peter_puck

Probably not, but there are lots of conservatives who favor the legalization of drugs. There are many members of congress who have come out to favor it AFTER they left office. The National review (important conservative publication) has come out in favor as well. http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

I missed the bullshit thing....but I would be pissed too..it was kind of a low blow.

It appeared to me to be a slight edge for McCain. I don't think its enough to move him ahead though I think he would have done better if the debate stuck to what it was supposed to be about- foreign policy. Economics seem to hurt him. There is no way he can untie himself to the record of Bush, no matter what he does.

Can you find me the spot where it says that ? This sort of reminds me of Animal Farm with Harper up on the ladder adding your little fine print. Harper broke his own law, plain and simple. Admit it and move on. That is much safer than trying to BS your way out. The Ontario premier (whose name I can't spell at the moment) went back on his not taxes and got elected. Chretian promised to cut the GST, he changed his mind...and got elected. Breaking a promise is one thing, insulting people's intelligence is another. and your point is ? It has always been like that. Harper said no, we are going to be responsible and prevent governments from pulling the plug for political gain We are going to be different. But when Harper had a change to reap that gain, what did he do ? and BTW, the government was working. The only breakdowns were when Conservatives tried to disrupt ethics probes into their own conduct.

I think right now, anyone who voted for the "Bush package" would do so only because they were looking to collect unemployment. Any Republican who voted for the "Bush package" would find their vote featured in an attack ad. "Senator Johnson voted for the president's massive bailout for Wall street Even though they see why it is needed, it is suicide to vote for it. The reasons behind the bailout are complex and the voting public does not deal with complex (see the carbon tax). "big tax" or "bailout for fatcats" are much easier concepts

This is really a shame in a way. She is a bright lady- she is no Dan Quayle. If they had given her a few months warning she could have been somewhat prepared. She made a great splash, but now they have to hide her away from the media. If they had a qualified female vice-presidential candidate who could go on the view, it would have been a killer. But is it obvious from the interview that they had a good reason for their policy of not letting her speak in unscriped forums.

Silly me, I thought it was the president who did the budget. Let me guess, it is still the Bush tax cuts, but its the Democratic Congress massive deficit ? The Republicans controlled congress and they rubber stamped everything he did. He was the leader of their party. It is like saying Saddam was not really responsible for anything, it was the soldiers that shot people. The Republican controlled congress managed to oppose Clinton spending measures, thus resulting in much of the surpluses of the 90's. If they had with Bush, we would not be in this problem. But blaming the foot soldiers for not stopping the general is bad logic. This scandal is caused by all sorts of laws. I know the partisans are now going back in the books to find some vague way to blame this on Clinton, but its not the point. Even if Clinton was somehow 100 percent responsible, nobody knew at the time what would happen. Bush knew what was going on, he just didn't stop it. and Bush did ...... I was refering to mortgage fraud. People lying about their income. Mortgage brokers lying to their clients. How many people got in trouble for that. But talking about Enron indictments. You think that even scratched the surface? How many companies "beat by a penny" before that mess. How many do now ? No, it is a global problem with no easy solution. The point is, Ontario did not react by giving everyone a massive tax break with borrowed money and tell them everything would be okay becaus the tax cuts would actually balance the budget. Ontario, which faces the additional challenge of the collapsing US dollar has fared a lot better than similar US states. Compare Michigan to Ontario. Compare Detroit to Toronto. Last year, the Ontario budget was balanced.

Biden stuck his foot in his mouth...so what. He does it all the time, thats the way he talks. He does interviews with anyone who will listen. Who knows how many gaffes Palin would if she talked in an unscripted forum. Palin is not being critized because of ther clothes (at least not bby serious people). She is "roasted" because she is a piece of fluff. She is the least qualified vice-presidential candidate in history. Her sole qualification is that she is a female. She certainly is a good speaker, intelligent and has the potential to be a good presidential candiate some day, but right now she is not ready. She does not know enough, and her juvenile mistakes in Alaska are not old enough.

What was the leader of the free world doing while congress was sleep at the wheel ? This problem may have bi-paritsan roots, but the reason it go so big was that it was the only thing holding the Bush economy together. He let this get out of control. He faced a recession from the Clinton era dot com crash and globalization - none of which were his fault. But instead of letting the economy sort itself out as it should (and possibly not get a 2nd term because of it), he decided he would cheat. He rode the great lie of the housing bubble to victory. He borrowed a bazillion dollars and pretended it was not really borrowing because his tax cuts would actually lower the deficit in a few years. He turned the dollar into a green peso to hide a stock market collapes. This was not something that snuck up on us, like Al Queda. "Mr Housing Bubble" T-shirts came out years ago. Jokes about "liar loans" have gotten old. This was a game of old maid. Bush just figured it would be McCain or Obama that would get stuck with the old maid. When they got stuck with the old maid, it would be their lack of true conservative vision that would be to blame. He could have cracked down on this sort of stuff. Actually made sure people went to jail for committing crimes. Forced banks to require people be able to pay back the loan they get, etc. But that would mean the everyone would see the true state of the economy (hey!, we are not actually making anything anymore). Jobs going to China is a pretty abstract concept when your house goes up $50K a year.

A debate against Obama on your strength when you are down in the polls ? I don't think he wants to weasel out of that debate. Besides, he was only asking to pospone it. His problem is this economic thing is killing him and he needed to do something.

I think those statistics have a lot to do with reporting and definitions. I have walked through Detroit and I have walked through Toronto - there is no comparison at all. If you report that a local thug attacked you in parts of Detroit, you would be dead before the trial. People don't report crimes in certain neighbourhoods over there There is also a different cultural attitude and different application of laws. I don't really see a pat on the butt being prosecuted in the US, at least not in a poor neighbourhood. I know there was controversy in Canada years back when they came up with a crazy high figure for the percentage of Canadian women had been sexually assaulted. It was because of the definition of sexual assault. It included many things you would not think of when hearing "sexual assault". I am not saying what the proper definition should be, just that the definitions might be different. Crime rates correlate with demographics. Young people commit a lot crimes. We have fewer young people now, and their are more police officers per person to deal with them.

I think both approaches are wrong. Somehow I don't think someone who is a psychopath will decide to give up his life of drug dealing bling for an extra $100 a month on his welfare cheque. On the other hand, you are right, the US approach is a disaster. My policy would be this. 1) reduce the number of people in prison for minor, non-violent drug offenses. For every street level pusher you put in there, the money will lure the next one. Put them in a work camp for a shorter period or something. If they don't cooperate or run away, then jail them. 2) Fill the newly vacant cells with violent offenders. 3) Take the money you save and invest it in drug treatment programs. (its drug money that fuels most of this anyways)

I don't agree. What about the case in Ontario where the minister was caught on tape saying "we need to create a crisis in education". He basically wanted people to lie and spin things for political purposes As for public safetly, I would tend to think a minister who was thinking more about the political cost rather than the human costs is news. I would want to know the minister is a jerk. I vote conservative, (or I have in the past), but if I were in this guys ridding, I wouldn't. I could also add that this governments treatment of whistleblowers worries me. An environment where people are afraid to talk about legitimate concerns can give rise to fraud.

I don't see how this is a firestorm at all. Harper did not know about, once he found out he did what he could. He is not reponsible for the actions of every civil servent, much less everyone who has had a contract with the federal government. It may be a small story, but it is not a political one.

I will second that.

They were getting work done. For a minority government, they were getting a lot of work done. The sole reason this election happened is because the Conservatives thought it would be better to go now because the US troubles could spread to Canada and the money was running out.

I don't think buyout is the right word, and no, it does not transform the US into a communist country. If it were a communist country, the people who created and profited from this whole debacle would be stung from lamposts. Instead they are living in giant mansions and complaining about their taxes. In a Communist country the government nationalize the means of wealth production. The US just nationalizes bad debt and bad ideas(you think they would have learned the last time)

Could you miss a bigger clue that perhaps you should do a little vetting before signing the papers for a candidate

This is not true. If you look at many of the alternative (ie sponsored by people who don't want change at all) plans they show a few token cuts for right now and some wonderfull new technology coming around. The enviromental movement wants cuts now, knowing that the "hydrogen economy" is coming no time soon. Enviromentalist want you to get rid of that crappy water heater, insulate your house, get effecient light bulbs, etc. You support a position (continued stoopid energy use) that requires a rapid advancement in energy production technology. We are going to run out of cheap oil (and even expensive). You must be assuming that something is going to replace it. I am not. I hope we develop these wonderful new technologies, but I am hedging my bet now by conserving energy.

It is not about Tasers or the alleged insubordination of the person who got fired. It is about the alleged inappropriate behavior of the Palin, her family and her office. She appears to have used her position to get back at he former brother-in-law. If this officer should have been fired, it was the job of his supperiors to do it. Palin should have recused herself from the issue (since it was so minor, in terms of a State, she should have stayed out entirely). Instead her office, her husband and she pressured an official to fire this guy. A judge had already told the family earlier to stop trying to get this guy fired. Not the biggest crime ever commited by a politician (especially since this guy is not really a sympathetic character). But none the less she should not have done it. Using your government job to settle a personal grudge is "small town cheap".

Both men clearly misspoke. I don't think anyone believes Obama thinks there are 57 states (he clearly meant 47). I am a little bit concerned how McCain reacted to it, but still he misspoke. Unless these thing rise to the Dan Qualye level (where he was not only misspeaking but revealing clear ignorance) then it should be a non-story,

Flaherty used some clever accounting tricks as well. By private sector standards, he did not balance every deficit until Harper resigned. (selling a highway would not bring you out of a deficit in the private sector.

This sort of juevenile crap goes on all the time, that is why is doesn't get reported. Elements of the BQ have done this sort of thing for years and it doesn't really make the national press (except maybe the mocking of Chretian's disability). It is not really news. Nobody really cares to read about it. On the other hand, you have a Minister faced with a public health crisis where people are dying and he makes crude jokes and appears more interested in the political fallout. That is news. You then have the Prime Minister appear to shift the blame to the whistleblowers. Again, thats news. Maybe not important news, but it is emotional news.

Not really. As someone here mentioned, the official costs are somewhere between 300 to 400 million. I can throw in all sorts of other costs associated with an election that would push it to the 500 million dollar mark. The cost of the extra security provided by local police forces, the cost of having at least a thousand people leave their day jobs for a month or so. The cost of all those people that take advantage of the "getting time off to vote" law (esp in unionized shops). Even the gas to go vote could be thrown in there. I could go on, and the real cost to everybody would likely be close to 500 million or over. Okay, then something would be acccomplished. The problem is that almost all non-partisan commentators are not saying this is going to happen. Certainly none of them would have expected a majority when the decision was made and the election was called. Personally I really don't think it will happen. Even if Harper hits 40%, he has two problems. The first is that his support is distributed poorly. He will get huge victories in some Alberta contests, but they will only garner him the same one seat that the Liberals get for winning a seat by twenty votes in Ontario. The Liberals do not have anywhere near the number of lopsided victories the Conservatives do, and this means their vote is much more effecient. To put it another way, the Liberals would win more seats with 38 percent of the vote than the Conservatives would with 40. (and no, this was not a scientific survey, it just illustrates a point) The second problem is, that faced with the threat of a Conservative majority, there will be a certain amount of strategic voting. Given a choice between making a useless vote for the Greens, or preventing a Conservative majority, many of the Greens will vote Liberal or NDP. Many in the NDP would go Liberal (or vis versa).

I am not saying that the 400 million would bankrupt the country, it is the pork-barrell spending that will bankrupt the country. Have you looked at all the money the Conservatives has spent lately ? Have you look at all the money the Liberals (and Conservatives) are promising to spend ? The 400 million will be a drop in the bucket. Almost every election, government gets bigger.