Mad_Michael

As far as I'm concerned, Ignatieff is going to be as popular as Dion with the electorate. I don't see how anyone can sell Ignatieff as Liberal leader. His academic essays defending the US invasion of Iraq, his essays defending 'rendition' and his essays in support of 'torture' all make him out to be an old-school New England Republican. That of course fits since that's Ignatieff's entire career history. Ignatieff has virtually zero experience as a parliamentary player, zero experience as an executive and his political instincts are entirely focused upon the foreign policy of a foreign nation (and are ugly opinons at that). Looks like Harper is going to get a big fat Christmas gift from the Liberal Party.

Your argument consists of making a personal insult. No doubt I'm at Mapleleafweb now. Why is it that I always find Canadian political forums to be so much more partisan, uncivil and insulting than US political forums? Goodbye once again. I'll be back in another six months to see if this forum is still toxic and partisan as it has been and still is. I seek intelligent discussion of Canadian political issues. I don't find it here. Only insults. Tiresome.

The video clip with Elizabeth May makes the point rather clearly. The Puffster was speechless in reply.

Please cite a credible reference for this assertion. You are contradicting every known study on immigration in Canada with this remark. Immigrants in Canada have a higher level of education, lower levels of welfare usage, lower levesl of unemployment claims and way lower rates of prison incarceration time than white-Canadian born citizens. The numbers aren't even close.

Yes, that's Harper. Fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Just like the Republicans in the USA.

Priceless. Cops raid a nightclub and you want turn that into a rant against 'non-white' immigrants? Racism is bullshit.

Ontario is the one place in Canada that has always stood for Canada. Ontario hasn't complained about being the transfer payment cash-cow for over a century. Seems that subsidy junkies are the ones who complain the loudest. Ontario doesn't need or want some petty regionalist party.

Mike Duffy is rather an embarrassment for Canadian journalism. He's a Conservative party hack and has been for decades. Nothing wrong with that, but to pretend that he's a journalist is insulting to real journalists.

Please cite a credible source for this (I assume you are talking about federal transfer payments and if so, your point is absurd). Ontario has been a net payer into Ottawa for more than a century.

Bob Rae is the ONLY credible candidate with charisma. That counts for a lot in my book. All the best policies in the world won't get you a seat in the House without some charisma to attract some voters. Facile and shallow it is, but that's reality. Dion's biggest failing was charisma. Harper is also very weak on charisma (as is Iggy). Gordon Brown's troubles in Britain are all about charisma - Blair had some, Brown doesn't. Secondly, I don't think the Liberals need to worry about the 'fiscal' issue at all. The Liberal party has SOLID and IMPRESSIVE credentials on the fiscal side. Two years from now after a serious recession that we are entering, the Conservatives are going to look VERY vulnerable after blowing the massive $13 billion fiscal surplus they inherited from the fiscally responsible Liberals. This is not an issue that the Conservatives are going to be able to leverage against anyone - they are going to be on the defensive over their deficits at that time. Fact is, it looks like the Conservatives have already blown the whole surplus and are dangerously tipping into deficit territory right now - even before the recession hits full force here. Recessions tend to make deficits much worse than planned...

Quebec separatism is a political strategy to maximize Quebec's benefit at the expense of all other provinces. It is a Quebec-centric policy that serves the interest of Quebecers. Actual separation is not a good political strategy for Quebec. That harms Quebec to the benefit of all other provinces (cuts off the gravy-train and makes them responsible for their own affairs - unable to blame Ottawa and the dastardly Anglos for everything).

Gosh, I though Canada was a freedom loving democracy... You can't force people to vote. That is authoritarian and undemocratic. If people don't want to vote, that's their perogative to do so.

Kennedy has the Dion albatross around his neck now. He's the one who is going to pay with his career for the Dion debacle. Kennedy's term running the DBF turned a volunteer organization that was well respected into a union shop where volunteers are unwelcome for anything but donations. Now the base funding the charity receives goes primarily to pay for union wages and no money left to buy food - that has to be donated. Indeed, I think the Liberals need to dump Kennedy to the NDP to complete the trade for Rae. Rae has become a centerist liberal. Kennedy is a labour-socialist of the old school who fits far better with the NDP - he could give Jack Layton a run for his money.

Only for a Conservative since their power base has traditionally been outside of Quebec. However, no Liberal can win a majority without some solid support in Quebec. Liberals need to run strong in Quebec, Ontario and the Big-3 cities to win the government. And to do that, you need very good French speaking skills (not just mediocre). Iggy doesn't have this. Rae does.

Yes, either one would be a good choice for interim leader. Dion can't get out of town fast enough for me. I freaked out the day they chose him and correctly predicted that he'd be slaughtered at the first opportunity at the polls. No surprise at all. The idiots who put him over the top at the leadership convention are the real ones to blame here. And I'd say that Gerard Kennedy was the chief Dion-booster at the convention. Kennedy shall have my undying enmity for that foolishness (though I wasn't inclined to like him at all - I have a very low opinion of his term running the DBF - he unionized it).

I think this was a poor election for measuring the potential strength of the rising Greens. It is pretty obvious that the Greens are going to draw their support from Liberals. Once the Liberals have a majority in parliament, then I'd expect to see the Greens take seats away from them. Until then, the Greens will be squeezed out by strategic voting.

I agree entirely. This dichotomy is realistic if you survey various comparative systems. Big Tent parties tend to produce majority governments flipping between two large parties. PR tends to produce endless coalition governments.

Ties to Bill Clinton are not going to hurt anyone running for office in Canada. Clinton has very high popularity in Canada. Heck, I'd wager that Bill or Hillary Clinton could be elected PM up here (not sure on Bill's French language skills though - but as a Rhodes scholar, it wouldn't surprise me).

Only Rae, Ignatieff and Kennedy are credible candidates at this point (since they finished in the top 4). Manley and McKenna have both previously ruled out running. They may in the future change their minds, but until then, neither of them are realistic candidates.

I suspect it would appeal to Conservatives dreaming of a majority government.

I would suggest that any attempt by any Province to separate from Canada is reasonable grounds for just war.

The law applies to all highways and roads - including school zones. What the government giveth, the government may taketh away. Government has the legal right to do it. They do at the border all the time. One would have to agree that 1) rights are inalienable, 2) rights are inviolate, and 3) driving a car is a right. Please cite the relevant legal statute that cites the inalienable right to drive a car on public roads.

Please cite an example of some proof of this absurd assertion. Rae has NEVER been a tax and spend Liberal. Btw, that's an American term, though usually without the capital "L". Okay, whatever you say. Your arguments are just too impressive for me to bother rebutting them.

Given the long timeframes needed to 1) assess the changing situation and 2) to effect a reduction in carbon outputs, and 3) the extreme potential danger of climate change, it is irresponsible to dismiss the issue. Nuclear war or nuclear accidents are very low probability, but the extreme dangers of this small probability are considered worthy to mitigate against with expensive measures. Likewise with global climate change. Even if there is only a small probability of ecological damage, because of the enormous impact this would have (like nuclear meltdown scenarios), it is prudent to take measures to mitigate against it. To wait for final data is like waiting for a final solution.

Please supply one valid example of this "pandering" please. Toronto gets taxed heavily to pay for school boards in Northern Ontario, pork in Quebec and UI in the Atlantic provinces. Toronto's public transit runs on the lowest public subsidy of any public transit service on the planet (84% from the farebox). That's some pandering.