Stephen Best

"McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat," explains Bill Bell, a veteran of Vietnam and former chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs -- the first official U.S. representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall of Saigon. "Since McCain got 28 medals," Bell continues, "that equals out to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys -- grunts on the ground -- who had more than 7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I'm sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down." [source McCain lost five U.S. Navy aircraft]. McCain himself says that he was shot down, on October 26, 1967, bombing a "heavily populated part of Hanoi", in other words, innocent people. [source: Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians?]. Do I have to walk you through every fact? Can't you research some of this on your own?

Well you clearly don't know squat about how the military distributes decorations. You love John. I think the guy's an immoral, unethical, incompetent, disreputable buffoon--as do many of his military colleagues. I think he's a guy who in order to advance had to rely on his influential parents and rich wife who he got after cheating on and dumping his first wife when she needed him most. It's clear you're not going to change your views. And I certainly won't change mine based on your uncritical cheer leading. Enough said. Time to move on.

It's John McCain and his surrogates who repeatedly reference his POW status in response to any criticism of McCain. They do not speak about any of his other military accomplishments, because there are none. Might I suggest you read John McCain: Unfit to serve as Commander in Chief. Might I also suggest, Democrat with military background assails McCain's credentials. Or you might consider, Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain. As you can see, I do know something about McCain's disreputable, incompetent military career. Like George Bush, McCain was so lacking in competence and character only his father's intervention and influence made it possible for him to avoid the condemnation he deserved then, and deserves now.

Were we not discussing McCain, Obama, and their spouses? What have millions of US veterans got to do with McCain's family connections which are the only thing that got him into military college to be almost dead last in his class and preserved his disreputable, incompetent military career, and his living off the avails of his rich wife who he married after dumping his first one? To the best of my knowledge, the only thing McCain boasts about in his military career is being a POW. The credit for that should not go to McCain but the Vietnamese. What's so special and heroic about being shot down while bombing innocent civilians?

How is it you can hold these views, when there is no evidence to support them? Are you really suggesting that a full description of the concepts of "left", "right" and "centrist" can be made in a statement that could be printed on a bumper sticker? Do you have a definition for the vague term "happiness"? Can you tell us who, in our complex society, are the "people"? We need that insight because, one person's happiness may be at the price of another's misery. Surely, you can't be offering these as a serious premises?

The carbon tax is a shift of taxation from income tax to a tax on carbon use. It will be good for ordinary people, because the average wage earner has few ways of reducing income tax, but they can conserve fuel and reduce a carbon tax. The ethanol program is a farm subsidy program--a boondoggle really-- which is having catastrophic environmental consequences and was introduced as a "political bribe" to win the farm vote. It is not reducing foreign oil consumption because foreign oil is need to create ethanol.

Is there some compelling rationale why your personal dictionary of political labels is the correct one, and the one generally accepted by most informed commentators and the political parties themselves is not? The polices of the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Green tend to more socially progressive (hence "left" of centre) than the Conservatives, for example, which would, I submit, be considered "right" of centre. Say what you will, but in the interest of not confusing others I'll stick with the generally understood positions on the political right to left range of our federal parties.

Liberals, NDP, BQ, and Green are the major left of centre parties and they command about 65% of the vote between them.

Just for the record, the Obamas earned their money. The McCains inherited theirs, got it through family connections, or by marriage. If the McCains had to rely on their own merits, they'd be abject failures.

I agree. It's interesting as well that Harper was able to form this government because the left of centre of parties are splitting the vote just as the right of center split the vote for Chretien.

While I didn't share Reform's view of "good policy", in my view Preston Manning should be counted as a truly great Canadian. If he hadn't pushed so hard for fiscal responsibility I doubt that the Liberals would have been so aggressive at dealing with the deficit and Canadian finances in general.

Wild Bill, let me also apologize if my response seemed somewhat strident. As for my partisanship, I'm not pro Liberal, although I would prefer that the Liberals win the next election rather than the Conservatives. What I am "pro" is sound environmental policies, progressive social policies, and responsible economic policies. The Conservatives do not represent a party that can deliver those policies. The only other party that might form the next government, the Liberals, may make some progress in the areas that concern me. They are the lesser of evils, so to speak.

Wild Bill, a review of my posts will show that I have met or exceeded the level of scholarship generally exhibited on these fora. This includes the level of scholarship you offer. If you're interested in the "few percentage point shift" argument, review past election results available at Elections Canada, particularly drill down to the polling station results. To help you, the URL is Elections Canada Past Elections. As a political consultant and campaign strategist, this is what I do every election, and will be doing in the next federal election. Are people voting on our predictions about the outcome of the next election?

Won't we look silly if Jack Layton forms a majority (i.e. Bob Rae in Ontario) and Elizabeth May takes up residence at Stornaway.

There's no question that I'm influenced by my biases. In fact, I've never met a person whose biases didn't influence their judgment. For the Liberals, nothing very dramatic needs to happen. All they need is a few percentage point shifts in the votes in traditional Liberal leaning electoral districts in Ontario and Quebec to put them over the top. It's the Conservatives who have high hurdles to overcome. And, where it matters most, Ontario and Quebec, they're not making the necessary gains. In fact, their recent "political base pandering" pronouncements about doctors, arts funding, etc. diminishes their hopes in those areas, in my view.

Looking forward to it. For the record, what exactly are you predicting? My prediction is a Liberal minority or majority government. And let me go further. If it's a majority Liberal government, Harper will resign as leader of the Conservatives. Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe will offer resignations as well. What's your prediction, Wild Bill?

Money will not be a problem in the election for any of the major parties. The reason is spending limits, public finance, and campaign expense rebates. At least three of the major parties--Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP--will spend the limit. As for the riding system, the Liberals have consistently shown a capacity to rally during elections. The election campaign field will be a level one. Unless of course, the Conservatives repeat their illegal In/Out scheme. Which--if they think it's so legal--they'll no doubt do it again.

You have no way of knowing how "affirmative action" affected or did not affect Obama's career. You're making a race-based, and racist, assumption that because he's black he benefited from affirmative action. Then again, I may be wrong, and you have some evidence, beyond suspicion and innuendo, that Obama is a product of affirmative action and does not deserve credit for his achievements. As for McCain's fuller resume, that's only because he's decades older than Obama. McCain is a man of low achievements. If his it wasn't for his father being an admiral, he would not have been admitted to military school, and certainly would not have been allowed to fly. He was -- and he admits it -- a very poor and unreliable officer. As a Senator his career, with a few exceptions, is dismal. He, as you know, was one of the Keating Five. In his personal life, McCain has shown himself to be dishonorable and an opportunist. If it wasn't for his influential Admiral father and his rich wife, he'd be greeting customers at WalMart. The difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama earned his way to the top, McCain--like Bush--got his through family connections and disreputable behavior. And, then he married a rich woman whose only claim to achievement is she comes from a rich family.

The notion that Canadian governments are corrupt is just silly. Are there transgressions and laws broken from time to time? Yes. But to the notion that the Liberal Party is the most corrupt in recent memory is wrong. My recent memory recalls Brian Mulroney and Shreiber, Harper and Cadman. And which party was it--let me think now--that launched the inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal? That's right the Liberals. Harper's response to Conservative corruption like the In/Out campaign finance scandal is to stonewall. Where's the corruption? Most of its with the Conservatives now.

The difference will be in what the GG does. If Harper asks the GG to dissolve Parliament it will be the first time in Canadian history that it has been done where there is fixed election date law in place. One can argue therefore that the precedent of automatically granting the Prime Minister's request is no longer operative. After all, the fixed election date is the will of Parliament, and the Prime Minister still has the confidence of the House. The GG, I submit, could suggest to the Prime Minister if he wants an early election he either introduce a bill repealing the fixed election date, or wait until the House passes a non-confidence motion.

The Governor-General could ask Dion if he could form a government. If Dion had the support of the NDP and BQ he could govern. However, that's not likely. And, not sure why you're even raising the possiblity. The dilemma the Governor General faces if Harper asks her to dissolve Parliament is whether or not to do that given the fixed election date law which is unprecedented in the Westminster tradition. She could tell Harper that until Parliament passes a non-confidence motion in his government, he has to govern or repeal the law which is the will of Parliament. Harper's problem is he wants Parliament dissolved on his terms, not those of the Opposition parties. However, the whole purpose--ostensibly--of fixed election dates was to stop incumbents from taking advantage of election timing. As usual, Harper doesn't like democratic principles applied to him.

"Racial groupthink" among whites is likely why McCain is polling neck and neck with Obama. Given their resumes, if Obama were white, McCain would be 20 points back.

The question becomes what will Her Excellency do? There's no precedent for a Prime Minister asking the GG to dissolve Parliament with a fixed election date law on the books. Is she, in the Westminster tradition, bound to issue the writ or, given the new legal environment, freed to set a new precedent and suggest the Prime Minister wait until 2009 or until the House of Commons passes a non-confidence motion? I wonder what advice Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean has received: honour the law or honour the tradition and flaunt the law.

Regionalism is ideology. I would suggest that the only reason Stephen Harper won a minority in the last election was the so-called Sponsorship Scandal. The fact is that with the exception of Alberta, the Liberal's base is historically stronger and broader than that enjoyed by the Conservatives. That's why Liberals have governed for more years than Conservatives. With the Sponsorship Scandal gone, Harper can only rely on his own record and deeply flawed character (consider the broken promises from income trusts to fixed elections, consider not lifting election gag laws after he fought them to SCC, consider not opening up transparency in government and not respecting committees-broken promises all). That record since the last election has produced no gains for him or his party--a truly remarkable failing, given how fractured and accommodating the opposition was. The Conservatives should be further concerned in that since the last election they have never failed to blame the Liberals for every ill they can conjure. No Conservative spokesman could answer a question without blaming a Liberal. They've even run negative ads against Dion, all to little or no avail. In my view, they shot everything they had, and missed the mark. They have nothing new or interesting for the election. The Liberals, on the other hand, will begin firing at the Conservatives when it matters most, in an election.

At the federal level, as you know, it was the Liberals who "slayed the deficit dragon" left by the Conservatives. In Ontario, the Liberals had to clean up the mess left by the Harris and Eves PCs who, to make ends meet, were selling provincial assets. As I say the notion that liberals and social democrats are fiscally irresponsible and only conservatives can balance a cheque book and avoid the credit cards is pure nonsense. Yet, as usual, it's the bunk conservatives not only peddle to the rest of us, but delude themselves into believing, as usual, ignoring the facts. Witness Harper's "tax and spend" charges leveled at the Liberals who cleaned up his gang's mess. Witness Harper's mismanagement of the federal budget so that, it appears, that we'll have a deficit for the first time in some years.