to that riding. On Thursday at 6pm, Olivia will be on CBC's Townhall with Belinda Stronach from the Conservatives, Joe Volpe with the Liberals and Peter Elgie with the Greens for a short debate. Lastly, also on Thursday, Trinity-Spadina will be having a local all candidates debate at the Bloor JCC. It starts at 7:30 and will also be broadcast on Rogers community TV.

Yeesh, almost at the all-star break and the "new and improved" Blue Jays are now officialy in last place in a division that includes the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

Im running out of optomistic views.

Re: local debates, I was flipping channels a week or two ago and the Trinity-Spadina candidates (Conservative, Liberal, NDP) were having a debate on some CP-24 show. The policy discussions didn't amount to much; basically recriminations about who was to blame relating to a perceived lack of new construction of public housing in TO. (This goes back to my point above about keeping the money local. If the money was local, the city council could fund this type of thing -- the feds and provincials wouldn't have to get involved.) At one point Ianno accused Chow of lying; later on he asked her, "Are you on drugs?". Quite amusing in all. I think they just sort of let it all hang out because they didn't think too many people were watching.


divert billions of dollars to something like Star Wars?


Be realistic. The proposed military spending increases (for the Conservatives, about $1B I believe) are for mundane things like helicoptors and armored vehicles. I didn't see today's debate but Martin referred to this several times yesterday as "massive increases" or some similar pejorative term; other times he tossed out actual big numbers ($50B here, $60B there), except it was to describe his own past spending on unrelated items. The sense is, he's desperate to tag Harper as an extremist. It doesn't seem to be working, except maybe among people who already held that view.

Did you guys know that Frank Catalanotto is hitting .441 on grass this year? He's hitting just .250 on Turf.

Also, Howie Clark is hitting .395 on Turf, but just .069 on grass.

Frank Menechino has a 1.266 OPS against lefties.

Yup. After a Jays loss I turn to random stats to cheer me up.

It's time for a change.

Why would any Canadian want to spend more than the basic minimum on the military? We've not under imminent threat of attack, are we? I agree that they are due for some equipment upgrades, but I believe that the Conservative plan is to inject a lot more cash than the mnimum necessary for such an upgrade.

Every unnecessary dollar spent on the military takes a dollar away from:

1) More funs for health care
2) Transportantion infrastructure
3) Schools
4) Increased funding of universities (badly needed)
5) Major upgrades to the electric grid

I think the NDP has a stronger environmental platform because it won't have the same negative effects on labour; instead they've actually gone out and worked with labour to find a compromise that'll allow Kyoto to be implemented and keep Canada's labour force on track.


What does labour have to do with keeping Kyoto on track? For the targets to be met through bona fide emissions reductions, I would think that the main group that has to buy into it is the car-driving consumer public; they either need to dramatically increase the fuel efficiency of the fleet on the road (and that means changing their car-buying habits in a big way) or they need to start driving a whole lot less (and that's very unlikely to happen, no matter how many more $B are spent on public transit).

Why would any Canadian want to spend more than the basic minimum on the military? We've not under imminent threat of attack, are we?

It depends on the definition of basic minimum. If even traditional peace-keeping type roles are hampered by lack of basic equipment, then it stands to reason that upgrades might be widely supported by the electorate.

hey, isn't there the 'marijuana party'?

no, seriously... I think they actually do exist as a party running on many ballots this yr....

Oh yeah, I've been wondering about this lately... And I'd like to hear honest subjective opinions... Could there (or does there) exist a baseball tv show whose theme is to provide the usual periodic updates but instead with a more intellectual spin?? i.e. sabermetrics, minors, etc.

Every baseball related tv show that I've managed to catch (this wk in baseball, baseball tonight, jayzone) just seem to give some basic updates, a cliche' interview or two and maybe some essentially worthless subjective opinion/roundtable content that just does nothing for me... Obviously, this type of more substantial format seems to work in an online basis very well given the success this site has had as well as BP, etc... We know that a more thoughtful and intellectual spin has found its way into fanship with the success of lewis and james but I have yet to see a show on any TV station that has attempted to pursue this angle.

I just don't get why this hasn't been tried. Any thoughts? Has it been tried and I'm not aware???

Cheers

Had a mid-term and missed the game but just looked at the standings....

if you told me 64 games into the season the Jays would be dead last in the AL East (knowing they have a soft schedule and haven't even played the Yanks) I would have said your an idiot.

Wells leads to team with a paltry 9HR's and I believe Delgado still leads the team in RBI's with only 32. Looks like JP needs to spend most of his cash (assuming he gets any in the off-season) on finding some power hitters not pitchers.

I blame the Padres.

http://www.thewolfshack.com
A, if you think that there's no difference between Martin and Harper than you haven't been paying attention. I understand that NDP supporters consider them both pro business and therefore the same, but they're quite obviously different men with different ideas.

As for the Green party, I'm pretty sure they're getting my vote. They actually have a leader who's practical (see his quote about jobs vs. the environment), and at the same time as being the Green leader he's not going to run deficits, unlike two of the parties running right now. He's rejected the idea of parties being left or right wing, as it's more complex than that.
And the Green Party needs you $1.75 alot more than the NDP does.

I just saw the highlights of the Argos game last night.
Wow, did that turf ever look good. Even the turf at the Expos game last night looked alot better than the stuff at Skydome.

the Green Party needs you $1.75 alot more than the NDP does

So what? They'd both just blow it on incense sticks and hemp bracelets.

Yes, there is a difference between Martin and Harper. The prospect of one of them serving as leader of our country is incredibly frightening, while the prospect of the other serving is not something I look forward to, but is by no means that severe. The difference is also not as wide as some people think it is, and as evidence one needs to only look at the lip service the Liberals have paid many issues over the past decade, compared to their actual policy in many of these areas.

The NDP offers much more of a substantial alternative policy than any of the other two main parties. The problem is that they will likely lose votes to soft liberals and left-leaning people who would otherwise like to punish Martin for the sponsorship scandal, but who are afraid of a Stephen Harper victory.

Okay, this thread is ruined, so people may as well go on discussing politics in here.

Please don't take this as a precedent. I don't want to see other threads ruined for baseball talk with political flamewars. Keep the election stuff in here.

Craig, I understand that desire to keep most of the threads here free of political discussion, but this was the night of the debate.
And, I wouldn't call what's been going on here political flamewars. I'm actually quite impressed at how civil everyone's being. It's possible to discuss politics without resorting to flaming each other.

Thomas, I agree that the NDP offers a substanstive alternative to what's being offered by the Liberals or Conservatives. However, I think it's pretty easy for them to promise everything under the moon, as they have no hope of forming the government. So they can make these outlandish fiscal promises based on ridiculously optimistic economic growth, and not have to worry about ever balancing budgets. The parties that might win have to balance their desire to make promises with the knowledge that if they win they'll have to follow up on those promises with action and a balanced budget.

Plus, Jack Layton rubs me the wrong way. I'm not sure why, but I have a serious dislike for that guy.

Craig, why not start a thread strictly for discussing politics? It can be everyone's forum for getting on the soapbox and help keep the baseball threads focused on baseball, or at least as much as they usually are!

WRT last night's game, I'm just now looking at the boxscore. Perhaps someone who was watching can fill me in. Did Phelps and Gomez pinch-hit in the same inning? If so, why didn't Phelps stay in at 1B and Gomez's spot become the pitcher's spot? Was it yet another instance of an AL manager unable to grasp the double-switch?

Eventually, Berg pinch-hit in the 9-hole. Even a slumping Phelps would have been a better option (had he stayed in the game).

Yes, the Green Party is a lot of old Tories. In fact, people wanting to "punish the Liberals" should take a good, hard look at Green, they're were old Tories went, the Conservatives are just the old Alliance/Reform but with more Ontario credibility. Their policies aren't any different.

Open votes are just their codewords for "Dear Alberta, of course we'll ban gay marriages. Don't tell Ontario. Love, Stephen." If you want a moderate, pragmatic alternative to the Liberals (which I think is unnecessary, yes, the Liberals are a little arrogant, but so what?), the Green is the right choice, not the Conservatives.

Craig, why not start a thread strictly for discussing politics? It can be everyone's forum for getting on the soapbox and help keep the baseball threads focused on baseball, or at least as much as they usually are!

I agree. Having designated "Daily Diversion" threads can separate the baseball talk from the off-topic (but still very enjoyable) conversations.

I've been trying to stay out of this for the most part, but a couple quick comments:

Andrew and Adam are right: A significant portion of the red wing of the old PC party are working for or supporting the Greens now. They've certainly got an interesting mix of people.

People who say "I'd consider voting Conservative, but the Harperites are too extreme". If you thought Harper was too extreme for the Conservatives, why didn't you get a membership in the party and vote for one of the other two leadership candidates?

This year in Ontario the Tories will be choosing their provincial leader. If you're like me and worried that the party will be dominated by social conservatives, PLEASE buy a membership in the party and support one of the moderate candidates like John Tory.

Quick Update to the CBC Townhall this evening...Tony Clement will be replacing Belinda Stronach. Not sure if that encourages or discourages viewership ;-)

Moffatt is correct, action could have been taken by Red Tories to prevent the take-over. If only some PC's had doubled their voting power by signing up for Reform Alliance memberships (and Reform Alliance members did with PC memberships), then perhaps we would not be in this mess. And by "we", I mean Canadians.

And while I would not support the Reform Alliance Conservatives in any event, their policy objectives of decentralization, 'free vote' tyranny of the majority, and the corporatization of public services would strike a more hollow fear coming from David Orchard or Joe Clark.

Plus, Jack Layton rubs me the wrong way. I'm not sure why, but I have a serious dislike for that guy.

When Layton was talking to the camera last night, he had the demeanour of someone standing in front of a blue screen trying to sell an Ultramatic Adjustable Bed.

Last night's debate didn't change anything for me. I voted for the Progressive Conservatives in the past two federal elections, but this time around I'll be voting for the Liberals, even though my preference would be either the Green Party or none of them at all. Cabinet minister Andy Scott is in a tight battle with the Conservative candidate in my riding and I would hate it if this seat swung Harper's way by just a few votes.

This will be the first election at either the federal or provincial level where I have voted to retain a sitting government. Great timing, eh?

Thanks for the kind words Leigh. I think, though, that action could have been taken by ALL Canadians and not just Red Tories. I'd have no problems taking out, say, an NDP membership, and voting against a leadership candidate for them I found objectionable.

There are actually a number of former PC campaign managers are now working on high profile NDP campaigns (not in the same role but none the less offering their efforts to defeat a Liberal government that they too believe doesn't deserve to govern). Personally, I have issues opening the "big tent" that far because I've never believed my enemy's enemy is my friend but during a campaign I suppose anyone willing to labour is appreciated.

Moffatt, I've never considered doing something like that, but it's an interesting idea. If the Conservatives are going to win the next provincial election in ON, I'd much rather see John Tory as Premier than Jim Flaherty.
Hm.
I think I might have to get a PC membership.

The nice thing about voting in a party leadership campaign is that the pool of voters is much smaller, so your vote has a lot more weight than it would in general election. For the $10 most parties charge for a membership, I think it's an absolute bargain, even if you have no plans to vote for them in the next election.

Joining a party is about more than just selecting a leader. It's about shaping policy and giving a grassroots direction to the party...Plus signing a membership card means you've committed to voting for them ;-)

In terms of Tory vs. Flaherty, they're both going to have the same caucus and they're both going to get slapped around if they stray from that caucus' vision. Neither Flaherty or Tory are Mike Harris (in terms of leadership abilities) and the consequence will be another Ernie Eves.

In terms of Tory vs. Flaherty, they're both going to have the same caucus

I disagree with you there. Keith Martin and Scott Brison, for instance, would probably still be Conservatives today if Stronach had won the leadership. The leader makes a big difference.

In that case it was two parties merging into one. The Ontario PC Party isn't going through that process.

I disagree with you there. Keith Martin and Scott Brison, for instance, would probably still be Conservatives today if Stronach had won the leadership. The leader makes a big difference.

That may be true, except for the small detail that Brison had already quit the party four months before Harper won the leadership. Brison was once a politician of great promise, but alas some things just aren't meant to be.

And good riddance, I say. As John Baird said of Gary Carr, this may be the first time in Canadian history that a rat has jumped aboard a sinking ship!

http://journals.jevon.org/users/keith_talent
Okay, this thread is ruined, so people may as well go on discussing politics in here.

Please don't take this as a precedent. I don't want to see other threads ruined for baseball talk with political flamewars. Keep the election stuff in here.

Who started all this election talk anyway?

For once it wasn't me =)

It just isn't the Toronto 'lefties' that are afraid of Harper. I'm afraid of Harper and I live in the Reform heartland of Alberta. The man is pure evil. People have made the analogy that voting for Harper is akin to voting for George Bush. I'd go one further. Harper isn't George Bush. Harper is more like Nixon. Not the real Nixon mind you but the head in a jar Nixon from Futurama. Make no mistake. The new Conservative Party IS the Reform Party. Their views, in my opinion, go way past extreme and border on cartoonish supervillainy.

But, Cristian, don't mince words... how do you really feel? :)

It's times like these that being 17 really sucks. I know at least 20 people of voting age who aren't voting, not to mention that idiot Chandler Whatshisname in the Globe series, and I would gladly replace them at the ballot box.

Who I would vote for is another matter entirely, but I know I would cast a ballot at the very least.

I believe that political parties want to get re-elected. So if 70% of the conservative party members believe a particular law should be passed but only 20% of the population at large want it then I think it does not get passed. I do not buy they "we are going to be part of the US, we are going to war" rubbish that I see these days.

I have no political affiliation, I do not like any of them. My political philosophy is kick the bums out because after one term they look to line their own pockets. Having said that I do not believe that all of the conservative scare stories are correct, you guys are watching too many liberal ads. If some 70 year old hick says "Gays are evil" then suddenly it is "all conservatives believe it". So are all liberals crooks because some of them have been implicated in scandals? There is no boogeyman.

I have not decided who to vote for yet, except it will not be a liberal, see philosophy above. Can you point me to something, IN WRITING, and from the conservative party, that scares you in the conservative party platform?

Gerry, the firewall around Alberta paper that Harper co-authored (well before he was leader) scares me from the Conservative party.

As do members of the party comparing the beheading of Nicholas Berg to abortion.

I don't think that the Conservatives or their followers are bigots.

What scares me is that all bigots seem to be Conservatives.
Do you know anyone that's racist or homophobic that is a Liberal or votes NDP?
So the question is, why are these people attracted to the Conservatives? I think it's a tough question and one that the Conservatives are going to have to look into in the future. The alliance of libetarians, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives will work for now, but I think it's going to be tricky to keep up once they're in power.

With that said, you've got a good point about people wanting to stay in power. Personally I believe that Harper is anti gay and anti abortion, but that he's smart enough to know that he can't do anything about those issues, so he's going to ignore them. Which is why I won't vote strategically.

Do you know anyone that's racist or homophobic that is a Liberal or votes NDP?

Ever heard of Roseanne Skoke?

I don't know how you define homophobic, but there's all kinds of Liberal MPs who are against gay marriage. Gay rights groups are picketing Dennis Mills this weekend for instance.

http://www.thewolfshack.com
Hm, I'd never heard of Roseanne Skoke. I guess that blows my theory all to hell.
I wasn't so much talking about being against gay marriage (although I everyone should be for it) so much as I was talking about the true homophobes that think all gays are immoral, diseased, stuff like that.
It only took you 8 minutes to show me that what I was thinking was wrong. Perhaps I should refrain from posting.
:)

It only took you 8 minutes to show me that what I was thinking was wrong. Perhaps I should refrain from posting.

It's a worthwhile discussion, so I'm glad you posted. Besides, it usually only takes 7 minutes for someone to show me why I'm wrong.

But I know what you mean. The Conservatives and the CHP seem to attract these types in far larger numbers than, say, the Greens.

But I know what you mean. The Conservatives and the CHP seem to attract these types in far larger numbers than, say, the Greens.

That's largely because the Conservatives attract all types of people in far larger numbers than, say, the Greens!

That's largely because the Conservatives attract all types of people in far larger numbers than, say, the Greens!

I know you're being facetious, but the point I was making was that the largest percentage of these people seem to end up with the Conservatives. (Well, the point i was making was that they all do, now I'm changing it to the largest percentage).

ASIDE:
Moffatt, based on how you feel about Nickelback, I think you might enjoy going here.

On your left speaker, their 2001 hit "how you remind me".

On your right speaker, "someday".

That's hilarious. I'm so out of place in Alberta. Not only am I opposed to the Regressive Conservatives in this election but I also hate Nickelback.

Heheheheheh.. I love that link.. I saw it on Fark a few days ago. Yeah, *all* their songs sound the same. It's pretty scary.

I know you're being facetious, but the point I was making was that the largest percentage of these people seem to end up with the Conservatives. (Well, the point i was making was that they all do, now I'm changing it to the largest percentage).

You're right, I was being facetious, but you really must be careful in making these wild generalizations about political parties, their supporters, and their supposed tolerance or intolerance.

You are right to be upset by bigotry in our society, which generally stems from ignorance. But you may want to take some time to consider whether you aren't falling prey to a similar level of ignorance with respect to your anecdotal, rather than empirical, observations, about a party and the good number of decent people that are involved with it.

Now how about them Blue Jays!!

http://www.thewolfshack.com
The Edge used to play a remixed version of a Nickelback song with a Theory of a Deadman song. It was perfect. I think someone needs to tell these bands that they're allowed to be influenced by someone other than Pearl Jam.
One of my friends went to a Nickeback concert and said it was the best he'd ever been to. They even gave away free beer. So maybe they're doing something right.

Four Seamer, I'm not trying to say that that Conservative party is full of racists. I don't believe that. I'm not trying to comdemn the people that vote or work for them. (One of my old roomates was very involved in the Stronach campaign, and is working very hard for Steve Strauss in Kitchener right now).
What I'm saying is that among the racists that I've met, a large number of them vote Conservative.
Do you disagree with that idea?
I think that's the issue that the Conservatives are going to have to deal with. They don't need the Larry Spencers of the world to be speaking up while they're in power. Or when they're not in power.

To their credit, the Conservatives kicked Spencer out of the party and he's now running as an Independent.

What I'm saying is that among the racists that I've met, a large number of them vote Conservative.
Do you disagree with that idea?

Well, if I had to guess, I'd presume that most racists don't even vote at all, given that such views are a reliable indicator of disaffection from society in general. People without much stake in their communities do not participate in civic rituals such as voting to nearly the same degree as those more deeply integrated into civil society.

Blessedly, I tend not to make the acquaintance of many racists and homophobes, so I don't have much of a sample size to go by. But I can speak from personal experience that some of the more virulent outbursts I've heard have come at the expense of Conservative candidates of colour. It goes without saying that those voters are not supporting Mr. Harper.

All of this may be true, but...

There's nothing even remotely conservative about racism. Such attitudes are (at least in my opinion) fundamentally incompatible with a conservative worldview (at least in the way that the word is now understood).

If conservatives are being racists, they're doing a really bad job of being conservatives.

I understand what a fisal conservative is (i.e. John Manley), what a social conservative is, but how can a libertarian be a "conservative"?

The libertarian doctrine is revolutionary and utopian in nature. It's never existed in practice and never will. For me, libertarians are misguided souls who don't understand how a society works.

http://www.thewolfshack.com
Blessedly, I tend not to make the acquaintance of many racists and homophobes,

I envy you. I am from a rural area (Grey Bruce) where we've had a black man as our MP for the past 10 years. (And for about 12 more days). When he first ran for parliament, I was a wee lad and delivered newspapers in a senior citizens home. I heard more than one person say that they weren't going to vote for that insert extremely derogatory term for black people here
It got worse after he was elected, and particularly once he voted for the gun registry.
Now, maybe I'm not being fair, but I haven't seen that attitude in either Waterloo or Mississauga.
I agree with you that many racists probably won't vote.

Craig, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by saying that Conservatives being racist means they're doing a bad job of being conservatives. Policies for lower immigration and stricter adherence to the bible, no matter what their merit, would seem to lead to racism. (I'm not saying lower immigration is a good or bad idea, just that I can see how it would appeal to racists, among many other people).
And I don't think that conservatives are being racist. I think racists are being conservative. That might sound like splitting hairs, but I think it's an important distinction.

Robert, I don't think I'd call John Manley a fiscal conservative. Paul Martin maybe, but not Manley. I'm sure there are lots of prominent fiscal conservatives, but I"m drawing a blank right now. Maybe the people at the Canadian Taxpayers Association.
And in general I think Libetarians would vote Conservative. Libetarians like lower taxes and much much smaller government, as well as a lack of government regulation. These types of ideas tend to be found in the Conservative platform.

Most libertarians, though, are also rabidly pro-choice, which makes left-of-center parties attractive as well.

If you're a Libertarian, you basically end up agreeing with a bit of what everyone says and disagreeing with a bit of what everyone says. So it makes voting and participating in elections really frustrating, unless you're hardcore Libertarian and you vote Libertarian or Freedom.

Craig, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by saying that Conservatives being racist means they're doing a bad job of being conservatives. Policies for lower immigration and stricter adherence to the bible, no matter what their merit, would seem to lead to racism.

Neither of these policies are inherently "conservative" from a political philosophy point of view, which I imagine was Craig's point.

Conservatism works to maintain the current social structure, which is inherently racist based on a system of privillages that aided in placing four white men in suits on the debate floor last night to preech to the nation. In terms of blaitant racism, their immigration policy is absolutely awful (the Liberals aren't much better and the NDP isn't perfect either).

http://www.thewolfshack.com
Most libertarians, though, are also rabidly pro-choice, which makes left-of-center parties attractive as well.

True. And I can't imagine a libertarian being against gay marriage, unless they were against all state sanctioned marriage.
In your experience, which parties do the libertarians you know vote for?
I only know a few, and they're rabid supporters of the Ontario PC party.

Neither of these policies are inherently "conservative" from a political philosophy point of view, which I imagine was Craig's point.

Ahh, okay. I guess I was mostly looking at their current track record.
Didn't the Conservative party of Canada start as the pro-monarchists?

In your experience, which parties do the libertarians you know vote for?

The really hardcore ones usually for a fringe party. I was an undergrad Poli. Sci. student at Western, and I recall a few libertarian people in my classes telling me that they don't vote. Since there are so few libertarians there are, it's difficult to analyze how they vote because of sample size issues. :)

Like a lot of economists, I have libertarian leanings on a lot of issues, but I'm rather skeptical when it comes to any ideological based worldview.

I understand what a fisal conservative is (i.e. John Manley), what a social conservative is, but how can a libertarian be a "conservative"?

You've practically answered it, I mean, a libertarian, broadly defined, is a fiscal conservative minus the social conservative views. The term "conservative" sticks because the fundamental left-right distinction arises from one's economic views. As for your other comment, not all libertarians are extremists, just as not all socialists are revolutionaries.

Policies for lower immigration and stricter adherence to the bible, no matter what their merit, would seem to lead to racism.

Paul D,

I have to be careful how I say this, because I'm already on thin ice with Craig B., but without getting into the merits of your earlier comments, that sentence alone demonstrates that 'conservatives' do not have a monopoly on intolerance. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but to cavalierly suggest that Christians, by virtue of our adherence to the Bible, are either racists or complicit in the furthering of a racist agenda, is both deeply offensive and appallingly ignorant.

It also reflects a deep misunderstanding of the Conservative's party platform, but I'll save that lesson for the Harper partisans to deliver.

http://www.thewolfshack.com
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but to cavalierly suggest that Christians, by virtue of our adherence to the Bible, are either racists or complicit in the furthering of a racist agenda, is both deeply offensive and appallingly ignorant.

That's not what I was trying to say.
Some (many?) very religious Christians are opposed to gay marriage. A party that is against gay marriage will appeal to people that are homophobic.
I am NOT saying that Christians are homophobic. I am simply saying that the Conservative parties religious values and policies would also appeal to certain segments of our society that are homophobic.
I hope that's clear. No offense intended.

And I hardly think it's a deep misunderstanding of the Conservative party's platform to say that they are the least friendly towards immigration, opposed to gay marriage, and have religious roots.

I'm not sure why I'm having this discussion on a baseball discussion site, but there is nothing remotely Christian in the orientation of the Conservative Party of Canada. A 'Christian' party would not be running on a platform of tax cuts, increased military spending, and the elimination of government waste. There's nothing inherently un-Christian about any of those policy orientations, but they're not animating too many Sunday morning sermons (or at least they shouldn't be).

As to whether or not they are actually opposed to gay marriage, neither you nor I are equipped to answer. They have committed only to having a free vote in the House of Commons on the issue; we know that Harper is a proponent of the traditional definition of marriage, but as for his candidates, we have no reliable indication of how they will vote, and even if we did, we have no way of knowing which ones will even be elected. Moreover, you can rest assured that there are several Liberal MPs, most if not all of whom supported Paul Martin for leader, who have already voted in Parliament to affirm the traditional definition of marriage and no doubt would do so again if given the opportunity.

And please, if you're going to make accusations relating to racism, be prepared to defend them. Changing the topic to homophobia is simply a dodge.

I'm not sure why I'm having this discussion on a baseball discussion site, but there is nothing remotely Christian in the orientation of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Interesting point. Their supporters tend to come from some of the more religious areas of the country, and they do tend to be associated with the religous movement. There are certainly deeply religious Liberals and NDP members.

I'm pretty sure we are equipped to answer their position on gay marriage. Harper is the leader, and he's against it. There was a vote on it last time parliament was in session, and the only party that was 100% against it was the Alliance. Morever, many (although not all) of his candidates have stated that they support the traditional defintion of marriage, and I think it's fair to assume that they would vote against it.

Moreover, you can rest assured that there are several Liberal MPs, most if not all of whom supported Paul Martin for leader, who have already voted in Parliament to affirm the traditional definition of marriage and no doubt would do so again if given the opportunity.
Yes. So?

And please, if you're going to make accusations relating to racism, be prepared to defend them. Changing the topic to homophobia is simply a dodge.
I'm not dodging anything. I do not think Christians (a subset that includes me) are racist. I don't think anything they do promotes racism. I am sorry for making that inference. Fair enough?

I think that the Conservative party has the least friendly immigration policy, which makes it attractive to racists. I think they are the only party opposed to gay marriage, due to their religious beliefs, which makes them attractive to homophobes. This does not make them homophobic as a party. Communists are probably attracted to the NDP, that doesn't make the NDP communists.

Fair play, Paul D. I don't agree with your take on these issues, but your civility becomes you.

I may have more to say in response tomorrow, but I must get some sleep!

Conservatism works to maintain the current social structure, which is inherently racist based on a system of privillages that aided in placing four white men in suits on the debate floor last night to preech to the nation. In terms of blaitant racism, their immigration policy is absolutely awful (the Liberals aren't much better and the NDP isn't perfect either).

Well, traditional ("classical") conservatism (and traditional Canadian capital-C Conservatism) seeks to moderate progress and maintain continuity. It does not seek to "maintain the current social structure", but we'll leave that aside.

Conservatism as it is now understood works to no such ends. Conservatism as it is now understood (a bad name for it, but what the heck) seeks to change the current social structure, by lessening the role of the state in the economy, protecting private property and (broadly speaking) personal safety by broadening the role of the state in law and order, and seeking to curtail individual and collective rights. "Conservatives" in contemporary Canadian society are radicals, seeking (and usually prescribing) radical solutions that are fundamentally at odds with the constitutional and historical structure of this country.

As you can probably tell, my sympathies in this fight lie with the traditional conservatives, but that battle is lost now. :)

As for the current social structure, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that our society is inherently racist. That there still is racism within our society does not mean that there is "inherent" racism there. The fact that there were four white men in suits (why does everyone hate suits so much? Seriously, A, if it were a native woman or a black man on that rostrum on Monday night, do you think they would wear jeans and a T-shirt?) on the podium has little, if anything, to do with Conservatism (the only party to have had a female prime minister).

In terms of blaitant racism, their immigration policy is absolutely awful

I'm sorry, this is insane. The Conservatives were the party that have led the fight on the single most important immigration issue this country faces, which is the fairer and prompter recognition of professional and trade credentials and experience gained overseas. The number of highly qualified foreign professionals and tradespeople who are not allowed to find work in their field of expertise is enormous, and it's utterly shameful. (But then, of course, the unions and professional organizations who are seeking to exclude immigrants from their ranks are much more friendly with the other parties).

Now none of this is in the platform, but traditionally both Tory parties have been keen to cut illegal immigration (not a huge problem in Canada, but another key problem for immigrants - legal ones - since it drains resources that should be available to them). Reform were always keen on strengthening the "merit" bases for immigration, which I'm not as keen on but which since World War Two has been a very important part of the immigration system. Making merit more important won't, I think, affect the racial composition of the immigrant population.

Denying direct federal assistance to individual immigrants was also a Reform policy, I don't know if it still exists under the Conservatives. I'd be interested to know the dollar amounts that go directly from the federal government to new immigrants, but I can't believe it's much. The problem there, of course, is that the Child Tax Benefit is becoming more important and is gaining in importance. Cutting that off to immigrant families would be fundamentally wrong and unfair; if this is still their policy, it's a bad one.

In short because I'm late running out the door as is...

Seriously, A, if it were a native woman or a black man on that rostrum on Monday night, do you think they would wear jeans and a T-shirt?

I'm not expecting jeans and t-shirt but there could have been a native woman on stage in traditional dress, not a business suit.

Immigration
I don't think any of the parties quite get this but from my perspective, designating a person "illegal" is outrageous.

Conservatism
Craig, after I posted that comment I realized I'd probably be eating crow for not being clear about my use of the word conservatism. I was referring specifically to the Conservative party (and obviously did a bad job communicating it), which I don't see as a party that pays specific attention to traditional conservative values as much as a mixture of neo-conservative/neo-liberal values.

I'm not expecting jeans and t-shirt but there could have been a native woman on stage in traditional dress, not a business suit.

Why would that make a difference? I don't think wearing a suit, or say, being an economist, makes someone any less "native".

I disagree. A fiscal conservative can be a person who believes in high taxes and a strong role for the state in society, but abhors deficits.

That's almost the opposite of a libertarian.

A fiscal conservative can be a person who believes in high taxes and a strong role for the state in society, but abhors deficits.

This thread has thrown me for a real loop. I have never considered myself to be a fiscal conservative, but on Robert's definition I most certainly am.

A fiscal conservative can be a person who believes in high taxes and a strong role for the state in society, but abhors deficits.

Well, in that case almost everyone is now a fiscal conservative, except possibly President Bush and Congressional Republicans. Even New Democrats are running on a pledge to keep the budget balanced.

As fiscal conservatives believe in smaller government, tax cuts (and low taxes in general) are desirable precisely because they require the government to be less interventionist. Fiscal conservatives also believe that government can have a strong role in society without spending enormous amounts of money. Compassion is not measured by the size of a government-issued cheque, but by the difference we make in each other's lives. Sometimes state institutions do that the best; sometimes it's better for the state to get out of the way and empower individuals to do it themselves.

I don't think fiscal conservatives necessarily believe in small government - there's nothing in the concept that manadates it.

Two "conservatives" - Ronald Reagan and George Bush Jr. - were/are two of the biggest non-fiscal conservatives. On balance I don't think there are any more fiscal conservatives in the Conservative party than in other parties, and that's because most of them believe in tax cuts/small govenment. It;s hard to be a proponent of tax cuts and fiscal conservatism without cutting government services. Since so many of these services are viewed as essential by a large group of Canadians, governments that like to cut taxes find it enormously difficult to keep the budget balanced.

I think the problem is that we all seem to have different definitions of Conservative, fiscal conservative, and libetarian.

Craig's definition of conservatism seems to be more of a theoretical listing then what actually happens.

And the idea that I had about fiscal conservatives was drastically different than Robert's. In terms of parties that are fiscally conservative, I think the Ontario PC party and the BC Liberal party are both fiscally conservative.

What can the definition of fiscal conservative be other than someone who is against running up large budget deficits and shouldering high government debt?

The principle can be extended to private citizens too: Someone who hates to run up personal debt could easily be called a fiscal conservative; someone who likes to buy on credit and is willing to shoulder high interest payments in exchange for getting the goods and services she/he wants right away could be called a fiscal 'liberal' (for lack of a better term).

Robert that definition isn't as narrow as the one I had. For example, John Manley likes to spend and not lower taxes, which is not what I had in mind when I mentioned fiscal conservatives.
I think Four Seamer listed many of the points that I considered to be fiscally conservative.

Robert, your definition of fiscal conservative is not unreasonable, it's just that people often take that term to be synonymous with "economic right-winger", obviously a different concept. I would think budget discipline is independent of one's underlying left/right leaning.