Stephen Best

I lived it, too. So much for the age factor. The fact is that Pearson and Trudeau are no longer with us. The fact is that the current crop of conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, and the current liberals and social democrats are not. We know that conservatives will purport to cut taxes but will, in fact, raise user fees and increase deficits in order to hide the fiscal problems. The problem is that conservatives believe as a matter of faith rather than fact that tax cuts, in general, improve the economy. The notion is too simplistic and dogmatic. And, as has been demonstrated, doesn't work as a general panacea. Careful, pragmatic tax cuts and tax increases on various sectors and income groups works well. Tax cuts for the rich are bad public policy.

It's curious that the Liberals and liberals in general are painted with the "tax and spend" brush, when history shows that it's Conservatives and conservatives who rack up the spending and deficits, and the Liberals and liberals who have to clean up conservative excess and irresponsibility and put the fiscal house in order. Conservatives cannot be trusted with the cheque book.

Quite possibly. NDP and Green voters who do not go with the Liberals will likely stay with their preferred parties. They will not vote for Harper, of that you can be sure. And, if that's the case, we'll have another Harper minority government. In my view, that's the best Harper can hope for, unless he's delusional.

See Torry Support Slides in New Year. The problem the CPC faces is that it can't grow. That's demonstrated in that its support since the last election hasn't changed. Most Canadians don't want Harper as Prime Minister, over 65%. The Liberals can grow by taking votes from the NDP and Green parties. Moreover, where the CPC needs to grow if it hope to ever form a majority--Ontario and Quebec--it trails the Liberals or the BQ. The same for urban areas, where Harper is anathema. The thing to remember is that national polls mean very little. What's important is what happens at the electoral district level, and that's where the Liberals have it all over the CPC. The national polls are distorted by massive support for the CPC in areas with few seats and Liberals' modest support in regions with the most seats. And lastly, if Dion is such a buffoon as Harper and CPC advertise, why haven't they been able to make gains on him? It's because most Canadians will never vote for Harper and the CPC. In the next election, the Liberal campaign will show that Dion is not quite the buffoon Harper claims--this is the danger of the CPC's negative ads. They will show that the CPC ads are distortions and will lower the voters' trust in the CPC even more. Negative ads like those run by the CPC tend to bite the ass of the party that airs them.

Generally, by-election results are a poor indication of future general election results. The reality is, in my view, that Harper has judged that the lesser of political evils is taking the political heat for flip flopping on his fixed election date law and promise rather than suffer the revelations of illegal campaign spending that will come at the various committee meetings and in court, and the voter backlash he can expect as fighting in Afghanistan increases, the economy tanks, and a deficit reemerges. It's likely that the CPC will get less seats in Ontario and Quebec. It is, in my view, unlikely that Harper will be the next Prime Minister. The more Canadians see him--as they will on the campaign trail--the more they distrust him, and rightly so. Dion has the opposite effect.

Given the fixed election date law--which Harper introduced and now proposes to flaunt--I wonder if the GG will dissolve Parliament at the PM's request, or will she require that he obey his own law. If the writs are issued at Harper's request, the fixed election date law is meaningless.

It would seem that you're not open to making valid observations. Is it your view that insult and condemnation based on false assertions and innuendo count for sound argument? If you have valid points to make why do you degrade them and yourself with such snideness? Are Obama's books fiction? Do you seriously suggest that writing books is not work? And by implication, do you support the notion that living off the avails of a rich wife, as McCain does, is worthy of someone who purports to be an officer and a gentleman? McCain has demonstrated that he is unethical, incompetent, and a liar. The facts, unlike those concocted to smear Obama, are irrefutable. To paraphrase others, you have a right to your own opinion about Obama; you don't have a right to your own facts.

All of which he achieved on merit, unlike McCain who, like Bush, had to rely on family connections. Unlike McCain, Obama excelled in his various academic and vocational pursuits. McCain failed at everything, and continues to do so. That, of course, doesn't mean he won't be the next American President. It does mean, however, that if he's elected, Bush won't be the worst President in history--McCain will be.

Of course, Obama made his $4 million writing books, in other words working. McCain made his millions sponging of his rich wife who he got after he cheated on his first wife, then dumped her when she was most in need. Hardly and officer and a gentleman. McCain has to be one of the most immoral, incompetent, disreputable, opportunistic people to ever run for President of the United States. Why anyone would consider voting for him utterly eludes me. McCain has no redeeming qualities, not one.

Since Harper was elected, he's made no statistically significant gains in the polls. Quite an accomplishment. The fact is the majority of Canadians, about 65% do not trust/support Harper. They never will, and for good reason. They know that there is nothing that Harper says that can be trusted. Fixed election dates? Yeah, right. Say what you will about Dion, he has not harmed the Liberal brand. And, during elections, the incumbent party tends to lose support. The fact is none of the pre-election polls mean squat. What matters during an election is the quality of the campaign, and Liberals know how to run campaigns and win elections. Moreover, the Conservatives have no back bench strength, possibly with the exception of Prentice. The rest of the gang are buffoons. Also on all files--environment, deficit, economy, Afghanistan, China, etc.--the trends are in the wrong direction thanks, in large part, to Conservative incompetence. As well, the Conservatives have a closet full of scandals from Khadr, to election spending fraud, to Cadman, to Maxine B. The next election will produce either a Liberal minority or majority government. Harper and the Conservatives are toast.

That, of course, was not my argument, and I'm sure you are aware of that. Which suggests a deliberate distortion of my position in order to make a point. This is what extremists are doing to Obama. Clearly, it is ludicrous to make the charge that Obama supports infanticide. It is idiotic to believe such a charge. And malicious to spread it. Moreover, in my view, those who oppose Obama's and the majority of people's position on abortion do themselves and their case harm when they resort to such antics.

You found one report in the world. Assuming that the unprecedented event in Israel of doctors making a mistake is a statistically relevant sample for the rest of the world is nonsense. As I say, you found one example. So are you suggesting that the doctors knew the baby was alive and just disposed of her? Also, read the story here. The abortion occurred because "doctors at Western Galilee hospital in northern Israel were forced to abort [the] pregnancy because internal bleeding had occurred." Let's not abuse a exceedingly rare and tragic event, by making it into something it was not.

How is it possible for anyone to take seriously that Barack Obama--or anyone for that matter --supports infanticide? It is truly astounding what right wing dogmatists and religious extremists can be suckered into believing and spouting. If anyone would like to know the truth about this issue, see Is Obama "Pro-Infanticide"? Analyzing a Vote in the Illinois Senate and The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide". Obama's votes were not about supporting infanticide, they were about opposing bad laws. Does anyone really think that doctors are letting babies born alive die? And by the way, just how many aborted babies are born alive every year? Is the number around zero? If it's not zero how many of those babies have doctors simply let die? Is that number around zero, too?

According to a UK TimesOnline article, US to take over Afghan mission, "The United States is planning to take control of all military operations in Afghanistan next year with an Iraq-style troop surge after becoming frustrated at Nato’s failure to defeat the Taliban." The article goes on to mention Canada, "The Pentagon is also pushing for a permanent “unified command” in the south of the country that would sideline the Dutch and the Canadians." Question: will Canadians accept being part of a U.S. Afghan "surge" and Canadian troops being under U.S. command?