daniel

I believe I've read a thread like this before in which the thread starter tried to paint all lefties as using company time to post.

Although in this present campaign, Harper is presenting himself as a moderate with his daily announcements of Liberal policies, he isn't a person any different from what he was six months ago or ten years ago. If he were, he'd be alienating his support base or are we to believe that the people who once whole-heartedly believed in privatization, extreme budget cuts, and cancellation of social programs of the Common Sense Revolution are now embracing the Liberal-like spending policies - something they've always been opposed to until now.

It's hard to imagine any space opening in a pro-profit centre at a meagre $100/month. No, wait. It'll be quite easy imagining any dive to literally dump children since Harper won't require any national standards. Some choice. Real spaces currently demand $1000/month.

For once we agree. This is where the Liberal and NDP plans finally address what parents have been calling out for decades - regulated daycare with high quality standards - so that parents can have real daycare choices. At $1200/year, the Conservative plan hardly opens up another spot for a parent on the waiting list. It just puts more money into parents who are already staying at home and it hardly would be enough to convince a parent to quit his/her job to stay at home.

That's nationally including Quebec where the Conservatives barely registers. Outside of Quebec, the Conservatives and Liberals are both at 37% (a few days ago). Real battle grounds are BC (all three neck and neck) and Ontario (Liberals and Conservatives neck and neck).

Uh...why the hell would the leader of a political party in the midst of an election campaign tell voters to vote for a party other than his own, especially when the parties in question stand on the opposite end of the political spectrum? It's clear you think the sun shines out of Harper's hindquarters, but think about it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can see the myths are continuing to be perpetuated right here in this thread. I've also noticed in the past several years of reading forums, the people most eager to accuse are usually the worst offenders themselves of exactly the same accusations.

Yes, I've discussed this several times in other threads. 1) it's the perception that the NDP is associated with the notorious side of socialism internationally. People connect the NDP with Communism, Marxism, & Pol Pot. 2) the myth that an NDP government automatically equates to bad government when, in fact, provincially, the NDP has the same track record as both the Liberals and PC governments, including fiscal management.

Ok, all you Conservatives out there, start gloating. I'm predicting trouble ahead for the Liberals based on the many elections I've paid attention to in the past 25 years. 1) 1985 Ontario election. the incumbent Tory (with a new leader) strategy was to continue to sleep-walk their way to victory. They reject any calls for debate as Liberal leader walks around with a podium all ready to go. Sound familiar? Alot of people have already resigned the fact that the Liberals are going to win a minority and Martin has rejected a 1-1 debate with Duceppe. 2)Repeat the same message over and over and (no matter how bad the message really is) eventually people will believe you. Ontario (again) Harris kept on with this taxfighter campaign for two elections and finally won. 3) Tone down the anger. Ontario (again), during Harris' re-election bid, the Liberals tried to connect with all the angry people of Ontario. In 2003, they turned off the anger but drove home the message "Choose Change" with a whole host of promises. They won. Looking familiar? If the Conservatives win, look out for the surprise deficit the previous government had hidden all these years. All the more reason to start breaking their promises (the good ones that is). The bad ones will be kept and the deficit will start going up again. 4) On your marks: Before the fall of the Liberal government, the Conservatives had built up a war chest of donations and already had nominated candidates for all or most of the ridings. In 1984, the John Turner's Liberal campaign still had equipment in their boxes with only three weeks to go to election day. 5) Staff goof-ups and off the cuff remarks. Ontario (again), as Eves was realizing he was losing ground fast, the insults and controversial remarks started to fly: Reptilian Kitten Eater, Dalton's pointy head, etc. A sign the incumbent party is losing control. What do we hear? The latest is a Liberal campaign strategist e-mailing an off the cuff remark to his Conservative counter-part which included some name calling they love to hear come from their oppositions. Not looking good.

Until the Greens win a seat, they can't participate in any debate.

But looking back at what their party platform did for Ontario during the Harris& Eves Days,their cause is one we simply can not afford.

Actually it's either: a vote for the NDP= a vote for the common people, the municipalities and for the environment; a vote for the Liberals = a vote for the natural ruling party of Canada; a vote for the Bloc = a vote for separation; a vote for the Conservatives = a vote for the common sense revolution, Reaganonics, privatization, militarization, Americanization and further the rich-poor disparity. Or: a vote for the NDP= a vote to keep the Conservatives out of power a vote for the Liberals = a vote to keep the Conservatives out of power; a vote for the Bloc = a vote to keep the Conservatives out of power; a vote for the Conservatives = a vote for the power hungry. Take your pick.

I could swear that ever since the election was called Harper received the majority of the airtime both with CTV and CBC. Well, it's probably because of Harper's annoucements of childcare, GST, and now Quebec. Well, I just started to take notes this past weekend and report: Saturday Dec 17 11PM - CTV The coverage was Harper, Harper, Layton, Harper, Martin, Harper. And finally a story at the Liberal HQ with only the reporter but none of Martin. Can't report on CBC because of Hockey Night in Canada. Monday Dec 19 11PM CBC - On Quebec & the constitution:Harper 95s, Martin 15s, Duceppe 5s. Other stories: Martin 25s at a furniture factory, Layton 40s about a coalition with the Conservatives. Media Bias? So far it doesn't appear so for the governing party that's for sure. Well it's only been two days of recording keeping so it's not scientific or conclusive.

I find it hard to believe that Harper would throw away everything he's stood for in the past 18 years only to suddenly appear like a true moderate in the last six months. Could it be: 1) he has finally matured and accepted Canada's diversity (in opinion as well as culture)?; or 2) he's learned to stoop as low as the Liberals and say anything to get elected?; or 3) is he just a flip-flopper?; or 4) he has no intention of keeping any of his feel-good promises. I laughed when he made his opening statement during the Leaders Debate in English. When he said to the viewers to "Ask yourself which party would be accountable for the ordinary Canadian...." my immediate response was the NDP. It was Harper who opposed to the Budget Amendment which supplied funding for municipalities and the homeless.

Spoiling a ballot might send a message but to the winner, it hardly prompts a call for a solution. If, say, only one legitimate ballot was counted in my riding, guess what, the winner of my riding will claim the seat. And there's nothing the opponents can do even if they demand a recount.

As I've stated in another place and time, I don't look forward to having Prime Minister Harper campaigning for the "No" side in the next Quebec Referendum on separation. It'll be hard for him to sound sincere when he tries to convince Quebecer why they should stay in Canada.

People have been defending him by re-stating his original position from what we all knew as wanting to send troops to Iraq to just giving the US moral support. Well, it's easy to say anything in opposition because that's his job. But if he were to be Prime Minister, he's going to have to make real decisions without any hindsight to backtrack his position (note Bush's latest admission of intelligence errors). Eventhough Chretien's "a proof is a proof" speech wasn't well worded, the message was clear and the evidence of WMDs, the link to Al-Qaeda/911 just wasn't convincing. In the end Chretien made the right decision in light of the proof presented. I disagree. The media has already been reporting on Harper's past only because it was Harper's recent statements that prompted the appropriate research. If the media on its own accord just starts to dig out Harper's past, they'll be accused of media-bias harder than they are already now. Harper already has overwhelming coverage and Layton, almost none. The only coverage the Liberals get is the gaffes and the controversies. If I had the time, I would clock the coverage each party gets in a one-week period.

Actually, the Liberals usually have a technique of sitting on the fence and then after alot of feedback from public sentiment, come out with a decision satisfactory to the majority - usually. I cite, the Bank Mergers - but the door is still open; of course, the BMD rejection was when Martin found himself in the minority government position with a lot of public opposition to it.

Not being a Martin fan, I'd like to ask if any of the four party leaders is NOT a flip-flopper. And isn't there some truth to Mulroney's statement that (I'm citing Mulroney???) anybody who never changes his mind is a fool?

Who's avoiding or diverting the issue? Not me. My statement was the NDP governments have the same track record as Liberals and PCs. And I have shown that for every bad NDP government presented to me, I have presented similarly bad Liberal and PC governments to prove my point. So the perception or statement that (only) the NDP is fiscally irresponsible is mythical as I had shown with real examples. And speaking of avoidance, you never replied to the Devine Government or Alberta's deficit.

Who's making the accusations? Not me. Just stating that the NDP as fiscally irresponsible is a myth supported by the track records of Liberal and PC governments (that others had provided).

Correction: mismanagement under the Socreds. Guess why they no longer exist? And guess what Rae inherited? BTW Alberta never had an NDP government. So what was that deficit cutting all about? Not limited to Liberals, I see. Running dry?

Well, he did get a head start when his father lined him up with a job in Maurice Strong's company.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good examples of PC/Socred run provinces and deficits under Bennett/Van Der Zalm, Devine, & Harris/Eves.