shoop

If you are going to threaten to run to the moderator when you a poster you disagree with breaks the rules then maybe you should respect them yourself. Just as it is childish to change the name of posters it is equally childish to refer to a plan as idiot pie in the sky or a lame excuse for a plan. Check with Greg if you feel like it. That is of course if you really believe the rules, and aren't just attacking TB because you disagreed with his politics. You conveniently ignore two issues in your response. You ignore the fact that not *every* parent wants to send their child to daycare. You also ignore the fact that a component of this programme is a space creation plan that will meet with Canadians and determine the best way to create child care spaces. Hmmm, the Conservatives are about what they are and aren't doing. They are also attacked for being to secretive. Yet they will come up with a plan for creating more spaces after meeting with the public.

The value of the past (and future) Ralphbucks is debateable. Regardless of your feelings on the issue, they would not have been justified if there was a provincial debt in Alberta. Surpluses should got to paying down the debt as long as there is a debt.

Teddy, I *used* to like you. A Leafs fan, I think you are on your own from now on pal....

I don't know if I would agree with you about Emerson. Business and government is very, very different. A former aide to a senior exec wouldn't run to the media like that, in part because no one would care and it would be very tough to get another job after that. Top execs just don't face the scrutiny that cabinet ministers do. I think Emerson really showed naivete in underestimating the backlash to his floor crossing. He does have a reputation for saying inopportune things. What was that comment during the election? Layton have a dog's head smile or something along those lines... That being said, it truly is a tempest in a teapot. *If* Emerson can get an agreement on softwood that the Canadian forestry industry will accept, than it will be a major win for Harper. As it stands it is still a slight win. Despite the ten protesters who appear over and over, Emerson crossing has changed the dynamics of the house, i.e. the Government can survive with the support of any one of the opposition parties. That makes for much better relations in the House. Probably a big part of the reason why Harper has been able to run such a disciplined and focused government.

Go ahead and cry foul all you want, but TB is making some pretty valid points in his response. The Government was elected by a plurality of voters with its childcare policy as a cornerstone of its election platform. The Government has gained support in opinion polls since being sworn in. Valid points that you and nocrap conveniently ignore in your thread. If you merely want to chastise posters you disagree with perhaps a private message to the offender would use less bandwidth and free up the board for actual discussion. Supporting a poster like nocrap, whose sole purpose is to attack our PM, is pretty sad. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

That's the point Margrace. This story has lasted far, far, far longer than the Stronach floor-crossing story did. Iin large part because of the undisciplined and unfocused Martin government. The media moved on to other stories with Martin's dithering, the sponsorship scandal and a paucity of a government agenda. Harper is providing a focused government with a clearly definied policy agenda. So the media has to keep beating this dead horse. Do you agree with that?

Good point. Seems like the Harper haters can't find anything traction with the Government's policies so they are trying to create a story. Not much of a story at that. All part of Emerson's learning curve. *Never* trust so-called loyal aides.

Paul Martin did win a minority governemnt. Which goes to prove that people will vote for a Blue Tory in Liberal Red. Thankfully not enough for him to win a second term though...

Well said. There is evidence of that shift already. Look at the dinner for Mulroney and the message the PM sent to the Lowell Green roast last night. (Green hosts a morning talk show on CFRA in Ottawa.) That is the kind of thing that will move a long way towards smoothing a few of the feathers.

Here's my take on the Western Conference. My beloved Oilers are in for big trouble. Look for the Detroit sweep. I can't see Theodore finding his game. Dallas is too good anyways. Dallas in five. Calgary is in for a very tough series. Calgary in seven. I'll give you the San Jose sweep. I don't follow the East closely enough to venture a guess...

Hmmm, let's look at the living PMs. Joe Clark, John Turner, Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper. Clark, Turner, and Campbell were in for less than a year, far too short an amount of time to have accomplished anything of substance. Same with Harper to date. That leaves Mulroney, Chretien and Martin. Martin? Maybe greatest living Finance Minister, but PM .... not even members of his 'board' would try and make that argument. So you have to choose between Mulroney and Chretien. Both left under a cloud of scandal. Both presided over constitutional crises. Both had positive and constructive relationships with their counter-parts in the White House the majority of the time they were in power. Mulroney made the cuts to the civil service, signed Free Trade/NAFTA, got rid of the MST/brought in the GST and enacted changes in the regulatory environment that were necessary to set the stage for the boom times of the 90s. Chretien was smart enough to follow the Mulroney blueprint. (i.e. kept the GST and didn't abrograte NAFTA despite promises to the contrary.) Mulroney made very positive changes to the environment. Chretien signed Kyoto, created the "one tonne challenge" and didn't do much else. Seems like a pretty convincing case can be made for Mulroney as greatest living PM.

True enough. The national media is always looking for a *sensational* story. Look at the defeat me on childcare stories. The difference between Harper and Martin. Harper isn't going to freak out when seeing those stories. *If* he gets defeated on the issue so be it. Will he? Probably not. Did he make the National Press Gallery happy? At least for a news cycle.

The GST puts a lot of money back in people's hands. Everybody's hands. The Conservatives hands were tied on this issue. They made meany arguments. Not providing some sort of child care policy during the election would have given more credence to the *scary* *scary* *scary* charges. From that perspective it is making the best of a less than ideal situation. The Government will bering in a lot more targeted tax cuts that will help tradespeople, students, encourage people to use transporation, etc... It shows some innovative thinking that was sorely lacking for 13 years of Liberal rule.

Word is that the PM is really knowledgeable about hockey. Goes to as many of his son's games as he can. When he was OLO the other dads were shocked at how many games he made it to.

Marching and protesting in the streets? What? Where? Is the National media conveniently ignoring this story? 37 to 41% approval rates? Where are you getting this from? That an unabashed Harper-hater such as yourself is saying his Government is *lukewarm* means that Harper is doing something right. Persuadable voters probably have a much higher opinion of him than that. Sorry, no election over this issue. It will become the law.

Are you referring to Bev Desjarlais, Director of Parliamentary Affairs to the Minister of Veterans Affairs Greg Thompson? What was her old job? NDP MP? I wasn't aware that Freedom of Speech gave you the right to disobey your bosses orders. Could you call my boss with that information please? Harper is simply dealing with local media more than the National Press Gallery would like. No restriction on freedom of the press there. Why isn't anyone up in arms about the National Press Gallery trying to curtail the rights of local media?

The CPC is in far better shape than the Liberals at this point. For that reason alone there won't be an election called until the five priorities have passed. The Conservatives have a leader. They have money in the bank, instead of a debt in the millions. The Government won't be forced into an election before the summer break. It will be ready to fight one in the fall, although the election will almost definitely be held in 2007. Your take on an election forced by the opposition this early isn't credible. A four point gain by the Conservatives over the January election results would mean a majority for them. Are the Liberals willing to take the risk they can avoid such a relatively small swing with an interim leader, no time to prepare a major policy overhaul and a *potential* backlash over forcing an early election? (I am being charitable in saying potential. I don't think childcare is an issue potential swing voters will see as a deciding factor. Therefore, an election forced this year would more likely be about the desire for the stability of a majority government rather than a "referendum" on childcare.) The pickup of Emerson and keeping Milliken as Speaker are testaments to Harper's shrewdness. Now the Government survives if they can get any one of the opposition parties onside for any given vote. Under the currrent situation, how could all three of the Bloq, NDP and Liberals think an election would be in each of their best interest? Also give Jack Layton a little credit. Remember that his plan is to replace the Liberals as official opposition. He'd prefer an election called when the Liberals are at a low point, i.e. not when the Liberals would think it would be in their best interest. Remember Martin's first speech from the throne? He actually feared he might be defeated on it. Contrast that with Harper's. He quietly worked with Layton and Duceppe. The speech from the throne marked the start of a new era in government, not the start of an embarrassing, unstable minority that accomplished nothing. (i.e. Martin's minority.)

Hmmmm, I wouldn't be so sure about that. If this "death of the Liberal Party of Canada" story picks up some stem than the new leader could be in for a rough, rough ride.

Are you saying it looks like Manning will win and it won't even be close? Don't know if I agree with that. Age will be an issue for Manning. Lack of history within the party another. Dinning's work up to this point a third. I don't know if Dinning was really Taft's dream leader of the PCs. The Liberal brand is pretty tarnished in Alberta. Dinning will move the province towards the centre. The one distinguishing factor of a Manning run is his commitment to the environment. But that is *if* this ends up being a race about ideology. Does anyone really think that's what this race will be about?

Harper is being very smart. He has his five priorities. He is willing to let his Government fall on any one of the five. None of the opposition parties can afford to defeat him on any of the five. Better than "Let's make a deal" on absolutely every piece of legislation. Look for Harper to have introduced each of the five priorities by Xmas. From there the timeline will depend on the Senate. I'd say odds are better than 50/50 for an election wihtin the next 12 to 15 months.

It's very difficult for Klein to put up a convincing fight about equalizations given the state of provincial revenues. He is picking his fights, and wisely so. His line in the sand is not having energy revenues included in the equalization calculations. He's got a lot of friends in this battle. No reason to needlessly pick fights.

If you don't like the questions I am asking and feel the discussion is going in circles just don't look at this thread. Problem solved for you I would guess.

How am I 'bringing it up' by respoding to posts? Greg asked me to move the discussion with him off the board. I will, but can't phone him during work hours. So I've left the ball in his court. The discussion is 'going in circles' because my questions aren't being answered, and Greg is ascribing motives to me that aren't true. If you don't like the questions I am asking and feel the discussion is going in circles just don't look at this thread. Problem solved for you I would guess.

What exactly do you want in a 'vision'? Cleaning up Ottawa and making the Government more accountable to people is definitely a vision, maybe not one you like, but it is a vision.

That would be a good development. Hopefully leading to the end of the use of the term "Natural Governing Party." (I don't recall seeing that one used very much in the Mulroney days . These long, long periods of Liberal rule aren't really healthy. A shortish minority and two majorities for Harper would be a good start!