Ricki Bobbi

It's still too early for an election. Besides the Conservatives would have to make sure that Iggy wasn't the leader. Iggy supports the mission so an election with Iggy as leader and the mission as the major issue is a bad, bad strategic choice for the conservatives. GerryHatrick has asked many, many times if I work for the CPC. The answer is no. Nobody else has every asked me that question. Hmmmm, you are aware of the rules of one screen name per poster aren't you? I'll make you a deal Shakey. I'll go and join the troops in Afghanistan if you go and join the Taliban.

And the reason why they will stay in opposition for the next election at least.

Let's get back on topic. Best way to do deal with anti-Harper thread hijackers methinks. The Conservatives have spent far less on average per minister than their Liberal counterparts did. Goodale tried to attack them for this? Would have been far classier and true leadership to congratulate them on their frugality with Government money....

How was that a personal attack? Don't wory Gerry. The rules here don't apply to you, so you don't have to make up "personal attacks" to prevent yourself from being banned. Toews didn't confirm anything. You provided *zero* support for this false statement. Please quit spreading falsehoods about the Government. You will be taken to task every time you do it. If you don't like it then take it "someplace else." You are becoming increasingly isolated in your disdain for the Government. I guess it's better for you to vent here than going *postal* somewhere in the real world.

The Globe never claimed that Toews said it directly. No the CTV doesn't hate Toews, but you do. Please, when you claim that a Cabinet Minister has said something actually provide evidence that they said it. Like an actuall attributed quote. Seems like day by day you are becoming more and more isolated in your anti-Harper ism. Don't worry Gerry. After he wins a majority in the spring he'll probably serve till late 2010 than announce his resignation.

Uhhh, they did that with extending the mission.

There is no support for the *supposed* legislation other than some unnamed sources in a Globe story and the CTV stating that Toews said the legislation was in the works without an actual quote from Toews.

Is this the quote in which Toews *confirms* the supposed Defence of Religions Act? Could you *please* provide evdince that actually supports your statement that Toews *confirmed* that the Government will bring forward a Defence of Religions Act? Just because the CTV says he said it doesn't prove anything.

Terrible.

Got a source on that gerry? Probably not hey. Oh well. Public opinion is in favour of the mission in Afghanistan. Must be driving some people crazy. With this turn of events a majority in the spring is a distinct possibility.

Geoffrey come on. jdobbin brushed off the Conservative spending as "some ministers up, some down". That was a total partisan reaction. If you want to try and 'play fair' then truly do so. Where was jdobbin coming from in his original reaction? You really miss a few things about U.S. politics. The Liberals *always* play partisan games. Just as strongly as any American's do. They just do it while defending Canadian values i.e. LPC values. Jdobbin's response was overly partisan. So was Ralph Goodale's. To chastise only one side for partisanship is pretty weak. The Liberals have been able to stay in power for so long by playing partisan games while chastising others for doing the same thing. The Conservatives need to be viligant defending themselves against these attacks. Yes, jdobbin belittling the way our cabinet has spent far less per minister than the Liberals needs to be defended against. Do you really think jdobbin wasn't being partisan?

This could be part of the reason for the shift in public opinion. The above linked column is one of *two* columns in the Toronto Star today supporting the mission. Call me crazy, but if the Red Star is supporting military action then it is likely a majority of Canadians will support it. (Reason being that any right of centre voter will likely support the mission. The Star's opinion pages can swing centre and centre-left voters.)

Yeah. Ignoring those people, I have a question. What has caused the change? Could it be Iggy bring the clear front-runner in the Liberal leadership race? A positive benefit of a general belief that Harper is doing a good job? The overall ineffectiveness of the opposition parties? That the Canadian people do actually support the mission?

Kinda moving the goalposts, but so be it. Then you should go back to your earlier post pointing out how MacKay's expenses are up over Pettigrew's. (That's the one you shrugged off as some are up and some are down.) I take it you see that as a good thing that MacKay's expenses are up over Pettigrew's? More accuracy in reporting methinks.

Now you are saying all MPs should have to report every meal they eat at a restaurant? wtf? Hmmm, why would a minister who pays for his own meals raise eyebrows? He isn't except for the absolutely desperate Liberal supporters trying to make something out of this story when it is a total loser for them.

You've got to understand that the poster you are responding to sees himself as the supreme aribter of how real Canadians should act politically and judge things. Canadians are now supporting the mission. The *only* way for that to happen is some sort of unethical behaviour by Prime Minister Harper and his Government.

Just to be clear that is two up and twenty-four down. Yeah, good work at attempting to trivialize the trend that 92% of the cabinet are spending less than their Liberal presecessors. Never mind that the cabinet is smaller. I guess the Liberals really did think they were entitled to their entitlements. The story is good news for the Conservatives, and the Liberal reaction is just icing on the cake.

When it comes down to it none of us have a *right* to be here. Gerry has broken the rules many, many times. I have only pointed a small percentage of them out. I'm not necessarily getting wound up by him, but that doesn't necessarily mean I am going to back down from him. I would love to inult him and his behaviour the way he insults my behaviour, the Prime Minister and anybody connected with the Conservative Party of Canada. But the rules do apply to me. Lots of people ignore him. He acts as if he is free to break the rules at will. It just isn't fair. I have no problem calling him to task within the rules. Which I have been doing.

Manning definitely has an axe to grind against Harper. One of the most well-known quotes from that book is. "Stephen had difficultly accepting that there might be a few other people (not many, perhaps, but a few) who were as smart as he was with respect to policy and strategy." Hmmm, Harper was strategically smart enough to know the value of the leader speaking passable French and running a positive -issue-based campaign. Had Manning and his smarter-than-Harper advisors recognized these realities heading into the 1997 election they probably could have held the Liberals to a minority and we probably would have seen the last of Chretien by 98 or 99.

How dare the Conservatives treat the Government purse with respect and not waste money on ministerial meals. Why did Goodale even bother to comment? He would have looked a lot classier with a no comment or congratulating the Government on their fiscal mindedness.

Great. Why is this post in a Canadian politics forum?

Again, another example of how support for the mission *could* wane. But how the mission has been gaining support in recently. All that much more support for the Conservatives to win the next election ... an Iggy to win the leadership for that matter.

Dion has a shot, but he is far from the assured choice. Ignatieff still is the favourite but IMHO it is a toss-up between Kennedy and Dion if it comes down to a fight on the convention floor. Agreed Rae is the most dangerous to the Conservatives. In the short-term.

Wow, you will never, ever quit. I ignored your attacks for two weeks and the battle ended. Then you attacked me again. You clearly cannot rebut my arguments. But you can't stop without getting in the last word. So you use the ohh, so insightful "whatever". Good work Gerry. Symbolic of the intellectual stringency to which all your posts adhere.

You don't make the case for Harper being a wimp, and it is an insult. You never provided suppor for the Prime Minister's *dishonesty*. You *said* the legislation was a wate of money. You never provided any support for what you said. Any other baseless attacks on the PM?