tml12

Same here, I'm dying to be able to vote Liberal with a clear conscience. Won't happen with Dion in charge. The Liberal party has one of the best recruitment offices in this country. That being said, the arrogance present in the party makes George Bush in 2003 seem meek and humble. The party today is the party that campaigns from the left (with its tired old myths of kindler, gentler nation, etc.) and governs from the right. Harper puts his money where his mouth is...I like him a lot and I hope he gets in again, preferably in a strong majority.

It's telling that you say that about the Liberal tml. I agree in the case of Dion and most in the power positions, but there is alot of bright talent in the Liberal party that has alot to offer to Canada. Mr. Kennedy is a fantastic example, same with even some of Dion's shadow cabinet. The party is divided between tired idelogues like Dion (no one frustrates me more) and progressive people that actually want to better Canada, like Kennedy. But sadly, the old, corrupt, tired side is the dominate hand in the game right now. I didn't say there wasn't talent in the Liberal Party. What I did say is that I do not trust them to govern this country. I would vote Liberal if I thought that the party was going to govern honourably. There may be a time in the future when they will...that time is not now.

In how long? People have been running studies and pilot projects for decades with zero actually happening. It's time for results, today. The Geoffrey party is working hard to discredit those that seek power at the cost of becoming another Liberal Party. Everyday I see less and less contrasting the LPC and CPC. Again, I don't care what the name of the party is in power, it's irrelevant compared to what they deliver, to me. You don't need to privatise the whole system, but if all parties refuse to do a damn thing in real terms, it's time to give me the choice to tell them to shove it and buy my own services. Of course Harper should not campaign on private care (though I think some of the major parties should begin acknowledging Canada has a flourishing private health care system...remember when it was revealed on this board during the last campaign that both Martin and Laytom used private care while Harper didn't?) I don't know about you guys in Alberta but here in Quebec we have a serious problem with contagious illnesses in our hospitals, especially here in Montreal. I have friends that say even if the situation is life-threatening they would rather go to Plattsburgh, NY or Burlington, VT (both about 40 minute drives) to go to American hospitals. I know a ton of people who use our very open private health care clinics. After the Chaloulli decision in 2005, Quebec Blue Cross sent all of us private health care bulletins in the mail. The system has fallen on hard times (for the most part under Liberal watch, no surprising)...it is time to acknowledge Canada's two-tier health care system and stop pretending we can go back to the age of Marxism...the left doesn't bring the poor up, it brings the middle class down.

Bah humbug. I wish I could aid in defrauding a company of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars of taxpayers money and just say "oopss!! IM SORRY! it won't happen again!! I PROMISE!!" Yikes. Who the hell is in charge of Dion's PR? This is the ugliest thing a Liberal did since they encourage the fraud in the first place. Geoffrey, once a Liberal always a Liberal. I believe Dion and his PR team truly believe this stuff. They believe Cote's punishment was too severe. The Liberals govern Canada through their leftist myths. They believe they have a divine right to govern Canada. They can't understand why anyone would vote them out. Canada cannot again allow the Liberals to govern for a long time. A strong and sovereign Canada requires at least one, preferably two or more, Harper majority governments.

No need to go that far. Can the Liberal supporters here stand behind their leader's views on Cote's re-instatement to the party? If not, do you really think you picked the right man??? I noticed your new signature...I remember that (you should tell him he could work for a future Liberal government...I am sure $300,000 of our tax dollars is fair pay for that work )

Dion is showing political instincts that are sure to hurt his party's chances in the next election. A shrewder poltiician would have kept this guy on the sdeline until the next election at least. I guess Dion ain't that shrewd. Once again, the Liberals are proving they can't stay away from corruption. Yet, Canadians still vote Liberal. I challenge Liberal voters here to justify why they believe voting Liberal is a good thing. Seriously, tell me why. These guys are just ridiculous.

Drea, Your delusional ramblings are just getting ridiculous now. You are the crazy nut for thinking the United States is fascist. Is the U.S. a very flawed country at this point? Perhaps...but do you seriously believe that Canada is not just as greedy and capitalist a country as the U.S.? Very few things are different about Canada and the U.S., however the Liberals and NDP keep spreading their nationalist myths...no we're not them, we're peacekeepers (even though Canada is ranked 38th in the world in peacekeeping), we have public health care (that more and more people, including myself, are opting out of to use the private system), we have bilingualism (at the federal level only, not in reality), we are nicer (New York City was recently voted a more friendly city than Toronto), are more respected in the world (when I was in Europe over the summer people didn't believe me that Canada and the U.S. were not part of some alliance with the same money), we have a Charter that guarantees more rights (actually the Charter is more prone to authoritarianism because Section 33 allows legislatures to strike down the judicial protection of rights and Section 1 allows the governments to violate rights they believe are reasonable...the U.S. Bill of Rights is more conscious of individual rights), and are more communitarian/united (which is why Canada has more political sovereignty movements than the U.S.) Canada can learn a lot, I think, from the U.S.

Jenna, I think you need to relax a bit...how serious do you think all of this is? Do you think a majority of Canadians and Americans are just going to be okay with this overnight? The border is not just going to disappear here.

Unfortunately most Calgary students lean more towards the Liberal side of the room, which is fine, they have lots of time to grow up . That being said, the conservatives that are around (far more than any other university I'm sure) are more of the social conservative bible thumpers... more interesting in banning gays than fixing the system. I don't really spend much time with the political science crowd so I really don't know what happens there. I've taken a few classes, but most have been on a more international focus. The one Canadian politics class I had was taught by a very strong NDP supporter, who claimed the market caused all the trouble in Canada. That was such a waste of time it took me over a year before I took another poli sci class, but stayed well away from Canadian issues. She also would claim that the provinces are too strong. Ugh. The Calgary school is around, and I've taken economics classes with a couple of those profs... they are very conservative, very pro market. We watched movies on Newfoundland and BC fishermen and their arrogrance towards the EI system for two weeks straight in one of my classes. Pretty good stuff there. I have read a lot about The Calgary School (led by Tom Flanagan?) and agree with a great deal of their work. We have a number of profs here who have spent a bit of time over with you guys in Calgary...I am thinking about perhaps doing grad school out there but we'll see (like I said, I have never been there...Calgary students can't be more liberal than students here).

Klein was never folksy, Klein was typical bar trash. I might have respected his accomplishments, but I never had much respect for the guy as a person. He's just such a mess. Stelmach has a little class, and is a good spokesperson for our province. I especially like how he asked for Alberta to be recognized as a nation, obviously somewhat sarcastically. I enjoy that kind of smacking Quebec around on occassion. And it was a completely natural request. Now now Geoffrey! Klein was certainly bar trash but he was good to Alberta overall (he didn't make you pay for his detox).

This is the official Government of Canada INFO page on the NAU: http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/index.htm That was a joke by the way but seriously, the Canadian-U.S. border is not going to just disappear. Integration between our countries will occur because we are so culturally alike.

This is the official Government of Canada INFO page on the NAU: http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/index.htm

The Liberals had the chance and didn't. They were government. This isn't something theoretical. I put all three men in the same party. You said they weren't really Liberals. So does the Liberal Party support expanding the welfare state and social programs (Trudeau) or support cutting the welfare and social programs and balancing the budget (Chretien/Martin). Tell me jdobbin, where do the Liberals stand because I think Harper has been very up front about his plans.

Is was initially a confederation of colonies, not a marriage, something Quebec welcomed with open arms and initially agreed to. But Quebec is continually changing its mind regarding the need to establish its own country since it cannot dominate Canada to conform to Quebec ideologies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation Indeed, Leafless, you are correct that we need to breathe new life into Canadian federalism. I think we need to look south to the U.S. and see how they dealt with the issues of federalism. Indeed, the U.S. had Spanish (now Mexican) territories in the southwest, French areas of Louisiana, and British areas at the time of the American confederation. In addition, the U.S. had slave states to deal with. American federalism was difficult, to say the least. It took the publication of the Federalist Papers and the Civil War to cement American unity. Today, however, Americans are for the most part united and accept the national myths of freedom, etc. that unite their country. Canadians, however, have no great unifying national myth and this is the source for discontent in the Canadian federation. If Canadians elect the Liberals, it will continue this troubling status quo. If Canadians elect the Conservatives, however, I think we will see a stronger federation. It is possible to unite people of different backgrounds (i.e. English and French) but this has to be done at a young age. If schoolchildren in Jonquiere and schoolchildren in Calgary are not being taught the same history about the same glorious nation that is Canada, this country will not be strong.

The Chinese sending a missile up into space this week pretty much blows the idea of space-based missile defence out of the water. There was plenty of opportunity for Chretien and Martin to send troops to Iraq. They never did. Notwithstanding your hunches on the subject, we have seen what both men's decision was on the subject. Harper pretty much said if he was prime minister at the time, he would have sent troops. As for Chretien and Martin not being Liberals that is just non-sense. Are you saying economically you would put Chretien/Martin and Trudeau in the same category? Yes Harper would have sent troops to Iraq, I accept that, and I believe the Liberals would have too.

I see no evidence that Chretien or Martin were going to send troops to Iraq. I don't take Sheila Copps word for it not have I heard anyone else mention it. What I'll give you is that we may never know. I have a hunch Martin would have gone in and I am pretty sure Chretien would have too. Neither Chretien nor Martin were really Liberals...both were centrists, Martin probably centre-right. Both Martin and Chretien were pro-missile defense and had the NDP not blackmailed the Martin minority and former Defense Minister Bill Graham we would have probably joined that too. The reality of the situation is that while "Canada standing up to the Americans" may always be popular among the Liberal Canadian elite, it is not possible for Canada to truly challenge the U.S. without actually making the rhetoric the reality. It is one thing for France not to go into Iraq because the U.S. does not defend France (even though they saved France after France lost WWI, WWII, and Vietnam) but the U.S. does ultimately pay to defend Canada. Canada, therefore, does not have the luxury of putting its foot down on the U.S. If Canada began to be serious about playing a role in the world again, perhaps the options would be different.

Prime Ministerial in his case would have been to go to Iraq all the while connecting it to September 11. And now Harper doesn't talk about those days. He knows he dodged a bullet. I think it is pretty clear Harper would have gone, as would have Martin, as would probably Chretien had he not retired shortly after.

I wish he wouldn't just run on it in an election but actually do something about it in government. jdobbin, if the environment is truly your concern, I assume you are voting neither Liberal nor Conservative.

But that's my point...Harper was writing a diplomatic-style letter to present reasons why Canada should go in. Instead of the official "screw the Americans...we hate the bastards" the Liberal government took, Harper was the one truly acting prime ministerial. Of course Harper would not make the "Canada is a peacekeeper" argument because he knows we have historically never played such a role. That was one of the excuses of the Canadian left because they have been brainwashed by the Liberal myths of Canada. Again, I did not make the claim that Canada did not go to Iraq because our military could not have handled it. However, because weaponeer is in the military and because he has provided a detailed claim that it was one of the reasons, I accept his claim.

Agreed. It is said that the Canadian Prime Minister is the most powerful leader in the free world, and he/she is not even Head of State (technically). At least Clinton / Bush got Congress to vote on the matter of bombing people in far away places. The Canadian prime minister IS the most powerful leader in the free world because Canada is essentially an elected dictatorship. And if Harper loses the next election, the tyranny of the Liberal elite will continue.

Do a search in these forums and you will see I say the Liberal environmental program was piss poor. The Conservative Clean Air Act was not an improvement on that and it didn't even need a strong Liberal opposition to defeat it. Canadians themselves didn't think much of it. Fair enough.

Actually the poll numbers showed many Canadians would have supported the mission. I don't think it was a cheap political move because initially, it looked like the Americans were right and that the country fell like a house of cards and that they were going to find all the weapons. You don't think Harper read the polls when he wrote a story for the New York Times? The opposition was able hammer the Liberals for not being there and being anti-American. I didn't disagree with not going. I disagreed with Chretien the way he went about it because it was never well explained or debated. CSIS believed Iraq had WMDs...Chretien claimed he stayed out because Canada is a peacekeeper and the war was not sanctioned by the UN. That was BS...no one in their right mind actually believes Canada is a peacekeeper except those most brainwashed by the Liberal myths of Canada. Canadians did not support the war because Chretien played down the CSIS reports. I also think weaponeer has demonstrated that our armed forces could not handle the invasion, even if that was not THE reason we didn't go in. I think Harper wrote the story for the NY Times because the Liberal government was acting in an extremely unfriendly manner. Chretien's team couldn't control his government's volcanic eruption of anti-American sentiment, as well as his own blatant hatred for the U.S. Not that this would be justified in any civilized, developed country but it is quite ironic that the country in question is one that U.S. taxpayers pay to defend. Harper's letter was an attempt to ease Canada-U.S. relations...Harper recognized that Canada does not exist without the U.S., as well as the fact that Canada relies on the U.S. to pay for its defense as well as be the place where we send 90% of our exports. Harper was acting in the best interests of Canada.

It was not a major factor. It has never been cited as a major factor. And it isn't moot. It is a re-writing of why Canada never went. jdobbin, As prime minister, exactly what would your prescription be for Canada's military?

Harper has said he will make the environment and wait times a significant theme in his campaign.

Not really actually, he was my least favourite... but he has impressed since. I liked Morton because he'd stand up for Alberta, there would be no pushing around a Morton led Alberta (Ted Morton was one of the authors of the firewall letter... then again so was Harper and look at him now). He's a bit nuts, far more socially conservative than I am (I'm sure he's a party pooper). Professionally, I kind of had to side with Dinning as I'm now more and more everyday being drawn into the Calgary corporate culture. Dinning was the status quo, and I'm quite ok with the status quo... but that doesn't mean I don't think that things could be better. Dinning is likely less a party pooper. I was very shocked when I saw the first interview with Stelmach that I saw. He was on his way to the ballot box to cast his vote... when asked how he slept the night previous he answer something along the lines of: 'well, my furnace blower broke down and I was up late working on that because it was a pretty chilly night.' What the heck is this guy? I'm glad he turned out to be a little more reasonable than my first impression. Dinning was portrayed here in the east as a "mediator" who was more of a Liberal than a Conservative but could appeal to Conservatives too. I like Morton, not that I agree with all his stuff, but his publications proved essential for me when I had to write papers on the Charter and judicial supremacy. I think Stelmach was the "win-win" candidate for everybody...he seems kind of folksy (perhaps a sober Klein?) and really down-to-earth. I think Albertans made right choice.