normanchateau

Nonsense! Many of those supporting the other parties have indicated their support is not firm and they might very well switch their preference between now and October 14th. Nanos Research, among others, have revealed this. Conservative voters are firm in their commitment to vote for Harper. Strategic voters will switch their allegiance if they think it will thwart Harper and what he stands for.

Unfortunately, these irrational comments are representative of the level of intelligence, critical analysis and discourse that have come to characterize far too many Harper supporters. If we accept the logic behind these absurd comments, physicians do not have real jobs. Physicians have remarkably stressful jobs. They really don't need Harper supporters claiming that they don't have "real jobs". I look forward to seeing a citation for the claim that "most people don't" view lawyers, physicians, etc., as having real jobs. The problem here is that Harper supporters sometimes delude themselves into believing that they understand how "most people" think even though most people in Canada (65% according to the latest Nanos Research poll) are absolutely opposed to Harper.

It depends on how you define "lose". Check out the $4,000,000,000 gift to Quebec from the rest of Canada on September 3rd on the list below: http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/Conservative_Spending.pdf Buying Quebec votes sure is expensive.

And you figured out these clever techniques all by yourself?

He's not only tricking the Taliban. Read this from a US source: Maj. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, a retired Canadian commander formerly in charge of a U.N. force in the Balkans, criticized Harper for announcing a deadline during an election campaign. MacKenzie said that should only be told to allies in the highest of confidence. "I don't like deadlines," MacKenzie said. "I don't like announcing deadlines to an enemy force that now says to themselves, 'Well, we're getting rid of the Canadians' so let's turn our strategic attack on some other country." http://www.fortmilltimes.com/106/story/285249.html But then what does Lewis MacKenzie know about military strategy. Harper supporters will support him whether he's pro-war, anti-war, for increases in government spending, against increases in government spending, for abortion, against abortion...and they'll rationalize it as something he must do to win a majority.

Get what?

And went from being a "leader" to a follower.

I wonder if Taliban Steve did? Even more, I wonder how his supporters view his decision to cut and run and acknowledge that the Taliban may win. Will they rationalize this, just as they rationalized his totally out-of-control spending, as something he must do to win a majority and please the "left"? Don't they realize that if he actually wins a majority, he just might want to be re-elected?

Kind of like Taliban Steve following Taliban Jack in slow motion.

Once again today Taliban Steve decides to follow in the footsteps of Taliban Jack.

Well then you must be very disappointed by Taliban Steve reporting today that he decided to cut and run. For once I believe that he's telling the truth.

True. Alas the Liberals do not have the campaign funds to get their messages across. Meanwhile the Conservative ads falsely and fraudulently claim that the Liberals will eliminate the benefit.

Let May speak. It's unfair that only Harper's there to represent God-fearing, religious zealots. Except for the environment, Harper and May seem to share values. I suspect Harper fears that the religious right may find in May someone they can respect more. Even Jack Layton has now decided that May should participate in the debates. What's Harper afraid of?

The hysterical hyperbole to which you refer comes from your hero Stephen Harper himself. Here are excerpts from the story which apparently you've not read: "I think our goal has to be, after six years, to see the government of Afghanistan able to carry the lion's share of responsibility for its own security," Harper said. The prime minister conceded that the Taliban insurgency, which has gained strength in recent months, may not be completely defeated by 2011. But he said that should not be the goal of the mission. "The goal in Afghanistan is not that there will be no insurgency, or the insurgency will be eradicated by 2011 - I don't think that's realistic if you look at the history of Afghanistan - but that you will have a government that is able, given that insurgency, to nevertheless manage its day-to-day security." Coming in the heat of an election campaign, it is perhaps the clearest statement yet that the Conservatives will not risk proposing another extension of the combat component of the mission. However, Harper's comments contradict those of Canada's former ambassador to Afghanistan, Arif Lalani, who this week said a "surge" of troops in Afghanistan is essential. Here's the story link: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...6e-1a44b8bdc9ba So there you have it. Taliban Steve not only claims that the Afghans will manage their own security but concedes that Canada will withdraw whether the Taliban win or lose. Taliban Steve has not only decided to cut and run but he's even told the Taliban when he'll do it. This is one election promise I predict that he'll definitely keep as he knows perfectly well that his pro-war, neocon supporters have no other party to vote for. There's no political party to the right of Harper's.

That's correct. Here's the link: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...eb-25ed71e9332e Effectively this means whether the Taliban are winning or losing, Harper pledges to withdraw leaving security entirely in the hands of the Afghanistan government. Who could ever have imagined that Chretien would commit Canada to fighting in Afghanistan while Harper commits Canada to pulling out whether the Taliban win or not? Is Taliban Steve trying to steal votes from Taliban Jack or is it yet another flip flop like his reversal on Canada invading Iraq? Either way, it's a brilliant strategy to win a majority. Harper may have no principles or integrity but he sure nows how to win elections. Harper supporters will still vote for him because they continue to sincerely believe that with a majority government, he can and will break his promises on everything and anything and start again acting like the pro-war Reformer/Alliance/National Citizens Coalition/religious nut that he always was. Meanwhile, he'll pick up some opposition votes from those whose main objection to Harper is that he's a warmonger. It's a win/win strategy since Harper supporters will support him whether he shifts to the left or shifts to the right.

http://www.gregfelton.com/canpol/2007_08_2...%20article.html "Since Harper moved in 2003 to Ottawa, he has been attending the capital city's Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, called East Gate, under the guidance of Pastor Bill Buitenwerf. Two other important religious mentors for Harper, according to Mackey and others, have been Calgary Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy, a fellow evangelical, and Preston Manning, who like Harper is an Alliance Church adherent. Foundational convictions Indiana State Purdue University religious studies Prof. Philip Goff says the Alliance Church holds to four foundational convictions, which emerge out of its belief the Bible is without error. The Alliance Church places an intense focus on the need for personal salvation, emphasizes the importance of leading a "holy" life and encourages spiritual healing, says Goff. The denomination also stresses that Jesus Christ's return to Earth is imminent, says the evangelical specialist, who was raised in the Alliance Church. Alliance Church rules, like those of other evangelical denominations, strongly oppose homosexual relationships, describing them as the "basest form of sinful conduct." The Alliance Church is also tough on divorce and holds that Christians who have been adulterous do not have a right to remarry. The denomination's leaders, in addition, oppose abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, the use of marijuana and ordained female clergy." The Christian and Missionary Alliance views sound remarkably like Harper's. Coincidence?

It depends on whether the September polls hold. According to trendlines (September 9, 2008), a straight conversion of all September polls to date (including EKOS and Segma) yields: CPC 171 seats Liberals 74 seats BQ 32 seats NDP 30 seats Independent 1 seat

Now here's real leadership: "2005- In an effort to defuse an issue that derailed him during the final weeks of the 2004 federal election campaign, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper announced that he now fully supports both the Canada Health Act and the role of the federal government in medicare. It was a dramatic shift for a man who four years ago advised Alberta to withdraw from medicare and who two years ago wrote that Ottawa should scrap the Canada Health Act. In 2001, he co-authored an open letter to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein urging him to drop out of medicare. In a 2003 newspaper article, he wrote that the Canada Health Act should be scrapped and replaced with 10 separate agreements between Ottawa and each province." http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/print/91919834 When Harper flip flops, that's real leadership and integrity. And Harper showed real leadership on Iraq, first stating that Canada should invade then backtracking as it became clear that Iraq was a quagmire.

According to trendlines (September 9, 2008), a straight conversion of all September polls to date (including EKOS and Segma) yields: CPC 171 seats Liberals 74 seats BQ 32 seats NDP 30 seats Independent 1 seat Then again, this might be meaningless since as recently as September 1. 2008, trendlines predicted a Liberal minority.

Ekos also shows the Conservatives ahead of the Liberals in all age groups, all income levels, both men and women, and all regions except the Maritimes. The EKOS hybrid telephone-internet panel, PROBIT© , has the Conservatives at 37% and the Liberals at 24% nationally in a poll conducted September 2-4, 2008. http://www.ekoselection.com/index.php/2008...-logjam-broken/ What's peculiar in my opinion is that the Conservatives are still below 40% in all polls (except the rogue Segma poll) while the Liberals continue to drop steadily. Until a few credible polls show CPC above 40%, Harper is still not in majority territory. I suspect he will be but he's certainly not there yet.

Thank you for answering. Even though a majority of Canadians oppose the mission?

You're confused once again. Canadians do oppose the mission and I previously pointed this out to you and provided the evidence. Here's the evidence once again. See if you can somehow twist this Harper-like into evidence that Canadians support the mission http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/poll-afghan.html So given that a majority of Canadians do not approve of Canada's military action in Afghanistan, should Canada pull out? I notice none of the Harper supporters have answered this question. No doubt they realize that a majority of Canadians oppose the mission. But apparently the wishes of the majority are only important when it comes to the rights of bible thumpers, religious nuts and social conservatives to discriminate against other Canadians

Chretien was an utter fool to send us into Afghanistan and Dion was absolutely wrong to agree to extend the mission by two years, especially since Canadians oppose the mission. Now let's return to my question of should we remain in Afghanistan? I notice none of the Harper supporters have answered this question. No doubt they realize that a majority of Canadians oppose the mission. But apparently the wishes of the majority are only important when it comes to the rights of bible thumpers, religious nuts and social conservatives to discriminate against other Canadians.

I see... Harper is the biggest spender in the history of Canada merely to satisfy the left... And why exactly is he a social conservative, homophobe and religious nut? He's already got the votes of those people.

Paul Martin increased it by 12.8 billion. How much did Stephen Harper increase it by?