Visionseeker

Obama is blowing smoke. He knows full well that the fidgety Senate will decide and that such a decision well not be favorable to Canadian interests in the near future. He's simply telling us what we want to hear with no capacity to make it happen.

Uh, no. A law already on the books is not subject to presidential veto. Besides, Obama isn't interested in helping his fellow Dems in 2010 by exporting jobs. The clause will stay until at least 2011.

It won't survive the Senate. Healthcare has eaten-up the window. There's no way the Dem dominated Senate goes into 2010 with legislation promoting the "exporting of jobs". The clause will remain until the US sees an economic up-swing. If that sounds like the beatings shall continue until morale improves, well, thems the facts.

Now this is just plain dumb: Sex offender project in limbo amid funding flap Right. That's because we all know how sex offenders can't be cured, so why bother? What's this? And it's being applied elsewhere? Hum, an effective prevention of recidivism, made in Canada and now copied elsewhere, yet unworthy of support from federal coffers. In Con eyes it's simply better to release the perps without treatment so that they can claim another victim; then the Tories can get "tough" on them. Frankly, this mindset makes me sick. In fairness: But that sounds like damage control to me. The NCPC doesn't tell and organization that they've been rejected unless the answer has come down from the minister or his surrogate. Makes me wonder what other stupid decisions the NCPC might shed some light on. The Cons don't believe in crime prevention. It denies them victims to exploit politically.

Government advertising is supposed to be controlled, yet it wasn't in this instance, I wonder why? I mean, how could this happen? The Cons are desperate and are breaking every rule that stands in their way.

IMO, this is AdScam Tory style: cut out the bag men and just bilk the taxpayers $54 million to spout party propaganda. Frankly, I want the Conservative party to reimburse the treasury for this campaign. Anything less and the party should be persued for fraud. Maybe the RCMP could announce just such an investigation smack-dab in the middle of an election campaign?

Lets polish this post here. So Canada boycotted Ahmadinejad's speech, as did a number of other countries. Good move. I think few could legitimately criticize it. But I will. Sure a boycott sends a message. But I think the Conservatives lost a symbolic opportunity here. We all know that the environment file is not one that incites excitement among the tory ranks and, given the opportunity to speak of anything else, they'd gladly oblige. They just lost one such opportunity. Why? Because Cannon doesn't speak until Friday. Had Cannon sat through the whole address, he could've used that fact to downplay any environmental comments in order to address a much higher conern: Ahmadinejad's insanity and illigitimacy. He could've proded and turned his anti-semitism diatribe and compared his statements to his deeds against his own people. He could've suggested that some in the room are understandably required to stick to the business of the environment and play polite, and keep silent on Iran's domestic troubles and then declared that Canada will not be silent nor polite to a man who butchers his young. He could've said much for which his country, Iranian reformists and the free world could be proud. But the Conservatives don't work towards a higher purpose, they work towards an agenda. And that is why I could never support the party.

But what have you done for me lately? Here's the thing: Layton has been on his high horse and supporting the Tories just knock him off. Now it's time for each leader to show their mettle. Yours will be found wanting. Screwing young people has never been a progressive trait, and Jack cut them loose just to avoid an election.

Tell that to Jack's new friend Steve. I see one leader maligning socialists and another goading the same for their leader's willingness to collaborate with the maligner. No one in Liberal circles seem to be crapping on NDP supporters or suggesting that they're un-Canadian. Rather they seem to be suggesting that their leadership be held accountable. It's called keeping the powder dry. And in as much as it frustrates you or others, it will likely pay more dividends to roll it out on a campaign than it would to lay it out when the Tories can use the government's communication arm to counter it. Perhaps you could re-write this in either official language so that I might make some sense of it. You think John McCain lost because of his age!? I'll hazard to guess that your political observations are a bit stunted at irrelevant.

And good for him. He made an easy vote while knowing that it was safe to do so. No, I suspect that they acknowledge that the persuadable public has a short memory, is unconcerned about the specific issue or can understand the gamesmanship that takes place under a minority. In other words, their platform will likely call for the overturning of this nefarious provision that they were forced into in order to give the Conservatives a chance to govern. "Poison pill", interesting that you should see it that way. Don't you think the public does, or are they stupid? Maybe EI reform is the best Tory legislation, but it's still bad. Yes, because it falls short of what the Liberals expect. Have you for a moment thought about the number of young workers, straddled with student debt and the trails of starting out on their own that won't be eligible? What's that? Been working only 6 years since finishing university? Sorry chum, Jack & Gilles & Steve (or rather the nasty law firm sounding: Harper, Duceppe and Layton) have decided that YOU SUCK! and are therefore ineligible for their generosity. What's that? You live in a region with high cyclical unemployment? YOU SUCK TOO! You're making EI reform out like some kind of wonderfully progressive legislation that helps many Canadians in need; while it does little more than - by Tory calculations - give enough to keep the CONS in power. The NDP may have voted 79 times against this government, but when it counted, they turned chicken. Spare me the drivel of the NDP being the progressive voice in this country: the only progressing they're concerned about is their own careers - like any politician.

Forgive me if I read too much into your post, but I take it as an admission that you are a committed NDP partisan; in other words, your mind is made-up, nothing will change it. You're not the voter such flinging appeals to. Rather, soft NDP votes that dislike the supposed hypocrisy or even committed socialists who would put their dislike of the Tories ahead of their party are the targets. It's called chipping: pulling support from a competing party or, at a minimum, reducing their participation rate through demoralization. You are insulted, I understand that. But some prior or apt supporters of the NDP might see it differently. As for Dion stealing money from Canadians, I hope you have evidence to back-up such allegations. Slander is not a badge of honour. Hum, does the NDP support ageism as official policy, or is this just your personal opinion? In an age where nearly 1 in 5 Canadians and 1 in 4 of active voters are over 55 years of age, something tells me that age is a losing card to play in politics. But you are entitled to your opinion.

It's one thing to stand for one's principles, it's entirely another to precipitate both financial and electoral suicide. The Liberals have been taking it the ribs elect orally for 4 years because they were organizationally imploding. Their collapse was caused by internal warfare that elevated personalities over principles and the retirement of too may of its stabilizing voices who might of help right the ship. A party on the downturn doesn't initiate elections if the can avoid it. The one thing we can say for certain is that Ignatieff's tough talk is a sign that he, at a minimum, no longer sees the party trending down. As to the NDP sticking to principles, good for them. But you have to be a little naive to think that they're doing so wasn't facilitated by the knowledge that the Liberals were weak and unable to pull the trigger. EI reform is nothing but a Tory tactic to throw a lifeline to the NDP and an electoral hammer to the Bloc. While the EI proposals are an improvement on the status quo, you and I both know that they fall well short of what truly needs to be delivered. Layton understands full well that he'll lose a good number of "borrowed" seats to the Liberals if an election were held today. His only hope is to stall long enough for polls to start worrying the Liberals. As for Duceppe, Harper has given the Bloc a strong campaign message to weaken Iggy's appeal at the eventual polls: "he voted against extending EI benefits, what man does that?" Layton is in a squeeze. He needs the Liberals to become election shy yet the only way that can be accomplished is for polls to threaten an equal or worse showing for the Liberals than last fall. But Layton "rolling over" to prop-up Harper hurts him in one of two ways: a) provides an opening to the Liberals or, b_) improves Tory numbers, embolden them further. I have observed politics for too long to be seduced by value voters. Yes, values play a role, but the deciding factor is what the public accepts as possible. An NDP government is not presently a legitimate possibility among a strong majority of Canadians. By default, the looming battle will be between the Liberals and the Tories. Under Dion, a Liberal government was not deemed possible, under Ignatieff, it takes on a distinct flavour of possibility and maybe even desirability.

In my experience, Liberals don't have a strong history of referring to the NDP and Bloc as socialists and separatists. As for recent uses of the terms, they strike me more as a sarcastic use of the Tories' labels to demonstrate the supposed hypocrisy on the part of all three of the Liberal's opponents. All in all, it's a witty little throw it back at everyone and it has shaped a minor narrative. But it will take much more than that to pull votes from all three parties (not to mention drawing from the greens). It's going to be fascinating watching the next election unfold. It's certainly premature to make any honest prediction about party standings, but even if the Liberals fail to win even a minority, Iggy will likely be the only leader to keep his job for more than a year after the vote.

There might be some modest improvement in Tory support in the short term for that very reason. But the longer the NDP and Bloc keep propping-up Harper's team, the more they run the risk of losing those in their own camps who really can't stand Harper. The longer Iggy gets to play Mr Principles, the more he's apt to win support from the left and federalist Quebeckers.

Me too. He had (has?) centre-right promise. I hope, for his sake, that he gets his life back in order.

You mean, like Canada?

Wow! The ignorance is strong in this one. Do some research Dancer. You'll find that there are some excellent pieces of historical works, backed up by archological findings, that reveal the multiplicity of African history. They were, and are, more than people preoccupied with goats.

The provinces were the source of the federal deficit to begin with, so it is a misnomer to suggest that anything was placed on their backs. Ottawa's fiscal headaches did not arise from federal spending on areas of its exclusive constitutional domain. Instead it was born from the 50/50 funding formula Pearson negotiated for the federal government's partnership with the provinces on matters of health, welfare and education. On the face of it, a 50/50 funding formula seemed fair if Ottawa was to engage itself in matters of provincial jurisdiction. But it would take fewer than 5 years before Ottawa was trying to renegotiate. Finding themselves with popular social programs bolstered by a matching fund in the form of the federal treasury, all provinces began to spend like crazy on anything and everything that could fall under the formula. The result was that federal transfers to the provinces grew at three, then four and eventually six times the rate of all other federal spending. Basically, the provinces were hijacking federal fiscal policy. In 78, Marc Lalonde came close to reaching a new deal with the provinces, but provincial elections changed some of the actors and other premiers smelled electoral weakness in the federal Liberals and figured they'd keep the cake and eat it too - at least until the next PM came knocking. Well, Clark wasn’t around long enough to change his clothes let alone policy. And when Trudeau returned his pre-occupation was understandably the constitution. Mulroney similarly ignored the problem until after he was done trying to re-re-patriate the constitution and made the first, albeit minor moves towards readjusting the funding formula. Fact is, until the early nineties, the deficit wasn’t a foremost concern to the average Canadian. That all changed shortly and dramatically after Chrétien came to power. Chrétien had not campaigned as the deficit fighter – Reform was raising the biggest stink over the issue of any party on the campaign trail. But almost immediately after assuming office, Chrétien watched as the public mood dramatically shifted. Deficits were suddenly bad in the public’s mind, and Ottawa had to do everything it could to bring debt under control. What countless federal ministers of finance were disinclined to tackle for its obvious political unpopularity had now suddenly become the fiscal cause celebre. Provincial ministries of finance scrambled to find a foil, but the debt to GDP ratio was a simple marker that most people could readily (mis)understand. The advantage was now in Ottawa’s hands after 20 years of provincial fiscal irresponsibility. But make no mistake, the provinces weren’t dumped on, they simply had their hands removed from Ottawa’s tap.

Oh so funny. Not. I have many hopes myself. None of them include a wish to see any part of our world face such a catastrophe. Only a terrorist would harbour such thoughts.

No scandal! I'll give you scandal: - a medical isotopes fiasco - once thought as sexy - now threatening the lives of thousands of Canadians - a derilict Department of Foreign Affairs that not only fails to help Canadians abroad, but actively assists in their wrongful prosecution and even execution - Khadr - presiding over the highest level of job losses in decades - presiding over the first negative balance of payments in decades - massive patronage appointments to the senate and other government bodies - a $50 billion dollar deficit from a finance minister who claimed we would not go into one less than a year ago And through it all, a non-existent list of accomplishments. I'm sure others can add to the list of shame above.

Turkey just bombed Greece: http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=46334 Oh the humanity!

DogOnPorch has officially lost the argument.

Well here's a telling quote from the article you cite: "The 58-year-old father of two has set himself against feminism by criticising couples who decline to have children and he is among the clerics who speak most strongly against attempts to remove signs of Christianity from public life." He's a zealot. Extremism as cited by an extremist is nothing more than pot calling kettle. I need a lot more proof of the said threat. But I'm quite confident about who is sickening.

Is it just me, or do others have a hard time taking anyone who calls him/herself Mr.Canada seriously? I mean, who voted him the title?

August, see Harris-Decima. I say rogue (Because noting Ipsos' Darrell Bricker's ties to the Conservative clan and CanWest's desperate need for a bailout would be to suggest a more sinister motive).