babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Swing Voters

Pondering
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2013

I've been lurking a long while. I haven't tracked who says what but I have read enough to know how deeply partisan this board is which is why I haven't posted.

The line seems to be that the NDP and Mulcair can do anything they please as long as it isn't as bad as what the Conservatives do or the Liberals did when they were in power. It reminds me so much of the Conservatives. Every time they got accused of something especially early on they brought up the Liberals. When Mulcair was a Liberal, you probably would have been trashing him. Now that he is NDP he can do no wrong.

Even though I always preferred the NDP I voted Liberal federally because I didn't think the NDP could win. When I moved into a Bloc riding I voted Green as a statement vote except when I voted for Dion. Last time around I voted for Layton even though I have never forgiven him for defeating the Liberal budget that would have brought in universal daycare. So, I am not a die-hard Liberal.

I am, however, getting very turned off the NDP because they seem to behave pretty much like the Conservatives only at the other end of the spectrum. Authoritarian leader that can do no wrong, except when he does, but then, his bad behavior is justifed by others being supposedly worse.

The NDP grew because of people like me. Because when Iggy was dropped in by the Liberal elites I was offended and I was no happier with the elites popping Rae into place either. I like him a lot, just didn't like the undemocratic way in which the party was being run. So, I decided to join in the orange wave even though I didn't think Duceppe could be defeated, but he was defeated.

I was ready to give Mulcair a chance especially knowing that he had a tough act to follow in Layton. Now I can't stand him or many of the NDP supporters. I used to think the NDP were special, principled, the real deal. Now I just see them as selfish game-players and Trudeau seems like the sincere one and the only one of the three that is a federalist.

The NDP grew because Liberals got turned off of Iggy and decided to give the NDP a chance. The partisan ugliness and the dishonest cynical attacks on Trudeau are sending us back to the Liberals in droves. Trudeau doesn't have to defeat the NDP, the NDP is defeating themselves just like the Conservatives.

Trudeau will win the next federal election not because he is so great (he isn't) but because the alternatives are so awful. Mulcair/NDP dishonest and lowball attacks on Trudeau are self-defeating because Mulcair is showing that he is just another political player like all the rest. There is no reason to vote for him.


Comments

janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

here here for the manor born who as a backbench MP did = nothing, nada, nothing. So why should progressives vote for Trudeau again? Because he did what since elected? Tell us, pray tell, what policy he brought forth, what he championed? Just curious.

And as for national childcare, the Libs promised that starting way back in 1993, in liberal redbook 1. They trotted that out each election but just couldn't get her done with how many majority govts? Finally in minority, Martin brings it forward in the dying days of Liberal corruption and entitlement of adscammers. So in 6 wks he's going to get a national childcare program up in running? Really, so much for rope a dope.

Remember Martin had said that he would call the election in Feb right after the adscam report came forward. That program had as much chance of seeing the light of day as re-elected tired liberal corrupt govt.

But let's do some math. Harper said he didn't want to want to wait 6 wks and wanted the House to fall right away. Harper had the Bloc and the 2 independent votes (of MPs).

So Layton goes to Martin again and asks for some more stuff for public health care. Martin says no and prefers his chances of running on extras for healthcare himself. So what is Layton to do. Vote with the corrupt liberals and being ABLE TO COUNT know that Harper has the right number of votes to bring the house down.

The the public was very unhappy with the corrupt and entitled liberals and would have seen the NDP has lacking values in voting with the libs who were going down in defeat anyways.

Remember and here's the math: Cons & Bloc & 2 independents is GREATER THAN NDP & Libs.

So no the NDP didn't defeat the Liberals and their corrupt govt but Libs did by playing cheap politics.

So your misplaced "libs are victims" story which Libs love to repeat over and over again (hoping everybody will believe their ethically challenged ways) this claptrap, but pure math never lies.

Aren't you a tiny bit upset that the Liberals played you since 1993 on that national childcare scam??? When Iggy tried that out again in 2011, everybody just laughed. Liberals campaign on the left, rule on the right. Because for ever in a day, Liberals will do corrupt taxcuts way before some social program which they just never ever got around to actually doing.


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

Yes I am tired of that garbage about the NDP defeating the Liberals. It is an absolute fact that had every New Democrat come in to the House and voted with the Liberals the government would still have fallen. I am tired of Liberals and their supporters lying about this.

Nothing could have prevented the government falling other than a deal with the BQ or Conservatives. The NDP knowing the Liberals were going down anyway elected to vote with the opposition at the time due to the Liberals record.

As a point fo fact when the Liberals and the NDP had enough votes the NDP did in fact side with the Liberals.

You can check all this out -- all over the place  -- Wiki is a start as it will give you all kinds of links to the original sources.


Pondering
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2013

I see liberal faults, but they have good as well as bad history. The leadership has also changed and power has shifted to a new generation. I do have concerns about this liberal generation just not really those that are being raised, or raised in a reasonable manner.

I am uneasy about his support of corporate interests. So far his arguments are good but I am concerned about the no tax increases promise. I know all politicians almost have to promise that to get elected. At the same time, I feel that an excellent argument can be made for raising some taxes. Is that political suicide now? Even if so, I want to hear the argument.

I don't like how emphatic he was about no free tuition for students. I would prefer a more nuanced reasoning recognizing it as a valid goal but not possible at the moment because there are too many other urgent issues that need immediate attention and serious investment. For example, restoring protection to the environment, cleaning up and encoraging widespread adoption of things like thermal heating and cooling. National daycare indirectly supports education as mothers could more readily attend. etc. There are a lot of places government money needs to be spend before getting to free university education.

He lacks polish. Locally, I think it works for him. It adds to his aura of sincerity. It is proof that he is without guile. He just says whatever comes to his mind. That is very refreshing. It makes me feel like I can trust him because he just puts it all out there. I'm not sure that trait will serve him well internationally.

On the other hand, maybe he is not as without guile as he seems on the surface. Nothing sticks. I recall a cartoon from a while back that had both Mulcair and Harper slinging mud at Trudeau but none of it was sticking and the throwers were covered in it. After everyone jumped all over him for saying he would welcome Harb back if his issues were resolved or cleared up or something to that effect. Then when he was challenged in the house his answer was spot on. If he is innocent he is in and if he is guilty he is out. Couldn't be more clear. Some pundits are saying he changed his answer but that won't matter. He has been clear now. If people keep harping on it, it will come across as petty.

So, are these real missteps due to being willing to speak off-script, or did he bait his opposition into jumping all over him so he could "clarify" and make them look petty?

 


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

Pondering both Sean and I wrote about the Libs and National childcare "game" and challenged the Liberal belief that the corrupt Liberal govt lost because of the NDP. Your next post did not respond to that liberal myth making.

Nor was there any response to the lack of gravis of Trudeau or anything. Actually I don't find Trudeau refreshing but just more of the same old same old.

As for this switch in focus to the "leaders" I thought the focus was the liberal brand which is damaged. The drip drip of Liberal support across Canada started a long time ago.


Geoff
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2009

Also, Pondering, don't forget that it was the Chretien Liberals, with Martin serving as finance minister, who axed funding for public housing, leaving Canada as the only country in the western world (as far as I know) that had no strategy for affordable housing.  I know it's become a political cliche, but it seems to be the case that Liberals campaign as progressives and govern as conservatives.

I support the NDP, even though I don't agree with everything they say or do.  (For example, I've posted elsewhere about the folly of passing the revised preamble to the party's constitution, revisions which I think would do any Liberal proud.) 

Nonetheless, I've yet to be convinced that there's another party out there that can effectively resist the dominant ideology of austerity and anti-worker hysteria that is currently fashionable. Should the NDP become a party like the others, I promise I'll reconsider my options.

Pondering, have a look at the Liberals' history in government: there's a reason they are regarded by progressives as an establishment party.   

 


Aristotleded24
Offline
Joined: May 24 2005

I'll also add that in Saskatchewan, from 1944 to 1978, the dominant right-wing opposition to the CCF-NDP was organized under the Liberal banner, as is currently the case in British Columbia. Also, remember that in 1998, when there was a tie between the NDP and the PCs for the most seats in Nova Scotia, the Liberals backed the PCs.


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

It was Bev Dejarlais losing the nomination in her riding and leaving the NDP that led to the tipping vote.  Without her vote the NDP didn't have enough votes to keep the Liberals in power.  And after having left the party over equal marriage, she wasn't going to be voting for Martin to stay in.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

I don't know what board you think you're on, because this board loves to rip into Mulcair and demand more boldness, more activity on anti-poverty, anti-imperialism, and so on.

If this same board has 10 times as much contempt for the Liberal Party than it does for the NDP, it's because the Liberal party's contributions here have been NEGATIVE over the past 25 years.

Maybe Mulcair is being timid in focusing on a small increase in pensions or health care, paid for with a small increase in corporate taxes (while personal taxes for the rich are left alone). But the Liberals were the ones who slashed the social safety net to pay for corporate tax breaks.

 


Pondering
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2013

janfromthebruce wrote:
Pondering both Sean and I wrote about the Libs and National childcare "game" and challenged the Liberal belief that the corrupt Liberal govt lost because of the NDP. Your next post did not respond to that liberal myth making.

In politics perception is more important than reality. Why were there any negotiations between Layton and Martin if he couldn't prop up the government? What would be the point? The papers at the time certainly gave the impression that Layton could do it.

 

janfromthebruce wrote:
Nor was there any response to the lack of gravis of Trudeau or anything. Actually I don't find Trudeau refreshing but just more of the same old same old.

To each his own. I don't expect everyone will find him refreshing. I do believe a lot of people do. His latest offer will add to that. I don't think he lacks "gravis". He seems to have well-reasoned positions on every issue he takes a stand on. I don't expect him to offer a platform two years before the election.

janfromthebruce wrote:
As for this switch in focus to the "leaders" I thought the focus was the liberal brand which is damaged. The drip drip of Liberal support across Canada started a long time ago.

Well you were wrong. The Manning Institute was disappointed in a poll they took that shows the Liberal brand is still strong. Add to that Trudeau's polling numbers and I would say they are doing very well.

 


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

The Liberals for the past 10 years have been losing voters and ridings. Including northern Ontario, and moving west the vast majority of seats are NDP and Con contests.

Not sure what issue he takes a stand on, and as for gravis, pray tell what book has he written, what policy or position has he campaigned prior to getting elected, and while a backbencher?


gadar
Offline
Joined: Nov 1 2006

So to get the swing voters to vote for the NDP the strategy seems to be

Pitch: 'you are an idiot that you voted for the liberals/cons and we are the enlightened ones as we always voted for the NDP. But now if you vote for the NDP you will not be an idiot any more'

Voter: 'Yes you are right I am an idiot, thanks for pointing that out. Now please give me nirvana.'


gadar
Offline
Joined: Nov 1 2006

janfromthebruce wrote:

The Liberals for the past 10 years have been losing voters and ridings. Including northern Ontario, and moving west the vast majority of seats are NDP and Con contests.

Not sure what issue he takes a stand on, and as for gravis, pray tell what book has he written, what policy or position has he campaigned prior to getting elected, and while a backbencher?

Ignat had written numerous books, a world reknowned scholar as some said. Where did that get him.

Harper as we know has written so many books on public policy and also discussed policy at large with voters in the last election by taking 5 questions a day and asking the candidates to not attend all candidate meetings. I am sure thats the reason why he won the elction. 

You are right about Libs losing votes and NDP gaining them but it has nothing to do with how many books their leaders had written, it was messaging. The talking points. And a record of broken promises.


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

yes, all it takes is messaging and lack of experience and any gravis is irrelevant. Geez, I find it scary that Liberals think that is all that matters.

So the star quality and the rise of the liberal party to power is based on this:

“My conclusion was that this is an opportunity to see a sitting MP speak, who is of Canadian historic significance, being the son of a former Prime-Minister,” said McTimoney’s email on Feb. 25 at 8:42 a.m.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/18/nb-carr-trudeau-rally-649.html

 

I'm glad at least we are on the same page and Trudeau Jr. star quality is based on nothing he brings to the table on a personal and professional level except the last name. Of course, the rich and elites and corporate brokers know that Trudeau will be their boy because he is one of them.

Brings back fond memories of Bush Jr.

Iggy's problem was that people didn't trust him and one was better off voting for the real deal - conservative - rather than the fake one who was pandering all over the place.

I remember laughing when the debate between Harpe and Iggy was about the percentage of corporate taxcuts, and whether one should buy fighter jets with engines or without.


gadar
Offline
Joined: Nov 1 2006

janfromthebruce wrote:

yes, all it takes is messaging and lack of experience and any gravis is irrelevant. Geez, I find it scary that Liberals think that is all that matters.

I'm glad at least we are on the same page and Trudeau Jr. star quality is based on nothing he brings to the table on a personal and professional level except the last name. Of course, the rich and elites and corporate brokers know that Trudeau will be their boy because he is one of them.

Brings back fond memories of Bush Jr.

Iggy's problem was that people didn't trust him and one was better off voting for the real deal - conservative - rather than the fake one who was pandering all over the place.

I remember laughing when the debate between Harpe and Iggy was about the percentage of corporate taxcuts, and whether one should buy fighter jets with engines or without.

I find that scary too, but i believe thats the truth. I just experienced it in BC more recently and also as i pointed out last federal elction was not won by discussing policy it was won by messaging. The mistrust for Iggy in peoples minds was not because of his policy stances but because 'he was just visiting'.

It is a separate conversation about who has more gravitas and experience and how elections are won and lost. Remember Bush Jr won 2 elections and wasnt exactly a genius.

As for real conservative and fake conservative, same has been said here about real Liberal and fake Liberal.

And also thanks for pointing it out that I am a Liberal, I never knew that. Since i disagreed with you, I must be a Liberal.


NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

The following basically relates to swing voters, the very vast majority of whom are not the one percenters, and I agree that it is unwise and unhealthy to allow the one percenters, such as Trudeau, to represent them. For way too long we have been represented in Parliament by people who have little in common with average Canadians, and that is why there is, and continues to be, these massive and growing gaps between the rich and the poor in Canada and elsewhere. The Liberals were in power for 13 years in Ottawa, and their policies effectively allowed the gap between the rich and the poor to expand.

---------------------------------------------------------

 

- George Monbiot writes about the dangers of allowing wealthy and privileged individuals to speak as the voice of the poor and downtrodden:

 

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2013/06/tuesday-morning-links...

 


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

Pondering I think you are confusing the budget discussions with the circumstances around when the government fell.

The budget discussions with Layton earlier that year were in a different context.

When the government fell the Liberals and the NDP had 151 seats the BQ and Conservatives also had 151 and agreed to bring down the government There were 2 seats vacant and 4 independents. The government's fate rested with the independents.

Parrish who had been a Liberal committed to vote with the government

Pat O'Brien also former Liberal had committed to bringing down the government

David Kilgour also a former Liberal also agreed to vote down the government

Another independent friendly to the Conservatives voted down the Martin government.

As such Martin with or without the NDP was doomed.

The earlier budget negotiations that year (that you are confusing the fall of the government) , the government hung on in part with the NDP and Belinda Stronach who crossed the floor as well as Chuck Cadman. This allowed a tie broken by the Liberal speaker. By the end of the year the math had moved against the government which required either support from the independents, the BQ or the Conservatives. Neither the NDP or Martin had any negotiating to do and everybody in the country knew it.

Since then we get Liberals lying about history pretending that the NDP's decision brought down the government. They do that because they feel that in a straight up contest with the NDP they will lose but if they can scare people into thinking the NDP helps the Conservatives win, people will vote for their less preferred option. It's dishonest, unethical, complete bullshit and very, very, Liberal.

That is the style of the Liberal party. Many people see through it and this is one reason why the Liberals are the third party.

Please get your facts straight. This is all public record.

 


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

gadar wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

yes, all it takes is messaging and lack of experience and any gravis is irrelevant. Geez, I find it scary that Liberals think that is all that matters.

I'm glad at least we are on the same page and Trudeau Jr. star quality is based on nothing he brings to the table on a personal and professional level except the last name. Of course, the rich and elites and corporate brokers know that Trudeau will be their boy because he is one of them.

Brings back fond memories of Bush Jr.

Iggy's problem was that people didn't trust him and one was better off voting for the real deal - conservative - rather than the fake one who was pandering all over the place.

I remember laughing when the debate between Harpe and Iggy was about the percentage of corporate taxcuts, and whether one should buy fighter jets with engines or without.

I find that scary too, but i believe thats the truth. I just experienced it in BC more recently and also as i pointed out last federal elction was not won by discussing policy it was won by messaging. The mistrust for Iggy in peoples minds was not because of his policy stances but because 'he was just visiting'.

It is a separate conversation about who has more gravitas and experience and how elections are won and lost. Remember Bush Jr won 2 elections and wasnt exactly a genius.

As for real conservative and fake conservative, same has been said here about real Liberal and fake Liberal.

And also thanks for pointing it out that I am a Liberal, I never knew that. Since i disagreed with you, I must be a Liberal.

I said nothing about you but the mindset that all that matters is messaging. In fact, I think many people vote on messaging about things that matter to them. And the messaging has to do with whether they believe the messager. So when National childcare is trotted out again by Liberals, people laughed. Liberals credability on national healthcare was also in tatters. That's why when looking at the last election and when pollsters asked questions in main policy areas, NDP is right at the top for "trust on national healthcare".


gadar
Offline
Joined: Nov 1 2006

I wrote

Quote:

You are right about Libs losing votes and NDP gaining them but it has nothing to do with how many books their leaders had written, it was messaging. The talking points. And a record of broken promises.

It was my opinion that the messaging was more important than the number of books a party leader had written. Nowhere did i say that it was what Liberals thought.

In reply

Quote:

yes, all it takes is messaging and lack of experience and any gravis is irrelevant. Geez, I find it scary that Liberals think that is all that matters.

I thought that messaging matters, and the reply was that it is scary Liberals think that messaging is all that matters. So essentially equating my opinion to be an opinion of a Liberal.

Now you may have not intended it to mean that way and i was just replying to what was written and not what was the intention behind what was being written which was impossible for me to know.


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

good, so instead of assuming when the communication is unclear, one would check out their assumptions. It's like science when one has a hunch and tests the validity of that hunch through scientific inquiry.


gadar
Offline
Joined: Nov 1 2006

It would be even better if we could just communicate clearly and write what we intend and not expect others to read our minds. As i mentioned in my earlier post you had clearly that my opinion is an opinion of a Liberal. There was no need to mention'Liberal' when disagreeing with my opinion. I am sure we can disagree without innuendo.


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

All I can say is this is beating a dead horse


gadar
Offline
Joined: Nov 1 2006

Conservatives dont like to disagree with somebody without insulting them.


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Supporting an unpopular gov't that's mired in corruption is a tricky business.  The fact that Layton did support Martin on one occasion to pass the budget led to two things:  1) severe criticism of Martin within the Globe and Mail (a front page editorial denouncing the deal) and 2.) a possible risk to the NDP to appear to approve of the Liberal corruption (which potentially could affect their chances in Quebec, something the NDP was obviously working on).  However, Layton did negotiate the first deal with them, but Martin refused to negotiate a deal with Layton afterword -- instead, it was Martin declaring support us or topple us we are not making any deals.  Layton then tried to make a deal to delay the effects of the non-confidence motion with Martin (IE, if Martin could call an election for March of next year, so that some of the important legislation could be put through, the NDP would not support the non-confidence motion near December) but Martin refused.  So the election happened earlier in December.

So I am always surprised at Liberal supporters who put the blame on the NDP for this.  Also, the vote would have required the independents to support it, which may not have been possible (as Jan mentioned).


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

I'm with you on that Mark. Martin refused Layton as he wanted to run on those as part of the liberal campaign. So even though the Liberals were going to lose the vote anyhow, Layton could have said why we support those 2 things getting passed and thus looked progressive but still losing.

Martin - and this is all tactics - would also know the math was not going to work and thus he needed to paint Layton and the NDP as teaming up with Harper and thus bad for progressives.

Obviously the liberals are still trying to use that tactic and disinformation now. Liberal victim zombiehood.


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Yeah, it reminds me of the current situation between Andrea Horwath and Wynne (premier of Ontario).  Wynne's Liberals are mired in controversy over bad expenditures they undertook simply to maintain power (which is almost identical to the situation of Martin), but Wynne, unlike Martin, was willing to negotiate two separate deals with the NDP.  Could you imagine if Wynne told Andrea to stuff it and declared, "no, I'm giving you absolutely nothing, ZERO negotiations this time, and if you don't support me with that, my swing voters will forever vilify you for it."  We'd think Wynne had lost her marbles (just like Martin).  Wynne, to her credit, realizes that she has a minority, and properly negotiates unlike Martin.

Layton was willing to cut a deal with anyone.  Martin, I suspect, felt the pressure from his corporate bosses (I still recall the front page scolding from Ibbitson in the Globe) and likely wanted to appear strong to them in turning down an offer to negotiate a second deal with the NDP.  Too bad.  He would have been much more revered if he faced the fact that his government was on thin ice and accepted the offer to negotiate a second deal with Layton and the NDP.  He, like Pearson (along with Douglas), could have gone down as one of the greats (with Layton's assistance, had he accepted it).  Instead Martin will always be remembered as Mr Dithers, frightened of his corporate bosses. 


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

"In politics perception is more important than reality. Why were there any negotiations between Layton and Martin if he couldn't prop up the government? What would be the point? The papers at the time certainly gave the impression that Layton could do it."

Pondering, I have spoken personally with three NDP MPs that I know personally who have all told me without my saying I had been similarly told by their colleagues that the final nail in the coffin was that Martin WOULD NOT commit to signing a resolution that would have bound him to penalizing provinces that introduced increased medical privitization. Martin was given an opportunity to do the right thing and prove the LPC commitment to the public medical system, and refused. There were plenty of negotiations; Martin had has chance and when asked to do the right think and protect the Candian Medical system, he refused.

Now, given that I was told this by three honorable people, who would not lie, I know them, there is NO question, that the Liberals were the crafters of their own demise. No one forced them to jump; they made that decision on their own.

And again, before you challenge the veracity of the claims of these MPs, I'd suggest you be careful. That kind of assertion means these MPs were lying; there would be no other conclusion you could reach. The facts are what they are.


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Pondering wrote:
The NDP grew because Liberals got turned off of Iggy and decided to give the NDP a chance. The partisan ugliness and the dishonest cynical attacks on Trudeau are sending us back to the Liberals in droves. Trudeau doesn't have to defeat the NDP, the NDP is defeating themselves just like the Conservatives.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  The NDP have largely ignored Trudeau and the Liberals, and have focused their attacks almost exclusively on the Conservatives.  Feel free to provide examples if you have them.

There's hardly any mention of Trudeau on the NDP website.  When I did a google search of the NDP news and press release section of their site, I only found one link about Trudeau:  link.  And that was answering a silly criticism Trudeau made of the NDP.  The google search on the Liberal news and release section of their site showed many more links (37) showing far more partisan negativity from the Liberals toward Mulcair.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

Mulcair hasn't even mentioned the Liberal leader, let alone said the word "Trudeau". Something so notable that even the newspapers keep pointing it out. The NDP strategy HAS been to focus purely on the Conservatives until now, and I always thought that was a mistake. Just because the Liberals were down and out doens't mean that the NDP is the "natural alternative". The NDP still has to run against the two status quo parties.


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

yes, and not attack the person but the policies, positions and so on.


Geoff
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2009

Yes, and not become a "status quo" party, itself. 


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments