wellandboy

Watched the repeat of Paul Martin's cozy little infomercial from last nights National on Newsworld this morning. Pre-screened questions from the live audience and call ins, soft ball questions from Mansbridge. I've checked CBC's schedule and cannot find similar opportunities being provided for Harper, Layton and Duceppe. So much for balanced reporting from the CBC. It's time for a change in their mandate and government subsidy.

That's not very logical is it? First, the principal thing about the military ad was the incompetence of presentation. Nobody is disputing Mr. Harper did talk about and increased military presence in Canadian cities. All of the other ads are referenced and with a little digging you can find the source when not explicitly provided. You can certainly argue Harper was not responsible for what a conservative columnment in the Washjington Times said about him but then Martin shouldn't be held responsible for what conservative columnnists say about him either and these form a major part of the Conservative attack ads. What I find totally bizarre on the military ad is why didnt they just say that if Stephen Harper had been PM in 2003, Canadian troops would have served and died in Iraq. Can't argue with that and Harper's recent turn around (WT reply DEC-11) that he no longer supports the Iraq invasion and was misled by the intelligence begs the question as to why Cretien, McCallum, Layton and the majority of the Canadian public weren't misled. Is Harper admitting he is dumber/more gullible/has less judgement than better than 1 out of 2 Canadians? If that's the case if we forget the election and pick someone off the street to be PM we have a better than 50-50 chance of getting a PM with better judgement than Harper. The more serious question is was he so eager to support Conservative inspiration George Bush that he didn't care if CAF personnel died for an invasion the Canadian public did not support and the U.N. didn't sanction.? Its one thing to say you support the military, another to accept the responsibility that goes with it and principal among the responsibilities is to not put troops in harm's way without sufficient reason. Nice try at deflection and misdirection. It does not address the ad in question, but then again you guys are good at this.

They don't care Betsy. I have yet to hear Liberal say anything other than dismiss the whole affair. If they thought they could get away with it they would in English Canada. The fact they haven't pulled the ad in Quebec boggles my mind. I guess this gives a whole meaning to when Paul Martin turned to Gilles Duceppe in the first debate and stated he would fight him on every street corner. Only a Liberal has placed troops on the ground in Quebec so who's kidding who. I'm old enough to clearly remember the October crisis and Trudeau's use of the War Measures Act. It was a huge over reaction to tragic but isolated events, that put the entire country under Federal control suspending the rights and freedoms the Liberals supposedly cherish. This is a disgrace of the highest magnitude, offending our military, ordinary Canadians and in particular the people of Quebec. Who are the purveyors of fear and hate in this country? Easy Paul Martin and his Liberals.

In a debate yesterday at Brock University this came up. The Liberal candidate John Maloney stated he is opposed to ammending the Constitution to remove the Notwithstanding Clause. Evidently, the Liberal Brain Trust didn't feed this devistatingly brilliant idea down to the ridings.

The pulled ad is making the headlines this morning along with the Mike Duffy's scolding of John Duffy on this story. One might say the Liberals have a new scandal to contend with ADSCAN. Not since the PC's nasty John Chretien/ bells palsy ad have things sunk so low. In that case and indeed in this case the pulled ad becomes "the story", thus minimizing the effectiveness of all other ads.

He would have a hard time given he is the only federal leader who has promised to use the clause. “Let's say that some kind of decision came down that was going to force…churches, synagogues, mosques or temples to redefine marriage in a way that that particular religion did not want to, then I would use the notwithstanding clause.” – Paul Martin (CBC Radio, December 18, 2003). Excellent point Argus. This is a highly risky plan by the Liberals. Considering Martin hung this out with little follow-up during the debate, it will be interesting to see how the spin meisters play this out.

Martin came out attacking Harper and has made a colossal mistake attempting to differentiate himself from the rest of pack talking about values. This gave everybody opportunity to hammer him once again on the scandalous Liberal past. The Constitutional ammendment challenge to Harper was just plain bizarre. It came in a moment of pique and he made no attempt on following up or clarifying his argument. The rest of the time he tried to be PM'ish but came across as indignant and a carriciture of himself. The rest performed okay. Duceppe struggled more than usual with his English and played to his constituancy, Layton pushed his third option pitch but didn't smile much other than when he talked about his municipal politics days. Harper stayed on message but at times seemed a little stiff. Big loser -Martin BTW- Steve Pakin did a good job as moderator, I thought.

Nice try deflecting the issue away from the Conservatives. The Conservatives mismanaged public money before the Liberals were voted in, and they have never been held accountable. How the Hell can they be running on accountability when they have none themselves. Presumably, you are referring to the Progressive Conservative Party of the 1980's mismanaging money. After Mulroney left, his successor Campbell was held accountable, appropriately by the Canadian people. How that was accomplished was the infamous Little Red Book. Did the Liberals deliver-no. The new Conservative Party is now challenging Liberal mismanagement of money and will be judged accordingly, by the Canadian electorate. With the immediate implimentation of Accountability Act we can anticipate sweeping reforms addressing many past transgressions. Has Paul Martin made any effort at sweeping reforms-NO. Only the CPC and the NDP have proposed effective and long over-due changes.

This is just unsubstantiated crap.

Stephen Harper is a soulmate of Richard Perle? Rubbish. You have no proof because it doesn't exist. You can't defend Liberal scandals and corruption so you have to ramble on with this fiction.

Man are peoples X boxes not working tonight?

Come on people, this is starting to go to the "Who Loves Canada the Most" thing. We may disagree on politics but we all by our participation on this forum demonstrate our deep and abiding Love for Canada

What does an Angler (fishermen) have in common with the Federal Liberal Justice system? They both practice catch and release.

Geez River God, what you say is nonsense, but you sure have mastered those bold, large coloured font whaddyacallits. I'm impressed. What's with the name? Do we have a diety in our midst?

My goodness you have been busy. Another house of cards based on innuendo, playing fast and loose with the truth. I didn't see any mention of a grassy knoll, hmm. Naturally, it's okay for Paul Martin to have an intimate lunch with somebody that's actually been named in the scandalous Gomery scandal inquiry. He knew nothing because escargot causes amnesia. Neo cons automatically mean neo fascist? Huh. The Accountability Act will be the first piece of legislation the new Conservative Government will put before Parliament after January, 23,2006. If you actually took the time to read it you will see that it proposes more revolutionary openness in the Federal Goverment than the Liberals could ever come up with as they are by their record anti open and transparent government. Doesn't sound "Fascist" to me, but we wouldn't want the truth to get in the way of a good story.

Saw the new Liberal scary ad tonight for the first time. What is it with the guns again? Scary no, stupid yes. The last time I saw a film with so many guns while talking about a leader was a documentary on Leni Riefenstahl.

Adaption and evolution as a result of the marriage between the Alliance and the PC's is largely to credit for the change. Then of course there's the Liberal, who by their very nature can't seem to change. The single biggest issue of this campaign has been about cleaning up government. Both the NDP and CPC have stated sweeping changes, the Libs are running on their record. That means business a usual and that is scary.

Regardless of the advertising the Liberals are still throwing out "hidden agenda" on the streets in my riding, Welland. The Liberals are masters of the whisper campaign but it's just not having the same impact it did in 2004.

A mole! Did you say a mole! This is getting better than a John LeCarre novel. They really are raising this to a new level of absurd. The little smiley ha ha is a spy.

Sorry, I don't agree. As an example 10 years ago I fully supported capital punishment. Now I don't. It's a topic I debated with different people and pondered every side of the argument. I concluded that in our civilized society, capital punishment is not an acceptable alternative. I see that as a personal evolution and do not view myself as a hypocrite or a liar. To state categorically that because an individual or group has changed their position after reasoned debate is to say the least unfair. To suggest that in any party there are not extreme members is false and if you support the NDP you know that's true. What emerges is generally a more moderate stance that embraces common beliefs. The Conservatives have finally accomplished that as well. A common complaint I hear from Liberals is the leadership has distanced themselves from the grassroots starting under Chretien and continuing under Martin. That's why they're in the predicament they're in now.

With final debates are slated for next week, what do you see as the various strategies to take each party into the home stretch?

It's one thing to pay taxes in the host country that you operate in, but entirely different to purposely move off-shore to avoid taxes and let's face it be more competitive. I'm not even saying that's a bad thing as it's the way many businesses operate with the opportunities presented to them. Paul Martin, CEO of CSL did that- fine. When he moved into the public arena to seek the highest office in the land and starts blathering about "Canadian values", to whose values is he referring? International shipping tycoon or principled politician or more likely, politics of convenience. That dichotomy is something I've had a problem with many politicians and Martin in particular. While I won't miss Martin when he's gone, I know a lot of Liberals will miss him less. Et tu Brute

I guess that would be the Accountability Act. No surprises the Liberals would want to kill that!

Elementary? No convenient.

By your logic, you blame a Mulroney era civil servant in your words doled out money to "Lyin Brian's friends" and that experience was a "great asset to run the Liberal program" for Lyin' Jean Chretien and subsequently Lyin' Paul. I guess, since Mulroney's replacement Kim Campbell was wiped out at the polls, so to should Chretien's replacement, Martin be wiped out as well. Deflect all you want, but, Canadians just don't believe this stuff!