shoop

And the mean-spirited, nasty tone of your post was a way at proving how *hateful* conservatives are?

The big difference this time around is *how long* the Conservatives have been leading the poll. Back in 2004 the CPC lead for a couple days then things turned around. The Ipsos-Reid poll on December 30th was the first lead for the Conservatives and they haven't relinquished it in about two weeks. Far, far different situation from 2004.

Conservatives have to be careful of becoming overconfident at this point. Things are looking very good now, but there is no reason to come across as arrogant. The CPC lead has last so much longer than it did in 2004 that the tone of the media is starting to change. For the better. For once. I am not making this up.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. People should take the time to look at what the Conference Board of Canada economist says when he endorses the Conservative's economic plan. Here is a site for you to look at for information on him. Conference Board of Canada homepage. A news piece is providing information to the public. Opinion pieces should comment on the "irony" of changes in policy. There is a difference. That line shouldn't have been included in a news story.

It's beautiful watching the free-for-all as the candidates try to save their 'safe' seats. Keith Martin will be fine though. Doctors tend to find jobs pretty easily.

I am saying a lot depends on who this "Conservative" is. It could be one of Zeisman's friends at his campaign office. Someone who clearly wouldn't be speaking for the Conservative Party of Canada on the issue. Without attribution you can't fairly paint this as a flip-flop. Again, learn to question the media. Skepticism is healthy for democracy.

Great story. Too bad senior Liberals don't speak on the record. I know that is the way this things go, but it would be nice to put a fact to this quote. The dithering is what has lost them the election.

Take the time to read things for yourself. Educate yourself. Your blanket belief in the truth of the media is sad. Don't blame the CPC for saying something, when it comes from an uncredited source from a news story. Don't quote some newspaper reporting about what *an economist says* for gospel truth. Search for the information yourself. Why is the quote interesting? You think I couldn't have told you that some in the media would portray it as a flip. The PCs introduced the GST 15 YEARS AGO. Any reporter telling me about a party changing a policy from half a lifetime ago is inslulting my intelligence.

CBC *might* carry it eventually. Granted they would give it far less coverage than CTV or Global, but such is life. Everybody knows the CBC is slanted, I just wish they wouldn't use taxpayer money in doing so.

Hmmm, a line without quote is your evidence of a flip flop? I am saying you are misusing the term. No body from the party was quoted with the line from the story. It took them a few hours to make a decision. Who exactly flip flopped? You would have to come up with the person who *supposedly* made the original statement.

Puh lease. Many NDP supporters are the same people who believe No Logo to be gospel truth and attend anti-globalization rallies.

Wow, Do you actually know the income line at which someone's benefits from the GST cut will be superceded by returning the lowest bracket to 16%? Do you know what the lowest bracket will be for 2005? Probably not, you just know the CPC is bad and that is that. Rovik, voters like you are why the Liberals were arrogant enough to release those backfiring attack ads. Thankfully you are in a small, and shrinking minority.

Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Bush's either. I howl when Stewart takes Bush on. I also think Stewart is relatively even-handed in his jabs at the Democrats. I just find that Canada gets dismissed far too quickly by all Americans. Comedians, TV personalities, Republicans or Democrats. Anybody basically.

The media is going after Martin and his cronies because of their arrogance. Treating people like pissantes will eventually come back to bite you in the butt. Look at the thing with John Duffy on the Mike Duffy show. Or that Liberal spokeswoman swearing on air last night. At least the eight-year-old for CTV was nice to him. Martin drinks milkshake with kid reporter. I wouldn't call the Toronto Sun liberal, but I agree the media is being much less hard on his this time around.

I don't mind Stewart in general, but he was a little ignant in dealing with Martin's attacks on Bush. Yes, the U.S. National Guard model is generally what Harper was trying to emulate in his proposal. Thankfully Martin and his cronies twisted it to such a sick level that it is the final nail in their coffin.

Are you flip-flopping on your attack on ethnics and trying to make it look like you were attacking ethics?

They might play well on Stewart. Americans are used to seeing military in their streets. Stewart should run the ad then quip: "Canada has a military?" or something equally jackassy...

Maybe you could try and use flip-flop a little more often. I am guessing you meant people would question the CPC on ethics. Decisions aren't made instantly. It was a matter of hours for this decision to be made. That is fast enough for most Canadians. The decision was the right one to make. Better an incoming-PM who takes a little time before making considered decisions rather than an outgoing-PM who proposes a serious change to our constitution on the fly during a debate.

Just now I was thinking of the perfect way to sum up the Liberal campaign. <<Cue dramatic music and set a sombre tone...>> In our cities. In Canada. A party. Thought they could win the election with cheezy attack ads. They were wrong. In Canada. I'm not making this up.

The Liberals in their arrogance went too far. When the post-mortem is written on this election the Pinochet ads will be seen as the final nail in the coffin. Brilliant. The Martin braintrust has done what the Conservatives haven't been able to do since 1988 ... Cause the Liberal Party of Canada to lose a federal election.

A very slim Conservative majority is possible, but not likely. It is looking like the CPC will easily win the majority of seats *outside* Quebec. 130 of the 233 non-Quebec MPs is a very reasonable prediction at this point. Upwards of another 10 to 20 are possible, but not likely. Alas, the CPC has no chance at more than 5 or so seats in Quebec. Liberal support dropped down to 28% in 1984. Which is basically the rock bottom you talked about. Warren Kinsella said it best on George Stombopopadopalous' show last night. The Liberals need to tear the house down and start from scratch. The Liberal implosion will be great to watch if Martin tries to cling to power. What are the odds of that...

Zero mention of removing the Fed's ability to use the notwithstanding clause. Any guesses as to when they came up with that one? On the ride over to the debate?

Brilliant. John Duffy is a typical example of Martin`s Board. Arrogant, truly believes the Liberals have a divine right to govern. The reason they are gonig down to a historic defeat in this campaign.

Sorry it took a few more hours than you would have liked but Harper has done the right thing. Zeisman won't be sitting as a CPC member *IF* he wins. Guy seems a little strange. Gets into the Trade Commissioner Service at a pretty young age yet quits to be a constituency assistant? Probably would have ended up in parliament if he hadn't been smuggling copious amounts of booze.

Martin and Chretien "kind of split"? Wholly crap, were you there for any of that? After over a decade of having Paul Martin undermining his leadership Chretien finally had enough and kicked him out. Martin`s own old boys club, i.e. the board is what is losing him this election. Three examples of this. Scott Reid of beer and popcorn fame. Mike Klander of the infamous blog. Billy Cunningham, as close to Martin as anybody and the 'nominated' candidate in Burnaby Douglas. Remember Cunningham, appointed twice to be candidate, after Martin's promises of democratic reform. Don't feel sorry for Martin, he has more than enough of his own arrogance to answer for.