tml12

An 18 point lead however is pretty good evidence that the Liberals are in, at least, a little trouble. But remember, their campaign is going well and is on-track. I'd hate to see their results if it wasn't. The Liberals made a stupid mistake. They assumed the media would back them, give them favourable coverage and not ask questions. They did. And the Liberals lost hard because of it. I tend to buy into that argument...

The NDP would not vote with the CPC on controversial core NDP issues. I can see them voting with the CPC on right-wing issues because they know this country will not want another election for AWHILE...

Well if CBC is bias toward the Liberals, than that would be wrong as well. Though I had to admit, the CBC has been much more balanced toward all three parties than CTV has. Craig Oliver and Robert Rife have been praising the Conservatives and must of their political columnist guests have been pro-Conservative, so yes, I say huge. CBC balance toward all three parties??? Maybe you have a different CBC where you are...

"No I wouldn't vote for them anyways" sounds like a good choice.

The Manitoba NDP has a more set-out and centrist approach to governing, and the Doer government has not been as radical as past NDP governments.

And well they should. I tend to agree with Shoop's assessment...the Liberals are so desperate they'll do anything...

No, but you would think Canada would be able to have its own plan if it knows the US plan well in advance. Instead Canada has opted to let the US do everything and let us be ignorant. Shame...

If that is what it takes to make Canada a stronger country and more respected abroad then it will be worth it. LOL Bubber you're an NDP supporter...do you really think the NDP would govern with a balanced budget?

Racism is prevalent anywhere...why is Quebec so racist? Or is that a different topic? Minorities are descriminated against everywhere and this is very wrong...I wouldn't call it an American phenom. If Canada had territories in the Southern U.S., you don't think that would have said "Oh no, we are a kinder nation." We must work on an individual level to reach out to those who have been victims of discrimination and defend them.

First: that doesn't make us a participant, it makes us a bystander. Second: given that missile defense is only designed to counter small-scale nuclear attacks (ie. one's launched from "rogue states") and given the inescapable fact that no such state has the ability to launch such an attack, the point that the U.S. would be blowing up missiles over Canada is moot. Put another way: the only way missile defense makes sense is if they get it to work, if a "rogue" develps both nuclear capability and long range delivery systems, if that "rogue" is underrable through traditional means and if that same rogue is willing to invite total destruction upon itself by atacking the U.S. The chances of all those variables (and others that I haven't mentioned) coming together and making missile defense a valid poroposal are slim to nil. Any discussion about the specific pros and cons of Canadian participation that fails to take into account the fundamentally flawed nature of the BMD program is simply an academic exercise. Frankly, wondering about the what would happpen in the event of a hyopthetical interception of a hypothetical missile over Canadian airspace (hypothetically) is about as relevant as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I don't accept the argumenty that not taking part in BMD is letting the Americans decide our defense for us for the reasons above. At the end of the day, I see allowing the Americans to do what they please (by pumping billions into a program with no demonstratable benefit) a far less grave threat to our soverignty than dancing to their tune on this issue. OK BlackDog, as I said before, I think we will agree to disagree. We certainly see the program and Canada's role in it differently and I respect that...

BlackDog, It is clear you support the Martin government's final decision. That is fine...you are most entitled to believing this and I respect your opinion. We are a "de facto participant" because the U.S. would shoot down a missile over Canadian airspace headed for the U.S. regardless of whether we gave them permission or not. My interpretation of missile defence is that we will understand what is going on in our airspace and how we will be protected in the case of such an emergency. By refusing to participate in missile defence, we are giving up sovereignty by allowing the Americans to plan ahead how to defend us. This is OK with a lot of Canadians, as we hardly have an armed forces as it is now and if we were ever attacked we would need to rely on the Americans. By participating in the program, we will coordinate our defence in a North American context. By refusing to go ahead with the program, we allow the Americans to have much more power in preparing our defence. To me, that is a loss of sovereignty. When country "A" decides behind closed doors how to defend country "B," especially when country "B" is an independent nation capable of defending itself if it wanted to, then country "B" is accepting its second-tier status as a nation, esentially allowing country "A" to move closer to taking over country "B." The Canadian left calls the CPC "American," as they sell this country out to the Americans...

BubberMiley, Eisenhower is my favourite 20th century Republican president. FDR is my favourite 20th century Democrat president. You are correct that Eisenhower was worried about the military industrial complex. He was not a hawk (unlike the far right) and he understood when war was necessary (unlike the far left). Eisenhower probably would not have supported missile defence. I do not support missile defence. I have stated many times, on this forum too, that anyone with an undergraduate physics degree can find flaws in the missile defence program the Bush government is proposing. THAT BEING SAID, it is CRUCIAL we join TO HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE. Canada is a de facto participant regardless of what the left thinks. "Joining" missile defence merely means that Frank McKenna and Paul Martin (or whoever the PM is) has a seat at the table and can be aware of what is happening over Canadian cities. A loss of Canadian sovereignty is achieved by us refusing to join the program. This is why we needed to join the program.

Dear emailforcanada, Other parts of your post were prevocative, but the last part--which I have taken apart below--is most prevocative. "Whatever can be said about the current government, Canada is in an exremely strong position and we are well respected in the world." Canada is NOT in an extremely strong position. We merely have a good economy now...that is all. We are NOT well respected in the world. That is not to say that other countries do not like Canada, only that we are in such a second tier status in the world, that other countries know not of what to think of us. "On the Iraq situation we stood out ground in spite of immense pressure and we are respected for that." We are not "respected" for it. Both a majority of the federal Liberals and Conservatives supported the Iraq War. We are not respected for saying "no" to the war and sending troops in there anyway, trying to get a piece of the Iraqi oil pie. We also make most of the bullets used in Iraq. "Our economical situation is actually very strong and we have enormous opportunities ahead. Like him or not, Martin has developed excelletn contacts across the gobe for trade." I am generally apathetic about Paul Martin. He is not a disingenuous man like Chretien, but is rather a dithering hypocrite whose overly cautious personality and attempt to please everyone just frustrates everyone. He is a brilliant economist, but his budget deficit reduction came at the expense of our social programs and health care...the same things the Liberals are running on in this election. "Sure there eventually comes a time for change... but right now we need to leverage and optimize on where we are at. It is really a very idea to put someone in with very little experience and no international contacts at this point in time. It is a potential disaster to put Harper in for all the reasons above." The time for change is now. Harper may not be well-known internationally, but not all PMs have to have well-known international ties. And besides, we need a lot of domestic help and the repairing of our ties with the Americans before we even look anywhere else. Harper is the man for this.

Regardless, the Conservatvies are looking very strong now. People seem to be looking forward (or resigned) to a Conservative government. The last week of the campaign will decide if it is a majority or a minority. I found the democraticspace site a little confusing. If you surf around you can find conflicting information. I have checked...you are correct Shoop. However, coming out of bed at 7AM in the morning and looking at that headline it seemed like that is what they were inferring...

Yes, and the NDP will vote with the CPC on nearly everything for the first few months or longer. I don't think Harper will extort easily. The Liberals will be absorbed by a leadership convention for much of 2006, the Bloc will be preparing for a third referendum, and Layton knows he will be seen in a poor light if he takes Canadians to the polls anytime soon. Fingers will be pointed if we have a third election in three years. Clearish sailing for Mr Harper, for a while. I think Harper may try to narrow the definition of confidence votes by expanding the use of 'free' votes, and perhaps avoid early defeat that way. That would probably be a smart move.

And in 100 when the U.S. wants freshwater we'll already be a U.S. territory if the Liberals and NDP could have their way (and at this point, I am having a hard time thinking about why that be such a bad idea... ) I have said it so many times before...missile defence is a BS thing, as is the weaponization of space, but WE NEED A SEAT AT THE TABLE. The U.S. will not defend us forever.

The cover of the Montreal Gazette had majority written all over it this morning.

Oh yes, you've got to love PC efforts to accuse someone of being racist. I was described by one particularly odious bore here in Britain as a "racist" for using the term "people of color" -- which he claimed was racist -- right up until I pointed him to speeches and articles by Mary Frances Berry, Kweisi Mfume and other black civil rights leaders which use it as a term of community and respect. The irony is that people like the moron you encountered, or the British bore I've encountered, is that their supposed commitment to "multiculturalism" automatically crumbles to dust when it comes to respecting AMERICAN cultural traditions -- including our proud tradition of civil rights struggle. You know, YankAbroad, that many Canadians (and I am sure British but I have never lived there) have preconceived notions of Americans. I lived in New York for awhile and have travelled extensively in the South (i.e. Macon, Georgia, etc.) and I realize now that you can never look at issues in a black and white context. "Americans say 'this is my gun, screw you'" while Canadians are "gentle, tolerant, and multicultural." Anyone who has lived in both countries for an extended period of time need not be an anthropologist to see that these widely used statements and descriptions are silly and counterproductive, as well as ridiculously false. I believe the Republican Party in the U.S. and the Liberal Party in Canada are relying on ignorant people to believe these myths, as they seem to be propagated by these parties. The parties are trying to use these myths to sink American Democrats and Canadian Conservatives. U.S. Republicans say the Democrats are "un-American" for not going along with a more aggressive U.S. foreign policy. Canadian Liberals call their Conservative opponents "American ass-kissers." And fools in both countries accept these black and white characterizations as reality. I think, YankAbroad, that you understand the differences and are in a better position, based on your experience, than others here to question the prevalent stereotyping...well done!!!

LMAO Great point Geoffrey...

The Globe and Mail have basically endorsed Haper and the Conservatives and CBC may be considered pro-Liberal but I would never consider it pro-NDP...Larry Zolf could never be called pro-NDP. You might hear more about the NDP on CBC because the CTV at times doesn't even talk about the NDP, like they didn't exist. Often when Craig Oliver is asked about how he sees the election, he won't even mention the NDP unless someone asks him specifically about them. And regards to columnists, Sheila Copps might have some NDP sympathies but she can't touch the many, many pro-Conservatives columnists out there, such as Ezra Levant, Paul Jackson, Peter Worthington, Charles Adler, Tom Brodbeck and on and on and on, when it comes to spin. My apologies... There was a time when the Globe and Mail was pro-Liberal and proud of it. If that has changed, good. CBC is without a doubt a network of the Liberals and NDP. If Harper will be coming on, that is good.

I was at a bar once with an American friend of mine. We met another random guy and started talking. My American friend said "Indian" and the guy was like "you must be American...the word "Indian" is racist and never used in Canada." While I knew that was clearly a lie of the Canadian left my friend was a bit taken aback. I tried to tell him that wasn't true, but my answer was to come soom. The next day in the paper, a local columnist referred to aboriginals as "Indians." Upon looking the columnist's biography up, it turned out she was born in Canada, schooled here, and lives here.

If the CBC tried something as openly partisan as that ConservaTiVe news promo the conservatives would be going apeshit. During a later break the ConservaTiVe news promo said something to the effect of "We'll ask Paul Martin what's been going wrong, or what's been going right." The CBC was being criticized on here the other day because Paul Martin accepted an invitation for an interview but Stephen Harper did not. Not only is the reporting biased, but so is the perspective of the conservative supporters. Why would Harper want to go on CBC, he is on a role and the lefties over there would probably try and trip him up while fielding softball "Martin, tell me why we need to vote Liberal" questions... I don't watch much TV but if CTV goes a bit right well then, so be it.

I would have guessed Supreme Court nomination but yeah...well, at least he has one less jacket to give away...

The promo for the ConservaTiVe news that just ran started with a soundbite of Harper saying something ambiguous like "choose good over evil" and then Lloyd Robertson voicing over something like "The Conservatives push to bring freedom to the Maritimes." There was no other mention of any other political party. Go Big Blue!! I can't believe the left is complaining about CTV being pro-right wing. The left need look no further than CBC and the Globe and Mail, two of the most leftist anti-CPC outlets in this country. And I shouldn't forget the Toronto Sun, what with Sheila Copps writing her "daddy dearest" letters about the Martin Liberals and her seemingly unabashedly pro-NDP views. If CTV is as unabashedly pro-CPC as CBC and the Globe and Mail are, we might actually has some biased journalism in Canada...go CTV go!!! BTW My take on the nuclear bomb? Martin resigns and Ignatieff takes over just like that. THAT would be the shock of it all...

The promo for the ConservaTiVe news that just ran started with a soundbite of Harper saying something ambiguous like "choose good over evil" and then Lloyd Robertson voicing over something like "The Conservatives push to bring freedom to the Maritimes." There was no other mention of any other political party. Go Big Blue!! I can't believe the left is complaining about CTV being pro-right wing. The left need look no further than CBC and the Globe and Mail, two of the most leftist anti-CPC outlets in this country. And I shouldn't forget the Toronto Sun, what with Sheila Copps writing her "daddy dearest" letters about the Martin Liberals and her seemingly unabashedly pro-NDP views. If CTV is as unabashedly pro-CPC as CBC and the Globe and Mail are, we might actually has some biased journalism in Canada...go CTV go!!!