August1991

Need I add the Sun? Fisher? Worthington?

I am using the Internet to ask this freely: Has Stephen Harper ever met Paul Desmarais? There are honest journalists who use the Internet. Please tell us and make this known. I think it matters. Cohen? Wells? Kinsella? Spector? Steyn? David Olive? Lysiane Gagnon? Chantel Hebert? Greg Oliver? Richard Gwyn? Answer, please.

Kliege, let's see whether we live in a democracy. There are journalists who read these posts. Has Stephen Harper ever spoken to Paul Desmarais? Please tell us and make this known. I think it matters. I am using the Internet to say this freely. Is there a journalist willing to use the Internet to do the same? Cohen? Wells? Kinsella? Spector? Steyne? David Olive? Lysiane Gagnon? Chantel Hebert? Greg Oliver? Richard Gwyn? I'm going entirely English here. Has Stephen Harper ever met Paul Desmarais?

Has Stephen Harper ever sat down and had a conversation with Paul Desmarais? I think that is a legitimate question in this campaign. I expect an answer before I vote. I am asking a journalist to ask: "Mr Stephen Harper, have you ever had a conversation with Mr Paul Desmarais?" There are journalists who read these posts. Has Stephen Harper ever spoken to Paul Desmarais? Please tell us and make this known. I think it matters. I am using the Internet to say this freely. Is there a journalist willing to use the Internet to do the same? Cohen? Gagnon? Simpson? Wells? Foglia? Kinsella? Spector? Steyne? Olive? Walkom? Hebert? Figure it out. Tell us the truth. Please.

Kliege, let's see whether we live in a democracy. There are journalists who read these posts. Has Stephen Harper ever spoken to Paul Desmarais? Please tell us and make this known. I think it matters. I am using the Internet to say this freely. Is there a journalist willing to use the Internet to do the same? Cohen? Wells? Kinsella? Spector? Steyne?

Kliege? Goldie? Stoker? Paul Wells? Jeffrey Simpson? Has Stephen Harper ever sat down and had a conversation with Paul Desmarais? I think that is a legitimate question in this campaign. I expect an answer before I vote. I am asking a journalist to ask: "Mr Stephen Harper, have you ever had a conversation with Mr Paul Desmarais?"

Has Stephen Harper ever met Paul Desmarais?

Caesar, you don't seem to understand bankruptcy. Do you understand the government? Do you understand coercion?

Stoker, people?Imagine your daughter, son, ex-wife, current beloved has your CIBC debit card (and pin number) and your Amex Card. Does it really matter to you which card they use to buy the damn flags? Please understand government. Politicians, and bureaucrats, have both your cards. There is this absurd NDP argument that "we'll only use your debit card and never your credit card. This shows that we are responsible." Huh?

Paul Wells made a big deal of Chantal Hébert's article in French and in English. I agree this article is important. But I have a different take on it. But for fun, I'll start with two inconsequential points. First, it is tough in Canada to write the same political ideas in two languages. It requires an extremely clear idea of the country. Trudeau had that. The ideas have to be absolutely clear and defendable in any circumstance, even the words and style. (eg. pleutre = poltroon. I always figured Trudeau did that himself.) Second, Hebert. True, The Toronto Star bailed her out (to the Star's advantage) but I have always wondered how she feels about Lysiane Gagnon. (I strongly prefer Pierre Foglia - bicycles and all.) In this article, Hebert makes the argument that Martin is a "bad Liberal" and he will lose this election. She argues that Chretien was a "good Liberal" and would have won a fourth term. She provides a list of issues which Chretien would have managed differently from Martin. Reading this, I was struck. We can continue to put band-aids, plasters, duct tape on this thing called Canada, but eventually, something has to change. True, Chretien may well have won this election by the old methods. But eventually, we must face the nature of Canada under the glare of honest reason. (For example, who must ensure French will be spoken on this continent in the future?) Martin opened this box up; Harper has opened it further. Hebert is writing about an old Canada that never really existed, except maybe in the mind of a Trudeau accolyte. (Hebert's not that but she's wondering along those lines, I think.) Trudeau kicked the ball down the field. Martin, in his own way, has done the same. Now, let's see where this Harper kicks it. Canada is an ongoing work in progress. Fasten your seat belts. Let us all in a civilized manner ensure that we find a civilized way to ensure a civilized society for the future. The means often matter more than the ends.

Stoker, please be careful. When you go into debt, you use your Visa card. When the government goes into debt, it also uses your Visa card. See the difference? The government has both your debit card and your credit card. It can use either to buy those adorable Canadian flags in the shop window. Does it matter to you which of your cards it uses? Or should the question really be about buying the flags at all? That, simply stated, is the choice governments make. There's alot of irrelevant argument about the credit card vs the debit card choice. The argument instead should be about the purchase itself.

The Liberal Party of Canada exists with one single purpose in mind: power. Without power, the Liberal Party collapses to - what? In this case, I think many ordinary Liberals are thinking they backed the wrong horse. It looked good on paper, but the horse couldn't run. Liberals are very practical. The only ones fighting for their lives now are the Anglo clique, Herle et al, around Martin. IOW, Martin is done for. (I bet Lapierre is already mentally walking away from this.) Harper's real test will be the next election - against Dion.

Caesar, I guess you're a Canadian nationalist. Take a look at this image to understand better the true nature of your beloved Canada. Indeed, the image shows the true nature of our continent, if not the world. Check out Cuba and Haiti as compared to Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic. (For Easterners, the image is neat because it shows last year's black out.)

Here's the Ezra Levant aricle that provoked, I surmise, Wells' comment. I think he has a point (Levant, not Wells - and to be honest, I know Levant not at all, Wells barely.) I think Argus in a post on 5 June in this thread argued presciently much the same as Levant did in his article. One reason I like this forum is that I get better analysis (and sooner) than the professional columnists.

Aiden, who cares about debt? Read this and then we'll discuss government debt. I was no fan of Reagan but for reasons other than debt. The comparison of Harper and Reagan strikes me as ludicrous. If forced to choose an American comparison, I'd say Harper is Clinton without the sax.

I agree Slavik. The NDP is back in its traditional area of 15-20% (before it went down, after Broadbent, the leader-chosen-for-PC-reasons path). Since I think Liberal turn out will be lower than polls suggest, I think we may well end up with (very roughly): CPC 37% Lib 33% NDP 18% Bloc 12% I think it is impossible for the Tories to get a majority government. I also think the NDP alone will not hold the balance of power. The Liberals will not be decimated like the Tories in 1993. And the BQ cannot get more than 55 seats in Quebec. (ie. there are about 20 Quebec seats where even Ronald Reagan dead would get elected if he ran as a Liberal.) I would watch for a little more movement in Ontario (Libs to Tory) and then that will be it. People have begun to make up their minds and despite claims to the contrary, I think the situation is really not that volatile. All this of course assumes that nothing substantially weird happens like finding PM PM's name in the black book of underage prostitutes in Quebec City.

I think Harper may well shape up to be another King. This guy is really shrewd. He has taken a leaf out of the Liberal playbook and the Liberals don't know how to respond. To be successful however, he's going to have to somehow get seats in Quebec. Not in this election, but in the future.

That's the old Liberal story. "The NDP are Liberals in a hurry." "The Liberals steal all their ideas from the NDP." But when the government takes about half of people's income, there isn't much more progress left in progressive.

Breaking trend? Manley? Dion in five provinces? I'd say the Liberal leadership race has already started. The Liberal Party is like a shark; it has to keep moving or it dies.

I see a difference between the Christian Heritage Party and the Greens. Look, the Conservatives split. It appears the Liberals are in the process of splitting. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen to the NDP. Didn't they once have the waffle group? Blaming a polling firm, or some secret Liberal machination, strikes me as well... blaming the messenger for bad news. The Greens have been successful in Europe. But I agree that our first past the post method means they'll elect no one. If I understand properly, it is the debate organizers (the CBC) that has decided to exclude the Green leader. If there's a conspiracy, that's more likely.

Many journalists have been caught by this fall in Liberal and rise in Tory support. Journalists are supposed to be smart analysts and be able to make smart predictions. They are irritated that people seem to be choosing differently. In Quebec, Harper is a frightening unknown. Before he was just some name, now he might be PM. Journalists here are struggling to find out who is this guy exactly. Harper seems capable to go over the heads of journalists and get his message to ordinary people.

La Presse has a small article today, not available on its Internet version, about Pierre Albert a gay candidate in Laurier (Montreal). He says has met Harper on several occasions and explained his situation to him. He said Harper had no problems with this at all. Albert goes on to say that it makes perfect sense to decide the issue of gay marriage by a free vote in the House. At present, the Liberals in Quebec are presenting Harper as a throwback to the 1950s - anti-women, anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-weak. They argue that to stop Harper, people must not vote Bloc. The only party that can ensure Harper doesn't become PM is the Liberals. The anti-Harper stuff is OTT. It helps that Harper is completely unknown in Quebec. Lapierre said people that he was a new chain of restaurants.

Strange things happen in politics but I feel safe in saying not this time around.

TakeNumber, your examples are "obscure" when compared against the 20 million Russians killed defeating German fascism. I won't go into the slaughter of French and German soldiers in World War I. There is a myth that Europeans are sophisticated and civilized. This myth is false. Yugoslavia provides recent evidence. Did any other European country lift a finger? (Have you seen the movie: No Man's Land?)

In the coming few days, while we watch the anti-Bush demos or the memorials for World War II vets, I hope some thought is given to three points: First. The Europeans are far more violent than Americans. Europeans have been involved in many terrible wars and even attempts at genocide. This is not ancient history - or even history of 60 years past. Sarajevo was a beautiful Balkan city. Europeans recently destroyed it. When was the last American war? Roosevelt in Havana harbour? Peru and Ecuador? US Civil War? Compared to Europeans, we Americans, whether Brazilian, Canadian or US American, are generally peaceful. Second. It was Russians who stopped Nazi Germany. But this is not to diminish the efforts of others. In collective effort, individual effort seems lost. Too often, it is. Third. What the hell were young guys from small Canadian towns doing in Europe? It was not Imperialism. Those alive came home. Would young European guys today or ever do the same for us?