August1991

Those provincial breakdowns are almost meaningless. The margin of error is +/- 10% in the West.

All of the evidence says there will be a spring election, but it doesn't add up. Why would the Liberals call an election now in the middle of a scandal, when half the population doesn't want them and they're at 38% in the polls (ie. minority gov't)? Why not wait until the fall? In the summer, people forget politics and they'll forget this scandal. Chretien? Wasn't he a PM before? Gagliano? How do you pronounce that? [And I don't believe the Liberals are afraid of what new developments will come out. They know they can manage this.] But all the evidence is there that we'll have a vote in early June. Why? I suspect that Martin's ego wants it and that it's impossible to advise him otherwise. Martin thinks he really can do politics differently. The budget must have been conceived that way. Weird.

I noticed the same thing too, Willy. The key here is how Ontario votes - many Ontario voters, particularly younger ones, don't pay much attention to politics. Many perceive the Liberals as the natural governing party and answer such in a poll. In an election campaign, the situation is different. A lot will turn too on how Ontario voters perceive Harper. I suspect he is still seen by many as a fringe candidate. With that said, the facts are there. I thought the CPC would get a post-convention bounce.

Press release here: Ipsos Reid CTV G&M It was conducted 23 to 25 March, with 1000 sample size.

I got the same impression, MapleSyrup, when I heard Martin today. I suspect the internal polls on the budget reaction were good. Politicians of Martin's generation are envious of Trudeau's natural success in 1968. The lone guy who strides in and wins it. Chosen leader in April, elected in June. In another thread, there was a discussion of whether politicians are "strategic" or "reformers" or some such. IME, they are ambitious - and that's it. And most have extremely narrow interests - politics. No one gets there unless there is an all consuming desire to be the centre of attention. Conclusion? Martin wants a spring election, bad. And I have a sneaking suspicion that as soon as he calls it, he'll realize he's made a very bad decision.

BD, what do you mean when you say that? You may want to see this recent decision: Supreme Court Decision

This forum is a small society of about 10 posters. Maybe a democracy. Your posts raise controversy. We take a vote about whether to torch your house because of the nonsense you write. Torch your house? You obviously vote against, I abstain (your posts seem decent) but there are 8 votes in favour. Your house goes up in flames. You are in shock, I'm appalled. Why? Democracy means one person, one vote. But your house means much, much more to you than it does to the eight yahoos. For the eight, a torched house is a joke. For you, it's life. Shouldn't relative feelings be taken into account? Democratic government is a market where people can only vote "yes or no", there's no relative "maybe". Corporations, even big dominant ones, deal in markets where people can vote maybe by degree. Which is better? MH: This is not an argument. Am I wrong? I genuinely want to know what you think. I'm not trying to "win" this debate.

Balanced budget? Irrelevant. Think. Paul Martin has both a copy of your Visa card and your cheque book. (Afraid of the Internet? Paul Martin is the Canadian Government, and he's got both.) Now, does it matter whether Paul Martin uses your cheque book or your credit card to buy something? If he uses your Visa, you'll wisely pay the bill at the end of the month. (Martin's charges, you can't dispute.) So, what's the difference? None. IOW, when Paul Martin says he paid the national debt, should you be impressed? (He used your cheque book to pay your credit card bill and because of his finesse, he wants you to vote for him?) I'll listen to a PM when he says: "I'm not using your credit card nor your cheque book to buy anything."

What? Bow down to no one. Serious. Laughter, sorry, I'm off my chair...

Large, modern corporations, a law unto themselves because they dominate a market, are completely different from Mom-and-Pop stores, or "enterprise" as Adam Smith imagined it. Hence. Legitimate, democratic government, representative of the population, must intervene to ensure that these large, modern, profit-seeking corporations do not ignore the public interest. Do I understand you well, MH?

Take a break! All in good fun. I don't know you, you don't know me. If you can't laugh at life, yourself, in an anonymous setting -then, what's the point?

Relax? I didn't get you on the "overly". Hey, why not "very overly"? Kinda adds emphasis, no? Much, much better. Very overly awesome better. Is that rad, or what? 7-80? Relax.

Wrote an article? Let me edit - haphazardly - for fun. Tony Clement had a reputation as a know-it-all nerd, lacking in charisma. when used more than, oh, say, once, the phrase sticks out like Tony Clement in a group of cool people Assholish? I'll stop here. WTF? Assholish? Sorry, that's uglier than "the fact of the matter", "at that point in time", "irregardless" folded together in a mixed metaphor of a "spring roll knocked out of the park". Good point though, about Clement. Kennedy banished kitsch from his speeches. Trudeau made fun of drafted speeches. But, well, like, you know. Gotta live with it.

First, thanks Mr. Springer for that CBC link. It was enlightening to me because I don't know Harper well. I have heard of him and I saw him in debate here in Montreal. I was impressed. Except: He's a policy wonk - no harm there, so was Clinton. But is he a Carter micro-manager? (I previously thought of him as a Mondale, but Harper has more - and he's an English-Canadian.) His answer to bilingualism was "original" only in CBC, official English Canada. (But certainly not here in Quebec.) His answer to same-sex marriage is practically identical to Bernard Landry's position. 1. Can he be a big picture guy? 2. Can he truly relax, and simply get his message across? (I thought I saw him making the effort to do this.) Harper's a white bread, WASP. He needs a touch of blarney, chutzpah, but if he can't do it, he shouldn't try. Good WASPs have a big problem exposing themselves. (Gawd, what am I saying?) PS. In the middle of Newman's awkward questioning, I liked Harper's deadpan line about Martin: "He has a bad story to tell and it will only get worse." (!!!)

I have a suspicion that those national numbers, 60% against the war, are boosted by Quebec where the Tories will get nothing anyway. The key question is the number of Ontarians who are pro-war or more important, pro-US - and who will factor this is in when voting. But you have a point, MapleSyrup, Trudeau's criticism of Mulroney was that he was a "pleutre" (a poltroon) and that he kowtowed ("faisait la courbette") to the Americans. Chretien followed Trudeau's advice. Canadians (both English and French) like a PM who stands up to the Yanks. We're childish in that way but Harper isn't going to change us.

This is great, the Canadian twist to this scandal. Martin says it's wrong and then says it's OK. Imagine Nixon had said, "we didn't do it" and then said, "well, we did but only because everyone else did." (Only out of office did Nixon try that line.) Duceppe's take is clear about this slush fund: G&M Liberal Slush Flip Flop

Magnet for votes? Ed Broadbent? Gimme a break. Broadbent is 68 years old. (He's two years older than Paul Martin, and three years older than Brian Mulroney.) BTW, Broadbent was born in 1936, Martin in 1938 and Mulroney in 1939. The Senate exists for guys like this; in fact, Mulroney (Trudeau?) created a human rights boondoggle just for Broadbent. He should have stayed there.

The original plan was clearly to have a spring election. I suspect delaying it will cause the Liberals problems. In addition, it will catch the Tories short - they've only nominated half their candidates; about 10 or so in Quebec. The Liberals seem happy with the reaction to the budget. I suspect though the polls are not kind to the Liberals - in both Quebec and Ontario. Anyone know when the next polls will be made public?

This seems to be the essence of your argument, MH, and as a result, you seem to want some kind of government involvement to alter the power of such large corporations. But why stop at Blockbusters? Why not consider distributors like Columbia or Hollywood producers too? Don't they restrict what you see? In fact, we could say that individual producers/directors decide what we see. Or how about newspapers? Don't they too restrict the news we read? Maybe they should be forced to meet government guidelines? After all, the government regulates the food we eat. Why shouldn't it also regulate the information we receive? Moreover, our governments are democratic, based on majority vote, so this regulation will reflect the will of the majority. Big corporations, on the other hand, seem to be a law unto themselves. What do you think?

I think Martin's rejoinder to Harper during Question Period about Mulroney starting the first National Unity slush fund in 1992 was a tactical error. Ontario voters are afraid of Harper because they fear he's a right wing, Reform crazy. Martin has just linked Harper to the Tories. In many Ontario ridings, this makes Harper traditional, respectable. And it was Martin that made him seem so. G&M Martin Quote

IMV, this article describes well this federal Liberal scandal. Is it really Martin's fault? Bedard may well be wrong about details. But is she basically right? (Or is Bedard a BQ plant?) Check it out here: CTV Villeneuve Sponsorship Flag I liked the Villenueve/Monaco and the Robert Guy Scully connections. This scandal is getting more fun!

It's much more serious, MapleSyrup. Martin has opened a can of worms. I don't think he did it for personal gain, but he did it. This gives an inkling to Quebec thoughts: CTV Bedard Sponsorship Bear in mind: The scandal started because Chretien genuinely wanted to make Canada present in Quebec. What motivates Bedard?

1. The government uses other people's credit cards and bank accounts. What does bankruptcy mean in this case? I'll repeat: the government is not like you and I. (For populistic and demogagic reasons, Richard Nixon often made the same comparison as Jack Layton did: "How can American families balance their budget if America doesn't balance its budget?") Layton really needs better advisors. 2. If someone randomly chooses my cheque book or my credit card to make payments, it makes no difference to me. (I frequently do this myself.) I am no right wing fanatic, far from it. In fact I consider myself rather left wing, but I would prefer an informed discussion about government purchases - and how they are paid for. The key question is: how much does the federal government (Ottawa) take from Canada? How it gets this is not the question. This is the distinction that Martin, Layton - even Nixon - don't (didn't?) get.

In light of the possibility that we may find fossils on Mars, what would remain of a literal interpretation of the Bible (Old or New Testaments)? How would Christians feel about such a discovery?

Exactly. But does it matter to the person whether you use the cheque book or the credit card? IOW, does it matter to you whether someone steals your credit card or your cheque book? The critical question is: What is the damage?