shoop

CTV is *heavily tilted to the right*? OMG, no real clue at all. The CBC should strive for balance because it is taxper funded. period.

If you honestly believe the NDP is at 22%, power to you. Gotta make you wonder how the support for the NDP can go up almost 75% (from 13.7% to 22.2%) in two days.

I think it has more to do with Martin's character. He has no idea how to lose gracefully and is behaving like such a jerk as a result. He showed the same childishness when he lost to Chretien in the Liberal leadership way back. Here is a great post from Paul Well's on that. (Dated yesterday). Paul Wells's blog.

Agreed to an extent spar. I think harper will have a lot more latitude with this minority than Martin had. He will likely be in the 140s for seats. Which means all three opposition parties will have the balance of power. As much as the Liberals tried to make an issue of it this go round, people will be pissed at any party forcing an *early* election this time around.

We will never know if we don't try. But a policy of open hostility to the U.S. has done nothing to further the relationship. So why not attempt to be a little less contentious? What do we have to lose?

If it is as simple as *just doing the math* why not go ahead and enlighten us? Why is it bordering on arrogant? The NDP are making no pretense of running a national campaign. They are not seriously contesting *any* seats in Quebec and putting up a front of contesting one in Alberta. With 1/3 of the electoral map written off how could they form government?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!

The NDP will never form government so there is no reason for them to put forth a coherent economic plan. They obviously agree or they would have done so.

I spent the fall school term in the region, not in the riding though. I was struck at how separatist the region was. This means bad, bad news for the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec.

Exactly. What if aliens came down and said we will destroy all national leaders who do not have cheezy pornstaches? It could happen... But I ain't gonna vote for Jacko just in case.

I have never heard little used to describe the quality of an item. Could you explain to us less intelligent Conservative types how that works BD?

Understanding and tolerance is not an overarching philosophy of the Paul Martin Liberals. Like anything else it is only applied when it can be expected to mazimize electoral gain for his party. Sad, sad, sad Mr. Dithers...

et tu Shakey? You can usualy be counted to add *something* to the quality of the discussion. But this post was just sad and typical of the dying deaths of this version of the Liberal Party of Canada. Arrogant. Belittling the proletariat that doesn't see the wisdom of voting Liberal. Invoke the spectre of the Republicans apropos of nothing. Come on man. You are better than this.

Martin is just desperate. Plain and simple. He can see the writing on the wall and realizes he is headed towards an historic loss. Quite sad really. When the sad tale of Martin's pathetic leadership is told it will include his desperation ploys in the dying days of Campaign 2006. All of which will be judged to have been failures. The two best examples of these failures include buddying up to buzz and the Pinochet ad.

How is allowing the GLBT community to have civil unions denying them of their *rights*? btw, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue in Canada...

This election is starting to look more and more like 1984. The huge losses they will face will be a devastating blow to the Liberals that forces them to rebuild. Paul Martin has left the party bankrupt, both financially and ideologically. The Liberals will be able to rebuild but they first have to heed this advice. "The Liberal Party must change itself, not just exchange its leader." That process of change will give the Conservatives a full term as a majority government to show what they can do with power. If they don't f*ck it up they can probably get two terms out of the deal...

emailforcanada, Take a look at your replies. You keep talking about 'reasonable' dsicourse and discussion. Yet you resort to the same tactics you theoretically abhor. How is your off-hand dismissal of a metaphor as *pathetic* a tactic of reasonable discourse? You don't have a *good sense* that Harper has a well-thought out vision? Where is the intelligence in simply going with your sense/feelings? Is reasonable discourse only a requirement for the ever-growing number of Canadians opposed to the Liberal Party of Canada. Your sentence about the meaning of intelligent discourse is an oxymoron in that it attempts to provide a set of ground rules for engaging in intelligent discourse - as defined by ....... YOU! Here is a (non-pathetic) metaphor for you. Your response to kimmy is symbolic of the problems the Liberals are facing in this campaign. You are attempting to talk over the heads of posters with opposing views from yours, because you feel this tactic has worked for you in the past. Symbolic of the arrogance that will lead your party into the wilderness for a long, long time. Just like the Liberal campaign nationally you are stuck playing the same chord even in the face of an opposition that can refute your points logically and coherently.

Your anger is telling and a little misplaced. I think it says something that you had to pull out an example from 2004. How about something from *this election*? You know, the one in which the Liberals are heading towards a historic loss.

If the CPC and NDP can combine to breakthrough in Toronto the NDP could end up with more seats than the Liberals. Honestly, I think the likelihood of the NDP doing better than the Liberals is higher than the likelihood of the NDP doing better than the Bloc. Although I don't see either happening at this point...

Here are some *highlights* from the Toronto Star's endorsement of the Liberals. Endorsement is one thing, but flat out lying is another. There was no support for that Quebec sentence. With the polls showing the Tories having *at least* double the support of the Liberals in Quebec it makes you wonder how far the Star will go in distorting the facts to support the Liberals.

So we are *unreasonable* if we take offence to your blatant agenda that you carry from board to board? If you are really looking for a *reasonable discourse* why not reply directly to the considered answers of kimmy and Slim McGuinty?

Nauseating? Hmmm, that is an interesting way to talk about a serious policy discussion. Are any Canadians who oppose your views allowed to exercise their democratic rights? Or does that idea nauseate you as well?

The way Mansbridge made it sound like Harper was trying to weasel out of the town hall was sad. He had a scheduling conflict that was eventually resolved. No big conspiracy...

Yes, it is one conspiracy theory too many. The only real *different* results are the Liberals and the Conservatives. There are real questions with the SES methodology. That being said I feel the true number lies somewhere between the Strategic Counsel and SES numbers at this point...

Or he just has the Liberal point of view. Puff pieces and no hard questions for any Liberal representative, attacking the Conservatives = balanced coverage.