Ricki Bobbi

Remember him for what you will. But Bay of Pigs was a major, major f*ckup. The Cuban Missile Crisis came a lot closer to nuclear war than necessary, in large part due to Kennedy's bravado. Kennedy went very slow on civil rights, played a big role in getting the U.S. into 'Nam and made a number of mistakes in office. Yet is remembered as a great leader. Poor Johnson did a lot to bring about civil rights, fought poverty with his Great Society program and did a lot to help education in the U.S. Unfortunately he was stuck with a real quagmire in 'Nam. Yet is thought of as a failed president. The great philosopher Jules Winnfield said it best "Personality goes a long way...."

People would care if somebody selected for a primarily *ceremonial* role used their power to block an election. Canada still is a democracy... Remember that's the scenario we are discussing here.

No party will fight the election on amending the constitution. The opposition would fight the election on the very real case that Jean's choice still signifies that the Liberals need to remain on the sidelines for their arrogant and terrible choice of GG. The Conservatives, Bloc and NDP all see the Liberals as their main opposition. That's how the issue will form. The Liberals could try and argue that a consitutional change is needed. The other parties will reply that it just takes a government that doesn't treat the choice of GG flippantly i.e. not the Liberals.

That's why Iggy is the Conservative's best chance to form a majority. His repeated gaffes have held him back from a stronger showing this weekend. Harper, Finely et. al will jump all over him during the campaign.

An *eloquent* leader puts a country on the map? Still waiting for that answer on social IQ...

Coupled with all parties but the Liberals attacking the party for their horribly unqualified choice for the role.

Iggy 31.0%, Rae 19.9% and Dion 19.5% are starting to separate from the pack. Although Kennedy 12.3% is impressively still holding onto double digits. Seems like a very interesting dynamic at work. Since *every* Liberal leadership convention has ended up with the first ballot leader winning the prize let's look at old PC conventions for how likely an ABIggy campaign is to be successful. The 1976 and 1983 Conservative conventions are the two examples where the first ballot leader didn't win. In 1976 Claude Wagner lead Mulroney 22.5% to 15% with Clark having 11.7% of the vote on the first ballot. After the first ballot all the red tories lent their support to Clark. Forced to drop off the final ballot Mulroney released his supporters. The majority went to Clark ... enough to put him over the top. Not really an ABWagner movement. 1983 was truly an anybody but Clark movement. Mulroney's *people* met with from all the other candidates representatives but one (presumably Crosbie's) to talk about an ABClark movement. Every candidate but Clark and Crosbie eventually supported Mulroney. Clark lead the first ballot 36% to 29% over Mulroney. Given that there would have to be a gang up similar to 1983 I suspect Iggy will win. At this point I think the most important battle is who finishes second, Dion or Rae. The surprise of the night will definitely be how well Kennedy is doing ... if his numbers hold. ETA Shows how little I know. The first story on the Globe Web site is making a big deal of how poorly Kennedy is doing in Quebec...

What exactly is social IQ? Or is that just some made up concept to try and quantify your disdain for Harper? Canada's not on the *map* because of Harper? Hmmm, strong performance at la francophonie, strengthening ties within NAFTA and a good speech given at the UN. What would Ignatieff do differently to put Canada on the map?

Wouldn't Jean trying to stop an election be a constitutional crisis? She definitely has the arrogance to believe that because she *technically* would have to power to try and thwart the will of the PM she *morally* has the power to do so as well. It would actually be a big plus for the CPC if Jean tried to thwart an election. She would necessarily turn to the Liberals. And they would probably try and accommodate her wishes. The *new* government would fall right away. An election forced and a defining issue born.

A delay in filing a report is bizarre and astounding? Wow, just a little hyperbole there.

It all depends on how they do it. If it is only a small part of a much larger plan, and Albertans see the manufacturing industry also being affected by the plan, then there won't be that many people pissed off. The thing that pissed Albertans off about the NEP is Alberta was being screwed to help Ontario. If it everybody is feeling pain over the issue we will be much more accomodating.

A *large* movement towards independence? Hmmm, the Western Canada Concept failed. Hmmm, the Separtion Party of Alberta managed 0.5% of the vote in the 2004 election. That movement's got to get a heck of a lot larger in a hurry. Maybe if they increse their vote total by 20 times they could elect one MLA.

to be replaced by?

Good point. It seems like the only thing the opposition can fight on is that Harper hasn't fulfilled the five priorities. i.e. patient wait times and fixing the fiscal imbalance. Both issues are so complex and murky it would be tough to use those as reasons to vote against the Conservatives.

As a fellow Albertan I have to take issue with your reasoning. Yes, Alberta is solidly conservative. We had two Liberal MPs for about 12 1/2 years. Anne MacLellan, who won her first election by less than a dozen votes IIRC and Kilgour, who used to have his heart in the right place but kinda lost it. Both of these people were elected as Liberals three times before the firewall letter and once afterwards. I don't think the 2001 firewall letter had much effect on the vote. The 2006 election was the first in almost 20 years that prevented the vote splitting (ie. between parties on the right) that allowed Maclellan and Kilgour to win. That being said, of course Albertans want change. We've wanted it since the days of Peter Lougheed. Albertans are generally happy with the Conservative Government. We should sweep again, but I can think of one riding that might be in risk. (In Alberta terms that is a riding we might win by less than 2,000 votes.) There isn't huge pressure on Harper to make drastic changes right away because there is no where for socons to go in the short term.

In some circles no matter what Harper does he's scary and evil. Such is the nature of democracy.

Because ...

Here is one. Link. Maybe I guessed too low. Does Joe have four or five more embarrasments for the party left in him?

I don't know if that is a known fact. At the time the story was that Clark didn't count properly and thought he could win without appealing to the Creditistes.

Same levels of support? The Conservatives are in slim majority territory now. Except for that brief blip right after the election they haven't been there for 13 years or so.

The last part of your post is a good argument for why Clark thought he could pass the budget. Not for wanting an election.

He no longer wants minority examples, it seems. Don't know what a majority example has to do with Harper's minority government. My bad, I misspoke when talking about minorities. Didn't see August's post. August, are you actually claiming that Clark engineered that loss thinking he could win big in the 1980 election? Clark's I'll govern as if I had a majority was ill-conceived and stupid but *no one* has suggested it was a ploy to force an early defeat of his Government. Do you have any support for Clark forcing the early election or is this phantom smile all the support you have? jdobbin, still waiting for your example from *any* Federal election.

You're the one who asked for *rational discussion* despite the numerous examples of your irrationality. By saying that Harper has "leveraged" the troops you have to cynically misread why Harper put the extension of the vote to Parliament. He put the vote to Parliament too prove the House's support for the mission. You still haven't answered the question. How would you have reacted if he had extended the mission *without* a vote in the House?

Rae *could* do a hell of a lot of damage in one term with a majority coalition. Don't see that happening though. I don't see how the Conservatives and the Bloc would lose enough seats for it to happen.

So you're saying you can't provide a Federal example of a party forcing an early election while in a majority and "paying for it". Thanks for providing the support. It takes a big man to admit a mistake