emailforcanada

Bush and his crew, through their blind arrogance and an incredibly idiotic approach, have made a complete mess of Iraq. They are on the brink of civil war...with severe lack of medical supplies, constant power outages and now it is coming out more now that untold thousands of innocent women and children have died or been maimed by US bombing. We do not see much of the pictures of children with limbs ripped off and 3rd degree burns. On top of that, the Bush administration has put their own citizens in even more danger than they ever were before and have only exacerbated the dangers instead of making their country safer.. That is not just shabby, it is an embarrassment to the people of America and will be for years to come. There are those in the US who still have their head stuck in the sand.... long held beliefs they hold are so very so hard to let go of, that in fact it is almost impossible for some people to even accept that the US is in trouble because of all this insanity. There are radio stations with these raving fanatics running 24/7. Many of us have friends or relatives in the US... for their sake, I hope that someone has the courage soon to stand up to the Bush administration and turn things around. It shows that the wrong leader can be absolutely disasterous. While not suggesting for a millisecond that Harper is the same as Bush... there are still very serious concerns about the choices he has made and consequently serious concerns about what kind of mess he could potentially get us into. You know those lefties don't believe freedom is important, they'd rather see dictatorships that occasionally feed their people in order to raise armies or what not.

Hmmm Harper... a thinking PM eh? Yes, thinking about how to suck up to Bush... ..thinking how on earth to implement the poorly thought out cg tax promise... that is one promise that has enormous ramifications in terms of managmenet, costs, figuring out the rules ,exceptions and monitoring. Certainly not a sign of PM material who thinks things through. He wasnt thinking when was decided to puch so hard for us to follow Bush into the Iraq mess. He would need to be thinking about how to achieve his rw agenda without facing the inevitable backlash. Harper has done a fine job of hiding his true face this time around. He and his team have done much thinking about winning and election strategies this election, and not at all enough about Canada' best interest long term. The two page spread shows that he is willing the belittle Canada when it suits him. Slightly different angle to the term ...thinking. Is this the speech you are referring to? CBCDid the Globe publish that speech too? The CBC has had it posted on their web site for ages. (The CBC and the Globe are both based in Toronto, I note.) I found Harper's speech interesting, and thought-provoking. It lacked elegance. The reaction to it in English-Canada reminds me of the reactions to many of Trudeau's essays written in the late 1950s and early 1960s, before he became PM. At various times, people were always digging up quotes of Trudeau. In Harper, Canada will once again have a thinking prime minister.

Who ever you support it is totally true that the media plays a critical role. As much as we might like to think otherwise, most people based their core opinions on what the see on TV or read in the headlines. When we see bias either way it is uncomfortable and frustrating. In general the folks in the media feel they are infalible and will seldom acknowledge that they could do a better job CTV has been particularly dissappointing. Actually this is the first campaign where I'm not complaining about CBC interference. If anyone here watched the 'Your Turn' segements, you would have seen that Martin got the roughest ride, and Harper pretty much had no questions that were too difficult. I was expecting some abortion, same-sex marriage, or even American influence questions... none. It was all accountability and tax reform, the topics that conservatives do best on. Maybe this helps the Mansbridge/Harper friendship theory. That "Your Turn" interview was based on a random selection of people and their questions. I suppose the CBC could bias the final choice of questions presented. And Mansbridge did follow-up questions. I only saw Harper's interview and I too was surprised at how easy it was. ---- I'm reticent to claim the media is a cabal with an agenda. But most of the English-Canadian media is concentrated in Toronto and it reflects this view. In this election, it appears the Liberals will mostly win seats in Toronto, English Montreal and Vancouver. Urban journalists will be looking for fault in Harper's performance. Harper could do as Mulroney (and Trudeau and Richard Nixon) and go over journalists' heads and speak directly to Canadians. For this, Harper is going to have to develop a relationship with ordinary Canadians, something that he is just starting to do.

Bush PR people wrote superb speeches for him that fooled a lot of people. While Harper has a well run campaign in recent weeks, the true measure of hwat you can expect is from him, looking at what he said over the last few years. Globe and Mail just ran a 2 page spread of one of his speeches to the right wing in the US. This is the true Harper and considering he was talking to, this is the true allegiance. Nothing ... abolutely nothing can change or take back those words. Stop Harper tomorrow. Yeah, that's worked out so well for the Americans.

That's garbage. Not the fault of the American people? We aren't talking about some dictatorship in Africa. Americans vote in their leaders. You are clueless. Surely you reconize the low approval rating in the states. You must realize the Bush admins policies have caused alot of division in the american public, I dont see how our aliennation could be much different.

Let's adress: "But polite conversation is a much better way to make way toward real negotiation and progress." Look ... this trade dispute started off over 2 years ago if I am not mistaken... someone correct me if I am but it has been in lay a long time. For the LONGEST time, arrogant people currently running the show in the US gave us the finger. We were polite and dipolmatic but time and time again, when we called them on how they are screwing us .... we again got the finger. I am actually proud and amazed how patient we have been... and even now, in spite of the insulting behaoviuor and arrogance from those currently in power in the US, we STILL are willing to hold out the hand of friendship. That is because ost Canadians know that Bush's time is limited that he, and those responsible for treating their best friend this way are NOT representative of all Americans. There is viscious backlash in the US by Americans who are discusted by their leadership. No leader shoudl put up with it. Absolutely none. We said that is enough and we are standing firm. That is the right thing to do.

Excellent point. Have you noticed that when a concern is raised about Harper, the folks on this thread who are his suporters can only try to point elsewhere and claim .. "see.. he is not as bad as this other guy". That is a complete acceptance and admission that IS a serious issue .. one that these folks do not want to face or acknowledge. The other thing you will find is that they will try to claim that this is 'liberal plant' .... you see, they believe that anybody who raises serious concerns about Harper is automatically 'a plant' ... or 'a troll' or some other false accustiaon. All of this in end end, just bolsters the case that they have an indefensible situation and quite understandably, they are frustrated. This is becuase there is simply no credible response to this other than to acknowledge it as an issue that is causing concenr for Canadians. If there was at least an acknowledgement, it would be worth the time to hear out their other opinions.

Perhaps, but I would venture to guess that even a less experienced contender from any party could at least say that they at least had an interest to travel to somewhere other that Mexico and that they actually did so. Harper clearly has shown very little interest to begin with and would have a much longer way to go to learn and gain any credability. Inexperience is somewhat worrisome. Inexperience combined with a historical lack of interest to begin with is I think very telling. Thats a good point. Martin is running heavily on his 'leadership ability.' Anything short of a majority Liberal government (next to hell freezing over in my most recent list of unlikely events) will cost him his job though. How many people do you think would be voting for a Liberal government without Martin at the helm? What if Ignatieff or God forbid the Trudeau kid led the party (not saying thats likely, don't worry)? The inexperience would be there too.

At this time, foreign policy, international trade and international relations are more key to Canada than most times in our recent history. We must get this right. There are some major shifts in economic power underway and there needs to be careful, strategic and most of all, knoweldgeable and experienced navigation of these seas. We can end up with 5 internal priorities perfectly nailed but without nailing the external and global pieces, they will be very ineffective in the long run for Canada. I myself am concerned. But that won't change my vote (and I vote directly for Harper), like I've said, I'll take inexperience over ignorance. Martin isn't a good foreign leader, I don't know why anyone would take him over Harper. Harper sounds way more professional, concise and educated. Martin sounds emotional, defensive and brash. Harper would stand against the US on things like softwood lumber and BSE. Martin would stand against the US with anti-American attacks when politically convienient. Remember, Martin also supported Missile Defense and going to Iraq. No one believes a word out of his mouth on the world stage.

So as assume that you acknowledge that Harper's lack of experience is an understandable concern.

The most important thing to note about responses like this is that ultimately it shows that there is an complete acceptance of the issue raised about Harper. There is clearly no defence and it is a completely understandable reaction. Look, this is not intended as a personal insult to Harper - just a recognition that a there are some key criteria for the job, and he is missing them. Most Canadians know the importance of having experience - especially in foreign affairs. If you were hiring someone for a job and a large part of that job function included closing international trade deals and defining foreign policy.... having practically zero experience would be a very big concern. Hiring a PM is no different. >

These are understandable reactions under the circumstances and predictable attempts for divert or minimize the issue can be expected from Harper die hard fans. This latest piece of information just underscores that there is a serious concern among many Canadians about the level of inexperience of Harper. It is a matter of great importance when considering who to vote for and expecially in this age where global awareness and competency is critical. . Better a man who's inexperienced on the world stage than a man who's proven he's a weak and ineffective leader. I notice you didn't respond to my previous message, Mr Discourse. Are you unwilling, unable, or still trying to locate the appropriate Liberal Party pamphlets? -k

A question was posed on TV to Harper about his foreign policy experience ( CBC Your Turn ). The question was framed in the context of dealing with other leaders who are vastly more experienced than he. What Harper acknowledged about his inexperience was even more concerning than previously thought. When asked about his foreign policy experience. Harper agreed that he has very little. When asked if he has even travelled internationally. His response was not much.... but... that he has been to Mexico. In this day and age, it is critical that our PM have some experience in areas like foreign trade, international affairs and thre G8 summit. This is a serious gap folks.

#6. Harper's inexperience - exposed on TV tonight. I knew Harper was inexperienced, but my jaw dropped when he was asked by the viewer on 'Your Turn' tonight about his foreign policy experience. His answer: Very little. When asked if he ever even travelled? Not much.... "but I have been to Mexico" Said Harper. This is worthy of a separate topic.... but underscores a major concern and another reason why Harper is a poor choice for PM. He will likely not do well for Canada at the G8 summit.

OK - I have addressed each and every one of Kimmy's points below. You say you want reasonable discourse, but you haven't responded to any of the replies you've gotten. That doesn't sound like you're here for "reasonable discourse", it sounds like you're just here to proselytize. Answer: Be clear please about the replies you are referring to. I welcome the counter points and have responded to many already. You criticize Harper for advocating involvement in Iraq, but Martin did the same. How is Martin an improvement? Answer: I do not agree at all that Martin and Harper had the same response to that situation. You praise Martin's management of our relations on the international stage, but Martin has worsened our relationship with our most important ally and trading partner. How smart is that? Answer: Everyone knows that we have been consistently given the finger by our largest trading partner in spite of the fact that we were both diplomatic and polite for the longest time. We showed enormous patience and yet each time we called out how our trading 'partner' was screwing us we again, got the finger. In spite of this the majority of Canadians can appreciate that the current administration is not necessarily representative of all Americans, and we still offer the hand of friendship. That says a lot. No leader of Canada, absolutely none, should just go along with this arrogant and insulting behavior without making a firm stand. That is the smart thing to do. That is the right thing to do and it shows enormous patience that it took so long to let those currently running the show with now in the US, in no uncertain terms, that their behavior is wrong and we will not put up with it. It is those arrogant people who are currently running the show in the US that worsened the relationship not us. Now in the past, Harper has indicated that he would prefer to have Canada act liek a puppy dog that just goes along with whatever our big neighbor wants. That is not the kind of leader we need. You talk about disunity in the Conservative party, but ignore the fact that the Liberals are now openly fighting. You ignore the fact that Martin's own party members have already begun campaigning to replace him. Why would Canadians even consider voting for a guy who's a LAME DUCK before he's even elected? Answer: Now it is you who is not addressing the point that was raised. Bear in mind that pointing to another political party for comparison is simply avoiding the issue. You talk about Martin's capable and experienced leadership, but presently it doesn't look like Martin would be capable of leading a sing-along at band-camp. Is a guy who can't even keep his own campaign under control really somebody who should be running the country? Answer: I agree that the perception is that the campaign looks less organized. Look, it is nothing to me what you think of Martin but anyone can throw out loose analogies. That is very easy to do. When I referred to reasonable intelligent discourse, I meant utilizing intelligent points and arguments ... not pathetic methaphores . If a point is worth making and the case is strong enough, it should not need to be be exaggerated. You accused Harper of causing instability to the country? There's no bigger threat to our stability than Quebec separatism, and the Liberals are incapable of addressing it. Answer: That is your opinion. I disagree completly. You accuse Harper of inventing gimmick policies on the fly? Name one. And then address the most glaring example of a gimmick-policy invented on the fly of the election, Martin's spur-of-the-moment revelation that he'd revoke the notwithstanding clause. Answer: Intelligent discourse does not mean providing a set of instruction for how the other person must respond. I will name one glaring example. On an interview about the campaign policies, Happer said ... and this is an exact quote: ".. we have introduced some policies in this campaign, and we will probably throw in a couple more before the campaign ends". Those words 'throw in' are very telling. I do not know for sure yet which ones were thrown in but a good indication is one that has broad ramifications that were not fully thought through. As much as I love the idea of avoiding capital gains.. there is increasing awareness that the ramifications of setting the rules, managing, monitoring and implementing this are huge in terms of costs and probably a nightmare for CCRA. You talk about Harper just pointing fingers and criticizing and having no vision of his own? Absurd. The Conservatives have articulated their policies and their vision day after day after day in this election, while the Liberals have done almost nothing except attack Harper. Answer: If there is one point I will agree needed to be much better articulated it is this one. I am sure Harper has a vision but I do not get a good sense that it is as well though out as it should be. Also - I truly beleive that Harper has spend more time on the election strategy than on a vision for Canada. But you don't really have a response to any of that, do you. You'll just keep on churning out the same stuff, cross-posting it to different forums, deep in denial of the fact that your guy is a weak lame-duck leader who doesn't even have the backing of his own party anymore, in denial of the fact that the Liberals have driven this country to the brink of a unity crisis. -k

Apologies - was not meaning to come across as ignoring the rebuttle. I thought I already posted this response but here it is again. The primary reason for these posts is to raise awareness and engage in discusisons about Harper as a leader and not to defend the liberals. Addressing Kimmy's rebuttle to #1.: "What instability? What crisis? The only crisis was of the Liberal party itself. If you are claiming national unity was at stake, consider that replacing Paul Martin as prime minister might be the most important action Canadians could take towards resolving that issue. If you're talking about the loonie dipping a few cents at the international currency markets and so forth, get real. We have a parliamentary system that allows elections to be forced when the prime minister has lost the confidence to govern. Quite clearly Paul Martin had done so, and parliament was well within its right to exercise that power. Forcing an election is not of itself "instability". It's a natural occurence in our parliamentary system." My Response: Harper's actions last May showed that he badly wanted to size upon a great political opportunity. His actions showed that he believed could get into power by using the sponsorship scandal... even if meant creating additional more instability for Canada at the time. Things were bad enough and we certainly did not need any additional instability in our Government but his actions showed that he was willing to take it to the brink regardless of the ramifications to our economy, our currency or anything else. During the days when he brought everything to a halt in parliament to try to take the government down, the Canadian dollar was affected and it would have likely have turned worse had he succeeded. This would have had very negative unnecessary ramifications. Many eyes across the world were watching this carefully and foreign investors were getting jittery. It was a stupid move and a bad time and resulted in absolutely nothing positive for Canada. Whatever his motives, his ultimate actions were definitely NOT in Canada's best interest and nothing good could have occurred in the short term even if he had succeeded. It does show the lengths Harper was willing to go and would indicate that it was more intended to prove a political point and win back his election loss last time around. It seemed like he and his top aides were so engrossed in trying to take advantage of the situation that they were completely oblivious to the effect it was having. Rest assured that the business world was watching carefully and not oblivious at all. This was the turning point in many people's mind about Harper. On top of his willingness to risk getting Canada involved in Iraq for the wrong reason, Harper was now willing to also sacrifice the economy unnecessarily. This is why we must prevent him from becoming the prime minister. There is no room for these kinds of erroneous decisions and in this day and age of global markets there is no mercy for Governments who screw up their economy. As it turned out we did managed (as expected) to get through to the planned election time just fine. This also further underscores the point that his timing was completely inappropriate. It was a failed attempt to seize upon a political opportunity. Even people within his own party did not support the way that he approached it. Doing the right thing for Canada means putting the best interest of Canada ahead of your own political interests. Harper can certainly point the finger at others but he has shown by his own actions that when it comes to the crunch, he can make very poor judgments and make potentially dangerous decisions. quote name='August1991' date='Jan 19 2006, 12:46 AM' post='89517'] Email, your post above offered absolutely no rebuttal to Kimmy's excellent posts that appear here and here. It is clear that you post on this forum because you want to defend the Liberal Party. You should understand that unless you respond to others' posts, you appear to be hiding something. If you don't answer others' posts, you are hurting your cause and you would be better to not post at all.

Quote from previuos post: That agenda is, and has been since WW2, to ensure that they and their elite a) stay in power and get rich doing so." I rest my case in the point about acute cynicism and how it affects one's ability to accept other opposing opinions. That previous post is a wonderful example and thank you for the illustration.[/b] So in the previous response there was a magnificent effort to illustrate how much the author is opposed to Martin and the Liberals. That is super clear and we get it..... Really... we do. A HUGE giveaway that points to a lack of clear thinking is when someone chooses to reference 60 years of politics and then make generalized statements about everything else today in that context. All the liberals, for all time are this… all conservatives are that, etc. everyone who even thinks of supporting the liberals are in this bucket, otherwise they are that. You are either left or right and so on. If only life … and politics were that simple. There are great number of caring folks who are involved in the conservative party and who really care about Canada. They are all unique individuals, have various views on various topics and decided to align with a particular party. That does not make them all like Harper (and thank goodness for that). It is a shame that Harper is their leader because they would not have to deal with all this concern otherwise. The same thing goes for NDP, Liberals and even the Bloc. No single party has a monopoly on good people or good ideas. No single party is, or will ever be, immune to bad people or bad ideas. Over time every single major party has had its share of experiencing the damage caused by a few selfish corrupt individuals. As we have seen lately, even Harper has had to openly acknowledge this reality and drop a candidate right in the middle of a campaign. Ultimately though, it is the leader that has the biggest effect on the direction and perception of a party. The 5 points in this thread are just a few examples that encapsulate common concerns about Harper. What is most telling and underscores the validity of these concerns is what happens when someone raises a point about the way that Harper shows how he consistently chooses his own political ambitions over the best interests of Canada. Almost without exception, the ONLY response that the majority of die hard Harper supporters can muster is to point to someone else and claim they are worse. That is a sign that there is a degree of acceptance of the criticism. The excuse is that well, at least Harper is not as bad as this other person. We need a leader who is prepared to do the right thing when the chips are down. We do not need to elect a seriously flawed leader with a history of bad choices just because there is an appetite for change. Change is good when there is a good alternative. Layton is actually pretty impressive but again there are serious concerns about a severe lack of experience within the party. Martin is passionate about Canada, he is an exceptional economist and he is truly trying to overcome the massive damage from a serous scandal. He is an very easy target but I must put at least some stock into the Gomery report that spent 8 months going through every grueling detail in a very public forum. What Gomery, the lawyers and the investigators came back with after spending over 8 months of their lives is more than most people on this discussion board would ever even have time to read. While there is always a question, their findings are good enough for me. Their findings certainly hold more credibility than some of exaggerated claims on this or any other discussion board. Finally... yes, if another die hard supporter of Harper tries to level similar accusations of this being a plant because they d o not happen to agree, I will absolutely reuse portions of this post when and where as appropriate.

Nop. Not a liberal insider, not paid and not put up to posting opinions. I am a just a regular Canadian and for this election I am determined to share these concerns as one who has watched Harper and his actions long before this election campaign started. This topic is about valid concerns on many peoples minds and it is appropriate here or any political discussion board. While the discussion thread may take different forms, the starting point intentionally the same. To save time (and fingers) cut and paste is sometimes appropriate. Most reasonable discussion board participants will understand that. Whether or not you are prepared to have a reasonable discourse without resorting to accusations that any opposing opinion is a plant, is of course totally up to you. There are plenty who can articulate their arguments well and have engaged a good debate. Yet these 5 points have withstood a lot of prodding and poking. There are a great many people who are as vehemently opposed to Harper and I am. They are not plants. They care about the future of Canada. I give credit to Harper for pulling off a great campaign ... However he is not fooling me and these posts are intended to ensure that he has less opportunity to fool others.

For those who have chosen to downplay Canada and our accomplishments in this thread, here is what is behind the assertion that we are respected in the world... We are one of the few industrialized nations that has managed to dramatically reduce dept and get the economic house in order. In this global climate, other governments very much respect that accomplishment. We had a leadership at the time (including some opposition leaders) that were capable of seeing beyond the moment to asses the ramification to Canada of blindly following the US into the Iraq mess. Unfortunatley Harper was not among them and chose to push for our involvement which was a bad choice. We have been involved in peace keeping and have made tremendous contributions when disasters occur. We are there and visible in a positive way across the world. We have been quite successful on the international front in terms of some of out foreign policy directions. Whether you are prepared to accept it or not, there is a great deal of respect for Canada because we did not blindly follow Bush into the Iraq mess. Many in the US are now vehemently against the deception and the invasion and there is extreme backlash against Bush and others. Somehow our leaders withstood the enormous pressures at that time, saw the warning signals, and stood our ground in spite of the risk of not making Bush happy. The best leaders can look beyond the present election and get beyond naval gazing. When you compare Harper with Martin ... Harper spends his time pointing fingers and looking for opportunities to lure voters to get his party elected... not much vision beyond that. Martin spends much more time with vision and is passionate about the opportunities for Canada.

Long thread and time to summarize why we must prevent Harper from becoming the leader of our fine Country.... His actions have shown that he cares more about getting his party into power than the best interests of Canada. His choices show that he would be a very bad leader for Canada and would take our country in the wrong direction. He has demonstrated a type of political opportunism that is at the expense of the best interests of Canada's. He points the finger at others claiming to be pure and ethical. Yet his under his leadership, his own party's actions show that he is willing to play just the same political games that he claims others are guilty of. Here are some examples to support these statements. 1. Back in May 2005 Harper and his team saw an opportunity to get into power by jumping on the sponsorship scandal. He and his team brought parliament to a virtual standstill for many days and created more instability for our country by attempting to topple the Government when an election had already been announced. Even if he believed that he would win, this type of instability is very bad for any country and the world perception of Canada. He failed - and rightly so. This is not the right way to get into power and a good leader would not have exacerbated the situation the way he did. It is just one example of the kind of choices that Harper makes and it shows he cares about his own party's interest over the well being of Canada. There is no question that the sponsorship scandal has had a negative impact on public confidence. Harper's choice however, was to make matters worse at a time when we needed all parties to do the right thing for Canada. The right thing would be to do everything possible to maintain political stability and keep parliamentary business going until the election. 2. Harper pressed very hard to have Canada send troops to Iraq. This was clear during his statements in questions period at the time. I would like to see CTV or CBC replay the coverage of those question period speeches from Harper. He and his spokespeople can try to deny it but it was very clear that if he had been in power, we would be very involved in the Iraq mess. Harper showed that he was very keen to have us follow the Bush administration into Iraq without UN support regardless of the consequences and this shows the type of poor choices that Harper can make. Furthermore, even now he is not willing to admit that it was a mistake. Another sign that he is a bad choice for a leader. 3. Harper and his party have decided to use GST gimic and poorly thought out tax schemes to try to convince people to vote for them. They have clearly put a lot of thought and planning into the election strategy but what is very worrisome is that they have not fully thought out or calculated the costs or ramifications to Canada of their promises. Proof of this is when he said in an interview that he may 'throw in a couple more campaign policies' before the campaign ends. This indicates that they are whipping up ideas to lure voters. Major policies should be well thought out and thoroughly analyzed... not made up on the fly and thrown in for good measure to try and get elected. 4. With all the internal focus on merging of the ex-Reform /Alliance/ Conservative party, this is really a relatively newly formed party coming out of a great deal of inner turmoil. I believe that there are many caring folks within this new Conservative party that do not at all agree with the direction that Harper and the top aides are taking. We saw witness of at least one member who stood up and made that clear by crossing the floor. We have seen very scary examples in other countries of what can happen when the wrong leader is elected. It can take years to recover from the decisions and mistakes made. Bush had some very clever PR people to write speeches for him that made him look very good on camera. Harper has very some very good PR people. Still, nothing can overcome the truth of his actions and decisions and that is ultimately what we must go by. Finally - it is too simplistic and foolish for anyone to make broad sweeping claims that absolutely every members of a particular party is either corrupt or perfect. That is absolute nonsense. There are extremely competent and decent people working hard in all political parties. There are always some who are not up to scratch. For sure there are unfortunately those few who are corrupt. That can be stated about any party as we look back over history. For even as Harper has pointing fingers and claiming that his party was so absolutely pure and ethical, a 'not so perfect' apple showed up in his very own party. Do we need to go back in time and look at previous Conservative parties who had their share of scandal? No party is exempt. I believe that the conservatives will eventually find a better leader and get a better strategy but right now they are following Harper and that is a poor choice for their party and for our country. Whatever can be said about the current government, Canada is in an exremely strong position and we are well respected in the world. On the Iraq situation we stood out ground in spite of immense pressure and we are respected for that. 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. 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. Whoever you vote for, I respectfully submit this to urge others who care about Canada that we must NOT allow Harper and the conservatives get into power in 2006.

OK we shall see. Hey it's not a hockey game by the way... but good for you for enjoying the fiesty race in any case. One good thing that I hope we can all agree on is that the Bloc leader came off weak .. I think he may lose votes this time around ... whoever it goes to, that would be a good thing for Canada. I just love the negative effect Harper has on Canada, namely gaining in the polls with full momentum. Go Harper, Go!! Time to send the Liberals to pasture to pay for their sins of theft.

The problem with Harper is that he plays the most obvious political games and does so with compete disregard for the effect it has on Canada. Yet - and this is what really turns people off... he claims to be so ethical and pure. If he were smart enough to do it without it being so completely obvious to most of us, then one could at least we coule give him a few marks for being clever .. but the sad fact is that many people see right through it. Besides finger pointing and his dangerous political opportunism ... Harper has made very little contribution t oanything much... Layton did at least focus on accomplishing something while in oppostion. All Haper has been doimg is trying to sieze upon a political opportunity and as per the first post, he has had only negative impact for Canada.

There has been a point made on various threads that we need inexperience because the Liberals have been in too long. I believe that this needs to be addressed in the context of this topic. A little inexperience and fresh eyes are good... Greens, NDP and yes even some of the newer Liberal candidats can provide that if that is all you really want. Too much inexperience in one party in not good and couple that with the fact that the Conservatives now are still a relatively new entity having merged with of a previous entity (reform / Alliance) who representated a very different set of beliefs in many ways. They are still settling out what the party really is. The currnet Conservatives have not had enough longevity and are made up of a lot of inexperienced members (according to the post above). Top that with a leader who is also inexperienced. Whatever we believe about the current Government, running a country is tough and takes a lot of experience. Make no mistake about that. When it is lacking, as it clearlty is, with a leader liek Harper, there is a huge price to pay as unnecessary mistakes are made. Again - this point is not intended as any disrespect to those poeple in that party who really work hard and care about Canada sa I do..It is just that we cannot have it all based on inexperienced just to prove a point that a change is needed. Furthermore, as per the previous points in the thread, Harper has shown he is not inly inexperienced, but is capable of making really bad judgement for critial issues.

Perhaps I misunderstood the threads of discussion on harper's day care plan. Look back in time. Every party has had its share of corruption and scandal. To say that every single member of a particular party is either corrupt or perfectly pure is just too general. IT doesn't make sense. There are decent hard working and honest people in every party... there are also a few who just do not cut it ...and yes - every party has had it's share of scandal. The Copnservative is not immune to that and what really turned many of us off is that Harper and others have tried to make out that that they are so absolutely pure and honest, and yet their very own actions show they are tending to lean towards the very same politcal games they accuse others of. Do we need to recall the prevous governments that had scandals and that happen to be Conservative?? Does that mean that every single member of every following Conservative party is also corrupt?. The truth is that no one party is immune adn for any party to claim that their own name has never been tarnished says a lot about the leader. In this case Harper and it is why he loses credability.. This is exactly the whole point. Parents having choices...and not being dictated to by the government how to raise their children! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some choice when one of the options isn't there. You can have any colour of Model-T as long as it's black. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> eh?

Well - clearly Harper's Day care plan is not sitting well with many moms... another reason not to pick him as leader. Have you ever noticed the way that election ads are run in the US. Always very viscous and always attacking their opponents with negative and exaggerated statements. With his first shot across the bow, Harper shows yet again that he would like to see Canada to be more like the US. I say let's be proud of what we have, stay with our Canadian values and let's have political ads that have something constructive to say about why we should vote for someone. Harper again loses huge amounts of credability using this immature approach. This is the action of a bitter desperate politician who is trying to win back a loss. It illusrates that Harper cabn act very unprofressional and that would be reason #9 why he should never be PM. This type of approach shows he is willing to say anything just to try and get elected...the very same type of behaviour that he is accusing others of, while hypicrotically claiming to be so pure and ethical. This is exactly the whole point. Parents having choices...and not being dictated to by the government how to raise their children! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some choice when one of the options isn't there. You can have any colour of Model-T as long as it's black. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> eh?