A belated Happy new years to you and your kitties

OTOH, Harper has worked hard to keep his MPs muzzled. Every time they say something stupid (ie. anything about abortion or gay marriage), the CPC’s poll numbers fall. So he might also have been blindsided by this and be right pissed off about it, especially if it sticks and he has to wear it to the next election.

We’ll know which it is when/IF we hear from Bruinooge again. If he goes silent that means Harper’s pissed, and has aborted Broony’s tongue.

BTW, happy new year to you & yours.

Interesting. I hadn’t thought how it might actually hurt the Liberal party. There are a number of closeted pro-lifers in that party, that’s for sure.

Not on Harper. All Harper had to do was make his usual rote statement that his government “has no intention of re-opening The Debate” and he was off the hook — it just looks like Broony was shooting his mouth off. Meanwhile, this has gotten a lot of attention that would normally be going to things like the economy.

The cons won’t be hurt by this, as much as it seems to play into the “hidden agenda” thing. Iggy might be the one it ends up hurting, since people are now asking him to name, own or disown these mutant anti-choice Liberals in his midst.

This issue wouldn’t get any time even from a majority Harper government. It is a LOSER issue. Also, it ceases to have any value as a carrot to dangle in front of the nitwit wing of the party once they actually start doing something with it, so they won’t.

If there is some truth in what you say, then I imagine it has backfired for a certain “someone”. The only plausible scenario in which this gets any time whatsoever is during a majority government, and even then it isn’t guaranteed.

The “pro-life caucus” has been around for ages. It’s no secret that it exists — the only secret is who the members are (other than the co-chairs), but that’s always been the case. The reason it’s suddenly getting media attention is: (a) there’s been a change of chairman, which hasn’t happened for a few years, (b) Bruinooge *for whatever reason* chose to announce that the PPLC plans to “re-open the debate”, something guaranteed to get all sides screaming, and (c) slow news week. Otherwise it wouldn’t even be on the radar.

But here’s why I think it’s a deliberate diversion: Bruinooge’s election to the PPLC chair was announced 3 weeks ago — it was in the Shotgun, but didn’t get any play anywhere else because of all the other stuff going on (parliament just prorogued, Iggy appointed Lib leader, etc). For some reason, *someone* decided it needed to be announced again, this time with more of a splash, an op-ed in the NP, quotes from Bruinooge about “re-opening the debate”, the “secretive” aspect etc., all stuff guaranteed to stir the pot. And *ta-da!* it worked! Nothing like a good wedge issue to get everyone’s attention away from the economy.

However, now that it’s front & centre, I think it’s about time the PPLC named names. After all, they’re not getting together to play poker, they’re getting together to discuss how they might curtail my rights. So I want to know who “they” are, especially the LPC members, of which there are probably 10-15.

Conservative supporters are being played like a banjo by someone, as Raph has pointed out, who is a whore willing to sell out any principles and tell any outrageous lies (”the economy is strong” ” we won’t run a deficit”) for votes.

Well, I don’t know that I characterized Harper as a woman of loose morals but… sure. I get the thrust of your argument. I’m not sure I agree that this is a diversion, however, and it seems to be genuinely a grassroots pro-life ideologically conservative movements that is omnipresent in politics but rarely rears it’s head in the mainstream media. So I don’t see how a diversion to something more unpleasant than whether the Conservatives are doing a good or bad job in office would be beneficial in some way to their party.

Welcome back, I hope you had a nice Christmas.

I see the pro-life/choice polarization as something that is not unlike the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. You often have extremists on both sides and it’s difficult to get past the entrenched positions and find a middle ground. It is because, quite possibly, no middle ground exists to stand on.

I would never consider that my own thoughts of what is right for me should automatically be right for someone else- because it can’t. I do not know what is best for others- only myself.

I feel pretty much the same way about personal freedoms in this regard, and it’s even more difficult for me to make personal judgments about women should do. Being a man I’ll never have to make that decision, so it’s easier for me to moralize and philosophize without any negatives.