normanchateau

Alternatively, perhaps Canada and Alberta should consider a trial separation. It would be costly for Canada but at least we'd be rid of that social conservative Harper once and for all. Harper could then gracefully exit Canada and become the undisputed leader of Alberta, finally achieving the majority that he so hungrily craves like a vampire craves blood. Meanwhile the rest of Canada could elect a fiscally conservative but socially liberal Prime Minister whose values are in tune with the majority of Canadians.

Alternatively, perhaps Canada and Alberta should consider a trial separation. It would be costly for Canada but at least we'd be rid of that social conservative Harper once and for all. Harper could then gracefully exit Canada and become the undisputed leader of Alberta, finally achieving the majority that he so hungrily craves like a vampire craves blood. Meanwhile the rest of Canada could elect a fiscally conservative but socially liberal Prime Minister whose values are in tune with the majority of Canadians.

One of my favourite Jaffer stories: "When Matthew Johnston, an assistant to Canadian member of parliament Rahim Jaffer, could not find his boss in time for a scheduled interview with a Vancouver radio station, he went on the air and pretended to be Jaffer for 45 minutes. After several callers pointed out that the guest was an imposter, the station later contacted Jaffer, who initially insisted he had given the interview, then admitted he hadn't. " http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12...1/yir-0152.html I listened to the radio interview when it played in Vancouver in 2001. At the time, I couldn't believe that the idiot on the air was a Conservative MP. It turns out he wasn't. Despite that, Jaffer kept insisting that he was that idiot. Eventually Jaffer decided to tell the truth. Despite his dishonesty, Conservative votes for Jaffer remained about the same in 2004, 2006 and 2008. The only reason Jaffer lost in 2008 was because Liberal voters in his riding switched to the NDP. Jaffer's firm Conservative votes prove that integrity and ethics are not an essential feature of being a Conservative candidate. Bernier reminded us of that recently.

The donation limit was put in place by Chretien: "But the most significant overhaul came in 2003, with Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (Political Financing), also introduced by Chrétien. Prior to this, political contributions could be made by individuals, corporations, unions and other organizations, Canadian or not, a point which was widely criticized. In the past, Canada's election law had focused more on spending limits, rather than who gave what. Bill C-24, in effect, restricted contributions to Canadian citizens and permanent residents, with some minor exceptions, and enforced a limit on the amounts given. Once the bill came into effect in January 2004, corporations and unions could only give no more than $1,000 annually, with adjustments for inflation. But, some organizations aren't able to give that either. Corporations that don't do business in Canada, unions that don't hold bargaining rights for Canadian employees, and Crown corporations that get more than 50 per cent of their funding from the government aren't eligible. Canadians, however, could give $5,000 annually, also with adjustments for inflation. But, indirect contributions are prohibited. Plus, any person or corporation who gave more than $200 would have their name and address published. "Contributions" also included goods and services donated "in-kind." http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngover...tributions.html Harper merely modified it.

Didn't Ontario experience the worst recession since the Great Depression when Rae became Premier? Or do you blame Rae for the recession? Rae was attacked by all the public sector unions because he imposed a wage freeze to help deal with the recession. If Harper were to impose a wage freeze on public sector unions when Canada falls into recession, would you years later say "Remember what he did to Canada"? Thousands of NDP members quit the NDP because of Rae's austerity measures. NDP MLAs attacked Rae for spending less rather than more to deal with the recession. Organized labour turned against the NDP. Some in the NDP became his most vocal critics. No wonder he eventually quit the NDP in disgust and switched parties.

Please provide a citation for your claim that the donation limit was put in place by the Conservatives. Chretien was not a Conservative.

Indeed they do fit at least one definition of the adjective "common".

OK, not 2/3. Only 63% of Canadians voted overwhelmingly against Mr. Harper. Every region of the country wanted a "Torie" majority except Quebec? You must define "every region" as Alberta. In what other province did Harper get a majority of the votes?

Once again, I agree that it is a double standard. Both Harper and McKenna appear to oppose abortion. The Washington Post has commented on McKenna's battles with Morgentaler: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...mp;slug=1936495 However it remains to be determined whether McKenna shares sufficient values with Harper to be labelled a social conservative. I have no idea whether McKenna, like Harper, opposes embryonic stem cell research, decriminalization of possession of small quantities of marijuana and legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. I also have no idea whether McKenna, like Harper, favours mandatory six month jail sentences for one marijuana plant. I do know that McKenna, unlike Harper, does not oppose same sex marriage. Notwithstanding the extent to which McKenna shares Harper's social conservatism, at least he appears to be a fiscal conservative. Unfortunately, Harper's last three budgets reveal that he is anything but a fiscal conservative. Had a Liberal PM spent as recklessly as Harper has since his election, Conservatives would rightly be calling for the ouster of this financial incompetent.

I agree that it is a double standard. Both Harper and McKenna appear to oppose abortion. The Washington Post has commented on McKenna's battles with Morgentaler: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...mp;slug=1936495 However it remains to be determined whether McKenna shares sufficient values with Harper to be labelled a social conservative. I have no idea whether McKenna, like Harper, opposes embryonic stem cell research, same sex marriage, decriminalization of possession of small quantities of marijuana and legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. I also have no idea whether McKenna, like Harper, favours mandatory six month jail sentences for one marijuana plant. Notwithstanding the extent to which McKenna shares Harper's social conservatism, at least he appears to be a fiscal conservative. Unfortunately, Harper's last three budgets reveal that he is anything but a fiscal conservative. Had a Liberal PM spent as recklessly as Harper has since his election, Conservatives would rightly be calling for the ouster of this financial incompetent.

How are they slowly veering to the left? Paul Martin cut marginal income tax rates, eliminated the deficit and increased military spending. Stephen Harper proposed corporate tax cuts and Dion and the Liberals voted for those tax cuts and still support those tax cuts. Dion promised to cut personal income tax rates if elected. Stephen Harper failed to cut personal income tax rates and increased government spending to unprecedented levels: http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php Harper's share of the popular vote went up only about 1% yesterday from 2006. Dion's declined far more and most of that support went to the NDP, Greens and Bloq. Do you think voters left the Liberals for those three parties because they see the Liberals veering left? Could it be instead that they abandoned Dion because they see him as veering right in propping up Harper's party?

I don't care how Dancer does the numbers. He did a good job of keeping track of everyone and declaring the unequivocal winner. Now let's move on to more important questions. Will Dion resign before he's dumped by his party? Will Harper resign or are the Conservatives doomed to go into yet another election with a social conservative who's not a fiscal conservative? Can Harper supporters recognize a social conservative when they see one? Will Harper shovel another four billion dollars from the rest of Canada to Quebec to win votes? Will Harper once again convince his supporters that shovelling billions of dollars into Quebec is ultimately fiscal conservatism if it secures a majority? Will Harper bring down his government once again in the hopes of winning a majority before the Liberals select a new leader? Will the continued deterioration of the economy hurt or hinder Harper?

Dion will step down. The economy will deteriorate. The Liberals, with or without Dion, will prop up the Harper government until the Liberals select a new leader. The economy will deteriorate. Eventually, the three opposition parties will defeat Harper in a nonconfidence motion. The economy will continue to deteriorate and Harper will lose the next election. People will look back at October 14th, 2008, as a missed selling opportunity.

Here's what I said earlier in this same thread: If I provided you with examples, you would no doubt claim that this is not evidence of social conservatism. But here are some examples: As leader of the Opposition, Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. Harper has no problem with hate crime legislation per se. For example, he favours hate crime legislation when the criterion is religion, race or ethnicity. But he opposes it when the criterion is sexual orientation. C-250 passed anyway because a majority of MPs, including some in Harper's own party, voted for C-250. Harper opposes abortion, embryonic stem cell research and same sex marriage. Although he claims that he won't introduce legislation to overturn these, his positions are nonetheless those of a social conservative. When Harper campaigned in the 2006 election, he promised not to reintroduce the marijuana decriminalization legislation introduced by the Liberals before they were voted out of office. The NDP and BQ also support decriminalization of possession of tiny quantities of marijuana. The Greens support outright legalization. A majority of Canadians favour decriminalization. Harper favours criminal sentences for teenagers in possession of even a few grams of marijuana. Harper's position is anti-libertarian and socially conservative. Government intrusion for possession of a few grams of marijuana is evidence of social conservatism. Harper's omnibus crime bill has a mandatory six month jail sentence for one marijuana plant, i.e., judges will not have discretion in sentences in such cases. How about Bill C-10 where Harper's government decided not to fund art that they considered "offensive"? Sure, they withdrew C-10 a few days ago but only because Harper was desperate to portray himself as not being a social conservative. Of course those Canadians who are even more socially conservative than Harper would not view him as a social conservative.

Harper will do what he believes will win him a majority and he knows that means winning more seats in Quebec. Until late in the campaign, Harper's strategy was to throw billions of dollars at Quebec. Here's an excerpt from a 2007 article describing Harper's 2007 and 2008 budget: "Harper's budget last week gave a desperate Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest $700 million so that Quebec taxpayers could have a huge tax cut. And Harper promised more to come - $4.1 billion more to be precise, by next year. The money for that pre-election graft was pickpocketed by Harper directly from the rest of Canada's wallets." http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html Harper's error was timing. He made the announcement in 2007 but shovelled the billions of dollars to Quebec in 2008. By election time, Quebecers had forgotten the announcement. Next time he'll make the announcement and call the election immediately after. Harper supporters will view this as a brilliant strategy as long as it achieves a majority government. Spending billions to bribe Quebecers is acceptable as long as it's done by the Conservatives. Harper did it in 2007. He'll do it again.

It wasn't popular the first time but he did it anyway. I predict he'll do it again.

Kudos Vancouver King for the prediction win. By now you'll be pleased to hear that once again Harper did not win a single seat in Vancouver...or Montreal...or Toronto. Social conservatives tend not to do well in cities with large universities unless of course they're in Alberta.

I wonder if she will testify for or against Harper in court. My guess is that Harper will simply muzzle her. Then again, he might bribe her.

Do you not view loyalty to Canada as important than loyalty to a party leader? Replacing Dion with an effective leader who will finally rid Canada of a government lead by a social conservative leader who produced the largest spending increases in Canadian history needs to happen sooner rather than later. This election confirmed that a majority of Canadians once again rejected Harper. Harper has shown he's a gambler by calling an unwanted election. There's nothing to stop him from doing it again unless the Liberals replace Dion.

I hope you're right. The best way to prevent a CPC majority is to retain Harper as leader. A social conservative like Harper is the perfect target for the next Liberal leader who I hope, unlike Dion, will pull no punches.

I normally have no use for Duceppe but this time I'm grateful to him for keeping Harper on his leash and saving Canada from a majority government lead by a social conservative who, had he been PM at the time, would have committed Canadians to Bush's war in Iraq. Harper began the campaign poised to win a majority. He ran against the most ineffective Liberal leader in generations. The Green Shift was rejected by Canadians. The NDP and Greens bled off Liberal support. Running against Dion was Harper's best shot at a majority. The Liberals will have a new leader in 2009 and that leader will take on Harper in the rest of Canada just as Duceppe did in Quebec.

I saw the interview with Cadman a few minutes ago after she was declared the winner. She refused to comment in response to a reporter's question about her allegations about the bribe to Chuck. All she would say is "I support Stephen Harper." I expect we'll be seeing more interviews unless Harper muzzles her. She seemed incredibly inarticulate and unintelligent. Not even Harper would appoint her to Cabinet.

Seems like everyone but Harper supporters are aware of this.

Had Dion been as effective as Duceppe in reminding the rest of Canada about Harper's social conservatism, he'd not be destined for political oblivion.

I can understand attacks on Harper but Warren Buffett? Warren Buffet is a lifelong Democrat who has donated billions to charity and plans to continue to do so rather than leave a huge inheritance to his children, still lives in the modest home that he purchased in 1958 and complains about the fact that under George Bush, he pays proportionately less taxes than his receptionist: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7062700097.html Earlier this month when Buffett announced that he'd bought shares of General Electric, so did I in response. Following Buffett's investment strategies is a safe investment strategy. And while I have no use for a social conservative like Harper, Harper's suggestion of a buying opportunity was probably correct. It may have been politically incorrect to say so but that's another matter.