slowpoke said:
How so? The PC's are long gone and CPOC hasn't been around "for many years now"! Are you equating the CPOC with the old PC's?
I know the CPOC have included the word "Conservative" in their name but surely to God we are sophisticated enough to recognize that they are an entirely different organization. This makes no sense. The Clark / Mulroney PC's weren't a hardline family values party like CPOC so it is just pointless to use the record of the old PC's to predict the behaviour of the CPOC. You might be closer to the truth if you compared the CPOC to the R's in the US. They share more ideology with them than with Joe Clark or Brian Mulroney. Joe Clark wouldn't touch the CPOC with a stick.
What are you talking about?
1. Are you suggesting that the members of the Conservative party suddenly "materialised" out of thin air in 2004, having never been in politics before? I assure you, most of the 100 or so current MPs in the Conservative Party have been in Parliament for many, many years (especially those "dangerous" Westerners). And they have probably always been "conservative" (a persuasion, not a party).
And yes, some of them even date back to the Mulroney/Clark PC's (which, at well over a decade ago, should probably count as "many years ago").
2. Any "conservative" MP (again a persuasion, either in the PC, Reform, Alliance, or Conservative parties... or heck, even as an independent) could have raised the issue at any time; with or without their party approval; with or without their party in government. THAT is the point. If any one of the several dozen MPs (that have indeed been in Parliament for many years) WANTED to make prostitution an issue, any one of them could have. But they didn't. Not one in the Mulroney era (or before). Nor either of the Clark periods. Nor the Campbell/Charest/Mackay days. Not during Manning's time. Not in the Day period. Not while Harper has been there. Not any leader, minister, critic, or back benchers. Not one of them.
So, suggesting that the "conservatives" (a persuasion, not a Party) are NOW suddenly starting a crusade to change the prostitution laws under the Conservative Party banner is idiotic.
But then again, most of what the Liberals accuse them of falls under that category.
3. Do you believe that members of Political Parties are "unified" on all issues? The Conservatives are split on many complex social issues (same-sex marriage, abortion, all of the "hardline family values", etc.), and not all party members agree with party leadership... but guess what? The same can be said about the Liberals. Likewise with other parties. That's why NONE OF THEM are anxious to dig up these issues as "policy" (except, it would appear, when trying to define their opponent's policy).
That's also why Martin and Layton refuse to allow free votes on these issues.
4. If you (a) actually compare the platforms and (b) give up the ignorant dogma that "Conservatives are very, very different", you'll find the the Conservative Party is much closer to the Liberal Party in all material aspects than it is to the American Republicans. They are even closer to the Liberal Party than they are to the American Democrats. They are probably even closer to the NDP than they are to either of the American parties.
...but it's hard to make them look like Devil worshipers... or worse yet,
Americans (gasp)... when you see the TRUE difference between Liberals and Conservatives boils down to 1% reductions in GST vs. Income tax, and whether or nor Canada should get into the day-care business.