j44

I think Mulcair has clearly become better at holding his anger back and I'm sure he will continue to improve and if he wins he can let it loose in QP as therapy. I don't get all this 'the Conservatives want Mulcair to win.' Where is this coming from? who in the party is saying it? and couldn't it just be spin? I can't see them wanting to face Mulcair instead of Nash or Topp etc. Can anyone really say that the Conservatives would rather face Mulcair instead of Topp or Nash? No way. Or Dewar? He hasn't even preformed well in the English part of the debates. As much as I like Cullen I see Mulcair as a better leader. I liked Cullen from the start but he missed a few chances in the Winnipeg debate to hit back when (I forget who) attacked about the co-operation with the Liberals. They were calling him out when he said the NDP worked with the Liberals in the house and in the coalition attempt by saying that that was different because his plan would involve co-operation on the ground. He had a few chances to say that the party shouldn't work in that top-down manner or something along those lines and he didn't say it. It thought it was a missed opportunity. I also think the Conservatives would be a little concerned with a NDP from Quebec bringing their numbers back up in the province. It would seem to me that with Mulcair in there that would help hold the fort in Quebec and allow them to win in other parts of the country. Although I obviously could be wrong I really can't see Mulcair being the top choice for the conservatives. I dont doubt that they think he is beatable but that is different from him being their first choice. I would also like some more thoughts on his vulnerabilities other than his temper and the fact that he was a Quebec Liberal. As much as people may disagree with Cullen's proposal he has used that and his performances to be a top name in the party now. Not many knew who he was before all this proposal talk.

I have issues but it is not because I found that amusing. And it wasn't so much just the spelling it was the totally different meaning of Lennon vs. Lenin. And no to both questions. I'd bet CPAC's site will have it. I don't doubt that he is smart but if they put him in as leader they will be making the same mistake the Liberals did the last two times around. Both leaders were smart but obviously not leaders.

John Lennonist? Mulcair is still the top guy in the debates as far as I'm concerned. He won again today. Cullen held his own. Dewar not so much. Topp needs a personality. If i didn't know any better I would think Ashton was trying to help Mulcair but constantly teeing up softball questions for him.

Not that any take down is likely to happen (at least not anytime soon) but the back benchers wont be the ones to do it. And Peter MacKay IMO has zero chance of taking over. He can be a terrible politician (and usually is). He couldn't even hold the PC's together and once the merger was over he let Harper take over and sideline him again and again and he is always in the news for the wrong reasons. And Baird has some things about him that some Conservatives would not.....appreciate. I lol'd. If my timing is right does this mean you think he will win two more elections? Moore really impresses me in interviews. He manages to come off well in interviews on CBC regarding cutting the CBC. Considering his background I'm less impressed with Alexander. But my impression might be lower because he is the one that always has to try to explain the F-35 fiasco. I assume he's next in line for Baird's job (or MacKay's when Harper is done with him).

I don't doubt the luck but it wasn't all luck as Martin insinuates.

Criticism of his policies and tactics. Not everything else. I expected a slant not a full tilt.

I'd rather this not turn into ad hominem attacks on Harper, his party, L. Martin or the liberal press (at least not before I get some insights by readers of the book) but I would like to know from readers if they thought it was a reasonable depiction of Harper. I'm only about 50 pages in but so far I find the book to be a non-stop attack on Harper. There has been a line here or there that could pass as a compliment or an acknowledgment of a skill or something but they seem rare to me. I expected a little more balance but maybe I should have known better. There is a lot of insight from former staffers and MPs regarding Harper's temper or his controlling personality but it borders on gossip at times. Don't get me wrong I enjoy the inside stories but my guess is that Martin did some picking and choosing and mostly used the negative remarks from former insiders. The attacks can be subtle at times and in a sense that makes them less obvious and harsh but Martin even at one point suggests that while most luck is made by the benefactor Harper didn't really make any of his luck. This to me comes across as giving him no credit for any of his election victories or any of his successes for that matter. Although I do acknowledge that has has been almost as lucky as Obama has been in his races so far. I would like to know what others thought of the book and Martin's portrayal. So, who read it?

:angry:

Can someone start an Abortion, contraception, pro-life/pro-choice thread in another section?

Yeah I don't think Santorum held up in the hot seat. But while I agree that Romney has always been the guy to beat, judging from the way the race has played out so far it is still too unpredictable. I wouldn't be totally surprised if Newt gets another wind. The anti-Romney wing are strong. And other than his other obvious faults it could be relatively easy for Obama to turn Romney's apparent good qualities (business experience, governing Mass.) into negatives.

Didnt the Obama administration increase oil and gas exploration? And can't part of the increase in gas prices be attributed to increased demand/improving economy. And Keystone wouldn't have had any immediate affect on gas prices.

To say Santorum has no organization is pushing it. He clearly has some. And there is a big difference between getting in now and getting in a few weeks before the election.

In your opinion which NDP paties aren't moderate/centrist? Same question for PC parties.

How would anyone come up with the apparatus to run for President within a few weeks? It is not like it can be done secretly and the GOP nominee would already be chosen. That would effectively split the conservative vote.

1. I fixed your post. lol 2. I can't think of a better for a junior senator to help his presidential aspirations than by being VP.

Do you think Christie is still interested? He seemed pretty sure he didnt want the top job. I would think Romney would look at Rubio before Christie. It would help fire up the base/Tea Party and make him stronger in Florida.

Since I don't follow other provinces politics that much I would be interested to hear some thoughts on whether or not most provincial parties not only govern from the middle but campaign from the middle. I would argue that despite their campaign rhetoric, most federal parties do or would (NDP) govern from the middle or at least close to the middle.

Given that Obama is most likely to win if Santorum is his opponent or regardless of the GOP nominee? Obama looks good now but that can change very quickly if the economy starts to slide. Although it might have to slide a lot for Santorum to win. I think the real conundrum for the GOP (that is the Romney backing establishment) and Romney himself is how he attacks Santorum. A big part of the Romney playbook is hit them hard. When an opponent shows signs of life the Romney camp and his Super PACs throw everything they have at them. I don't think Romney can attack Santorum on social issues because that will turn the base against him (more). I'm skeptical how well the other attacks will stick.

This. Barring a scandal. I think Rae will hold on as the L leader but this could happen if someone else comes out as leader. Are you saying China is the world's #1 now? or am I misreading this? Also, there is no doubt in my mind that the John Manley types in the L party will go to the Cons if the L and NDP join but I would bet everything I own that there will be no merger. MAYBE collaboration but there is no reason for either party to want that now. They want power to themselves and the L are on their way back to having a strong party again and the NDP aren't going to give up their status now and reduce their power. The Cons dont seem to be as far right fiscally as I thought they would be but that might change depending on how the new budget looks. Fiscally they aren't too far off from past L governments and it is not like Liberals have never slashed budgets. I don't see much resemblance between the Liberals and Cons on social issues though. The liberals might talk tough on crime but that is what voters want and doing otherwise looks terrible. I agree that they would never put that omnibus crime bill forward. I think the Cons mostly won by positioning themselves as the best managers of the economy (and of course shredding new Liberal leaders). Saying that everything the Cons have in their agenda is supported by their mandate is like saying most Canadians agree with everything they say, which is obviously not the case. I don't think a lot of voters went to the polls with Jets on their mind. Except for voters in the Manitoba election.

They have done some good things IMO (as mentioned increasing some low income assistance and making improvements to health care etc) and while they may have capped student debt they unfroze tuition rates and cut university funding (doing these last two things at once will surely spike tuition). They did cut small business tax (by 1% if I’m not mistaken) but they raised every other tax. I don’t know the intricacies of the finance dept. and I’m not Rhodes Scholar (like the minister) but I have mixed feelings about putting the brake on spending and increasing taxes in this manner at this time. The NS economy isn’t exactly booming and with federal spending cuts coming down the pipe I would think our economy will start to shrink. I think we’ve only added a few 100 jobs in the last year. Like I said I have mixed feelings about the policies so I’m glad other people have some opinions. I don’t however give this government any real credit for getting the ship building contract. Even the federal opposition parties praised the fact that the process was open, transparent and not political (ie it wasn’t political influence but the ability of the ship yards that influenced the result) and from what I understand there were three contenders for the contract: one in BC, one in NS and one in Quebec and the Quebec shipyard is practically bankrupt, or is, and is way behind on other contracts. So, it would seem obvious that BC and NS would get the contacts. And not that I’m surprised but they have also rammed through a few unfriendly to businesses union bills that seem more for political purposes and in the end will probably hinder our not so stable economy. I think NB is up there with Ont. in terms of economic basket cases so saying NS is better than NB doesn’t make me sleep better at night.

I would like to hear some opinions on the performance of the current Dexter government. I'm from NS and I find the media's political coverage lacking to say the least so I would like to open it up to any and all opinions. I find it very odd that our NDP finance minister has turned out to be somewhat of a fiscal conservative. Some say the most conservative in decades.

This is a very good point. I do disagree a little with him being a true social democrat. He is obviously a member of a SD party but it doesnt seem to me that he really holds left wing views or at least not SD left wing. I haven't really followed his career up to this point so I could be way off here but he seems to move more and more to the center (and even a little right of center on some issues) and I'm not quite sure how that will play in Quebec (and isn't holding Quebec one of their biggest priorities?) or even among the NDP base. On top of that he won't appeal to the separatist vote either. I'm not saying I disagree with his stances or his tactics/strategy but I would like to hear your (and others) thoughts on this. PS. I think having the parties headed by Harper, Rae and Mulcair would make for very interesting times. Agree with them or not I think they are all formidable opponents.

I would like to hear some thoughts on the broader issue of what direction the new leader could or will take the party. It seems to me that Mulcair and Cullen would be more toward the center and Topp, Nash and Dewar would pretty much keep the party is it’s current space or move it to the left. I would like to know what people think the NDP base at the convention will think with regard to the party position. Will they be willing to accept a more centrist type leader like Mulcair? How much of him being from Quebec count? Will they go with the more big labour types like Nash and Topp? My thoughts on the candidates... Mulcair impressed me more when I saw him in person although a little anger came out when he was attacked. I don’t know if people will see this as him being the most able to attack and stand up to Harper or if people will see it as a negative. Cullen impressed me the most from day one. IMO he comes across as intelligent, quick witted and even statesmanlike and charismatic. Although I doubt he will win but his working with the Liberals idea has garnered him a lot of attention. Dewar doesn’t impress me but he seems to have some good organization. I thought well of Topp at the start but his pretty much total lack of personality turned me pretty quick. He also doesn’t seem to believe what he is saying and is just spitting out party lines. Nash I can take or leave. She seems to spit the party lines and doesn’t really impress me. That might be from what I have seen of her on tv interviews. Her arguments never really seemed to be solid in my opinion. I agree that Singh is a bit impresseive but pretty much sticks to the I’m a small business man and I can help the economy and I have a plan for pharmacare.