SpankyMcFarland

Read the comments in the Toronto Sun some time and hear what the Harper chorus sounds like. His whole campaign is based on division, riling up the minority who will vote for him, the Cowans of this world. He knows the majority don't like him.

Having a PM is who is not likeable is an issue. We've put up with this for a decade now.

He is an angry man as many who have had to deal with him can attest e.g. Danny Williams. The placid guy facade doesn't even survive a few minutes of Mansbridge.

I'm in lots of things. The only bright spot is US dollar investments because our dollar is tanking as well.

Those remarks are pretty harmless in my book. Where will this PC stuff end? Political candidates should be asked to watch they say once they get into politics but are entitled to a normal life beforehand. Otherwise, we are going to exclude a lot of good people.

And as for brilliant economic management, my investments are tanking right now. The guy should know it's time to go.

Your reply says it all. On every issue, he expresses anger and attempts to incite it. We saw that last night. Go after the foreigner. He appeals to the darker side of people's natures.

Harper is just too angry for me. A Nixonian figure, he has poisoned debate in this country as this thread makes very clear.

A spendthrift Liberal. Like Chretien. What I want is somebody who is not brow-beating me the whole time about campaign issues that are years away. Somebody who tries to unite the country, not divide it.

Trudeau is the best of the three on the stump, meeting floating voters. The other two are old and fusty; Justin has a bit of optimism and energy - 'what we need for tomorrow' - about him. The debates are his most vulnerable place and he has managed to do fairly well in them, certainly exceeding the expectations that endless Conservative ads have drummed into the minds of the electorate. The anarchic format has aided him as well, compared to the HoC. He's able to keep moving.I am a Blue Liberal, former PC voter as well, and I would never vote for Harper. I would consider the Tories under different management but it would have to be a big change in style.

No Conservative spokesperson provided this morning for The Current to speak with Kevin Page. That's the Conservative way.

What a pity we can't turn over more of the planet to animals entirely. The Korean DMZ has seen similar benefits.

Of course. Radioactivity is a thing to be minimized but it has been less dangerous to animals in the region than was first thought.

She should just have apologized and left it at that. If we keep this relentless PC retrospective up, we'll have no candidates soon.

Nuclear power's record is a lot safer than most people think. Even one of its most infamous disasters has brought surprising benefits to the environment. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/wildlife_in_chernobyl_debate_over_mutations_and_populations_of_plants_and.html

Chretien's record on debt reduction is a spectacularly successful one, although I would not be too hard on Mulroney either, given the political constraints he faced. Michael Wilson wanted to cut more but Mulroney felt he didn't have the political capital to carry through. I see Chrétien and Mulroney as birds of a feather politically. Trudeau was different from them, a political titan who created modern Canada but who let spending get out of hand.

No I am not kidding. Mulroney got saddled with massive debt and interest from day one so his plight was quite different from Trudeau's.

You're preaching to the choir. Chretien's record on debt reduction is one my favourite stories, although I would not be too hard on Mulroney, given the political constraints he faced. Michael Wilson wanted to cut more but Mulroney felt he didn't have the political capital to carry through. I see Chrétien and Mulroney as birds of a feather politically. Trudeau was different from them, a political titan who created modern Canada but who let spending get out of hand.

In fairness, Mulroney did more to fight debt than Trudeau did. Mulroney started with a debt mountain to manage.

Mulroney should have done more to rein in the debt, yes?

I disagree with that. In some ridings you will be wasting your vote doing that and helping to give us more Harper. Which goes to show what a pig ignorant system FPTP is.

Pierre Trudeau built the debt and Jean Chrétien sorted it out. Mulroney failed to reduce it, yes? You talk about parties as if they are unchanging monoliths. Is Harper responsible for Mulroney's failure as well or does the change of the nameplate absolve him?

FPTP does not allow for sophisticated choices. It's basically binary. I consider this election a referendum on Harper. In my riding, that means voting Liberal. Elsewhere NDP will be the best option or even Green in one or two places. The important thing is to know the strongest non-Harper party in your constituency, if you are that way inclined. The right wingers have a simpler set of options - vote for Steve or stay home.

Well, I guess that is better than nothing. It's a pity you are not able to give credit where it is due.

So which party did most in our recent history to reduce federal debt? Are you willing to give credit where it is due?