Ricki Bobbi

It's obvious you have no respect for the rules of the forum or any poster who doesn't share your hatred for Harper. But do you honestly expect me to do what you order me to do? Control issues methinks. Your disinformation is painful. Luntz is not Bush's pollster. Take a look at Luntz's Web site. Don't you think a Republican who had the sitting President as a client would put that on his client list? Harper has given many press conferences and is leading the country the way he said he would in the election. Did Chretien ever have a campaign plank about paying off campaign *volunteers* with the sponsorship program? It isn't my error for pointing out your desrespectul attitude to the PM or your repeated violations of the rules of the forum.

Looking south shows the simplicity of your argument. Let's look in detail. Iraq is a lot bigger issue than Afghanistan. Tougher to defend the reasons for being there and U.S. casualties are much, much higher than are Canadian casualties in Afghanistan. I am one of those people who favour involvement in Afghanistan and oppose it in Iraq. There were much different rationale used in entering both those conflicts. *If* things fall well for the Democrats they will take back the House. Although there is a good piece in this week's Time magazine how the DCCC may not have enough cash to win the electoral battle. It would take an almost perfect set of circumstances for them to win the Senate. The U.S. economy isn't as strong as Canada's, and there is a lot of resentment over Katrina. Don't put too much into anti-war sentiment alone affecting elections.

Right or wrong a lot of politics is perception. Ambrose had not been perceived as a strong Environment Minister. All the ministers received a lot of crap from the Liberals. It is all speculation at this point. But Ambrose's job is, fairly, on the line for the plan they come out with in the coming weeks.

Her job is definitely on the line in this one. She is seen in the media as one of the less successful Cabinet Ministers to date. Ambrose Link. She isn't the most popular person around the cabinet table. So we will have to see. My gut tells me that Harper won't give her a lot of latitude on the file. If he isn't happy with the first draft he'll essentially take the file out of her hands and then keep her as a placeholder minister until the next election.

I am not dismissing Afghanistan as an issue. But your contention that Canadians are withholding majority support *primarily* because of Aghanistan is unfounded. I just don't think it would be THE deciding factor for as many voters as you appear to think and haven't seen any support otherwise. If you look at that link to all the post-election polls I posted a while back only 2 of the 20 plus polls put Harper at over 40%. Those were too early in the mandate for Harper to have asked Canadians to go back to the voting booth again. So he hasn't been at a majority level of support really at any time, before or after the extension of the mission in Afghanistan. l think if Harper can use the fall to make progress on patient wait times, the fiscal imbalance and the environment he will be well positioned to win a majority. Even if things in Afghanistan are rougly the same as they are now. *If* they take a big turn for the worse than things would change.

That's the mission Rona Ambrose has been given. We'll have to see if she can pull it off. But I think Harper recognizes how important this issue is to winning his cherished majority so I think he will ensure it happens.

Now I am really confused. You just posted this CTV poll (link) that states only 46% of Canadians supported our role in Afghanistan in May. Earlier you posted this poll (link) that said in August 57% of Canadians supported our role in Afghanistan in August. Does that mean support for the mission is going up? Now I know you are focusing way too much on Afghanistan. The Conservatives would not be facing a massive majority minus this one issue. While Harper has done well as PM he hasn't done that well.

There is the rub. Kyoto is not a good thing for Canadians. Can we come up with a better plan? Definitely. Will we? Remains to be seen. But anybody who calls the Prime Minister *pathetic* for actually asking the Canadian people what they want to see in an environmental plan is too blinded by partisanship to actually give credit, or blame, where it is due.

Because it is disresctful and blatantly breaks the rules of the board. I'm only taking offence with you *being mean* to Harper. Other posters don't do it to the extent that you do. For some reason you have gotten a free pass on the rules of the board, as your fellow posters have only sometimes stood up to your behaviour...

Sure you will Gerry. Something tells me no matter what Harper does or the action he takes it won't be enough for you. btw, what do you think of Brian Mulroney's record on the environment?

I get that, but I don't see why it will be an issue in the next election. I'd like you to explain a little further. To be fair I'll explain why I don't think it will be an issue. Like ever party in Canada the Conservatives have a ceiling on support they could receive. In a *perfect* scenario for them they might hit 50% of the vote again like they did in 1984, but very unlikely. The people who oppose Afghanistan are left of centre voters who won't support the party *under any circumstances*. Those are voters the Greens, Liberals and New Democrats are fighting over. If it becomes an issue in the next election, fine so be it. Just don't expect the Conservatives to be driving the issue. The Conservatives would have the 55% of the public who still support the mission. (your numbers) while the other three can fight over the rest. The Conservatives got 10 seats with a little under 25% of the vote in Janaury. Are you really saying that there is more than 75% opposition to Afghanistan in Quebec? I know you think Aghanistan plays against them in Quebec. But why? Support? Analysis? Anything other than repeating the same lines over and over and over.

But you aren't attacking Harper personally? Right...

Those are just the rules of the board. They don't apply to you, yet you are getting into a snit for somebody daring to point them out? Why not find a board where you won't be breaking the rules to spew your vitirol about Harper?

So which of the last *several* elections were you referring to? You do realize that Reagan pummelled Carter on a multitiude of issues and the lanslide loss proves it. If you don't want snide remarks don't put snide questions in your posts. quid pro quo

So now you are calling Harper's behaviour idiotic nonsense ... but you aren't attacking him. Right. What about the CBC apology for that story a couple weeks back. Terribly unprofessional behaviour. Here's a link in case you forgot the story.

What? Of the last five U.S. presidential elections in only one was foreign policy a major issue in the election. 1988 - Bush wins as the American people strive to give Reagan a third term. Iran-Contra was an issue but only enough to give Dukakis two sttes. 1992 - "It's the economy stupid." That meant the domestic economy. 1996 - Billy Boy wins again. 2000 - Florida? Dimpled chads? 2004 - The one and only election of the five where foreign policy played a major role.

I'm not sure if Luntz gets how different Canadian politics is than American, but so be it. He's a brilliant man. But like many geniuses he's a bit of a social retard. Sorta burned his bridges at the national level with the Republicans, i.e. the Bush clan. Things do change though. If he backs the right horse in the nomination he could be back on top again.

So you are faulting him for accomplishing what he said he would because he didn't offer a lot???

If you just want to attack Harper, don't expect to do it here unchallenged. Go to babble, or complain to the moderator yourself. Your language is extremely disrespectful to our Prime Minister. You already posted this issue on another thread. Me thinks you broke this rule of the forum.

Yeah, scary Conservatives. Imagine a government actually asking the people what they want in a policy rather than the benevolent paternalism of Liberal governments.

Hmmm, they are formulating a new environmental to replace Kyoto. They have said that since they took power and they promised a new policy this fall. Oh no, they are asking the people what they think of an issue as part of the process of formulating a policy on it. My what a terrible style of governing. Better to use those funds in an elaborate kickback scheme to reward party workers. *cough cough* Adscam.

Calling the Prime Minister pathetic. Good stuff gerry. Yet again playing by a different set of rules.

Good post. Completely agreed on all fronts. The Conservatives are getting themselves ready for an election if they lose a vote and are forced into an election before their preferred timeline. All things considered they will go in the spring. Expect the budget to be not your typical "election budget" - i.e. full of goodies and giveaways. Rather it will further definte the Conservatives vision of how Canada should be governed and let the people decide.

Yes, Welcome Borg. Geoffrey I'd say the Liberals haven't been centrist since the late 60s

Fair enough, but the most recent SES Research and Decima polls both put the Conservatives level of support higher than it was in the last election. Not enough for a dougle-digit increase in their seats won in Ontario, but they would at least pick up some.