Dennis

If that were so substantive, then why the need for some of the cheap tactics we've seen from the Libs in past days - the quotes plus the Bloc coalition gambit which backfired. As for the balanced budgets, they did it with high taxes and cuts to health care and defence. Our productivity is low. And you may disparage the American economy, its fuelling ours. Withouth its growth we'd be nowhere. We're dependent on them. The fact of the matter is that the American economy may be the only one capable of growing out of deficits. Its done it in the past and will most likely do it again. And that growth has helped with our own deficits, as well as the tax and spend ways of the Liberals - both highest in the G7 as well, if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if the Liberals can run on fiscal management. Its why they're pulling out the quotes.

I don't think the list is that big of a deal. Its just another example of what Stephen Harper said in his victory speech. The Liberal Party of Canada is acting like a cornered rat. This list proves it. They have absolutely nothing substantive to offer to the Canadian people. All they have is strategies of wild attacks against their opponents. If this is all they have, its gonna be the Right Honourable Stephen Harper after the next federal election.

How has he stolen their thunder? There is nothing about this budget that is conservative, except to a hard Leftist. Spending in this country is through the roof. So is taxation. You'd think the Left would be thrilled. Instead, they just want to spend even more of other people's money. Go figure...

This is a joke, right? Paul Martin delivered a budget which was a complete retreat from governing this country, because he's running scared as a result of AdScam, and he's somehow sticking it to the opposition? If Paul Martin is going to run in the next election on this budget then its Hello Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I just love it when people allow partisanship to make themselves look completely dumbfounded.

FYI the NDP has pledged that they will balance the budget. Presumably, this puts them to the right of the Republicans... And how does that contradict what I said? He already has said he wants to spend spend spend. So, he'll also have to tax tax tax to pay for it, right? Just because you balance budgets doesn't make you a right-winger. Its how you do it that counts. Also, saying and doing are two different things, of course. Layton promises a balanced budget. I don't think that promise is worth the paper its printed on, especially because it won't matter - they will never form a government anyway.

Martin vs. Harper vs. Layton vs. Duceppe My ranking: 1. Harper (if people get beyond cool outer shell) 2. Martin/Layton (which may be the real test of the election. So far, Martin hasn't been able to fend off Layton, in my opinion. It shouldn't be that hard, except that Layton is out-demagoguing Liberals, so not much left for Martin to use) 4. Duceppe (except that maybe his organization on the ground in Quebec is good, which might put him ahead of Martin/Layton) If the above rankings hold, we should have Conservative minority government. Which, if Harper is as smart as he seems, he should be able to turn into an eventual majority in a follow-up election. Cheers

What exactly is that?

You might be right, but I think we still might be headed for one of the best debated elections we've had in a long time. The visions and choices seem very different from one another. There's Paul Martin and the Liberals, who want a face-lift of the government yet a continuation of Liberal rule. They also want to keep flip-flopping on international issues. There's Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, who want to chip away at that same type of rule - which they think is too much government and fundamental waste. They also want a stronger voice in international affairs and one that doesn't trample of traditional friendships, esp. via the US. There's Jack Layton and the NDP, who want to spend spend spend and, presumably tax tax tax in order to pay for it all. They also want Canada to resent American foreign policy, and say nothing about Canada's role in the world - except to be stong on 'soft' issues like foreign aid and such. There's Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc, whose policies seem to mirror those of the NDP, except when it comes to provincial rights. But with them, their only ultimate usefullness comes as a Quebec protest to the Liberals, and as some kind of power broker in a minority government situation. Cheers

You're looking for a literature professor or something? Don't know exactly what you mean by 'literary' Liberal voter. Also, you seem to have some idea of what you're thinking. Instead of shooting down the rest of us, why not give us something of your own?

You're still not explaining yourself. This is a political discussion board, not a drive-through hamburger joint where you can ask for biggie fries with your order. You created this topic. Out with it. Gee. The only logical prediction coming from your comments is the one I gave. Unless you can actually provide one on your own, I guess it has to stand. Conservatives in a majority - says maplesyrup?

If you think that being nutty is an example of charisma, then... As for Paul Martin, the man's personal popularity numbers are apparently very high. Voters seems to have less of a problem with him than they do with the Liberals. Maybe they see him as some kind of victim. And maybe that's where some of his problems lie. Canadians have always like him, but they see him as kind of a trafic figure - wrong place, wrong time, bested by a more shrewd and cunning man in Jean Chretien? Kind of like the son who the parents may have always liked better but knew was a bit of a loser?

Care to expand upon that sentiment? You mean that the Liberals are going to be toppled by a Conservative majority government? I don't know what else you could mean by that.

No, bad for the country, just as the Liberals are implying that a coalition for the Bloc is bad for the country. Please actually read the comments. This is a tit-for-tat. Liberals making insinuations about coalitions. Harper firing right back. Hardly. It was a reference to the fact that the Left always has to scare people into voting for them. Somehow, if socialists aren't in power, the world is falling to pieces. Then, when they do get into power, they never solve any of those problems and merely bankrupt society. Nothing drive-by or smearing about it. If you actually read these posts you would know that I wasn't the one making a reference to profitable public entities, your socialist friend was. So I guess he/she is the one propigating neocon dogma. And of course there are public entities that make a profite. The LCBO in Ontario is one. Hardly dogma.

This is such a joke. If Jack Layton was so concerned about debating fellow national leaders why didn't he get himself a seat in Parliamnent? Or is he so enamoured with himself in front of a microphone that he prefers that setting to the one where people actually send their elected representatives - the House of Commons. Some national leaders want to make the case for running this country. Jack Layton wants to listen to himself on the radio.

Its NOT my intention to get into a debate with the NDP on the eve of the Conservative Party leadership vote. My purpose was to point out that your socialist dogma is hardly of an intellectual nature. But, BRIEFLY: I don't know what you refer to when mentioning 'regressive taxation'. You said I was into name calling? However, a fair tax system is one that doesn't punish the wealthy in order to subsidize Socialist Political Schemes. If public entities you mentioned were profitable there wouldn't be a problem now, would there? And no one is talking about privatization of health care. Just your typical scare-mongering. What some people are talking about is reforming a current health care system that is broken only fifty years after it was first implemented. Now, the Conservatives have a leadership race to worry about, not this NDP huffing and puffing about the end of the world we keep hearing about.

What's with the maplesyrup attack campaign on Stephen Harper? I thought this was a political discussion site, not the meeting place of backroom politicos and spin-meisters.

What's with these one-line hit jobs from Hiti. I thought this was a board of political discussion, not Warren Kinsella attack tactics. In case you didn't notice, the membership of the Conservative Party is above 200,000. How can that be seen as a tank? For all the criticisms directed at Harper, they all conveniently forget that Harper managed to co-found the Conservative Party of Canada, a part of his track-record which trumps all of this other targeted nonsense.

cgarrett's entire post was nothing but socialist dogma. Since when do socialist ever use reason and intellect to advance their agenda. Theire whole modus operandi has always been to scare people into buying into their Big Government/you can't do anything without us schemes. Layton will have plenty of time to tell us what he stands for. Why Canadians would start reacting differently to him than they would to any socialist leader in the past is beyond me. Again, never have formed a government, never will form a government. Especially with this elitist 'we know better than the unwashed citizens' tripe we keep hearing from them.

What the Globe failed to comprehend is this: Harper was not saying that the NDP is as bad as the Bloc. What he said is that a coalition with the NDP is as bad for the country as one with the Bloc. Stephen Harper is again just one step ahead of the game.

First, I'd like to know what the numbers were BEFORE the 2000 election. That's the appropriate comparison. Which leads me to my second point. Tories now in a position to go up, which they need to do anyhow if they want to topple the Liberals. NDP have stalled. Besides, any way you look at it, merger is good for Conservatives, bad for the NDP, who were talking Official Opposition before it happened. And its all thanks to Harper and others who made merger happen. Good for Tories . Bad for NDP . And even worse for the Grits :angry: .

Why do I have a hard time believing that story? As far as I'm concerned, its still all rumour, innuendo, and underhanded campaigning. Its the other candidates who have shown themselves to be desperate in this race. Not Harper. And I think that tale might serve as an example of just that.

That's just not true. Last time I checked, Conservative Party is at about 30% in the polls. When Harper took over the CA, they were at about 8%. That's almost an increase of four times. As for Layton, double peanuts is still peanuts. Layton is not running to be Prime Minister. He knows it. Everyone knows it. Conservatives have become the alternative choice for voters, as was the expectation with merger, despite all the whining and groaning from Joe Clark and David Orchard.

Hardly. Belinda decided to skip out on events that she had every business attending during a race where she's trying to convince people she' s qualified to become PM. Hey, she didn't even attend one meeting with one editorial board of one newspaper across the country. And she wants to take on this Liberal Government political machine? As much as Jack Layton wants to hufff and puff, Harper was directing his comments at Paul Martin. And there will be plenty of opportunities for all the leaders to engage each other and the electorate. If Layton wants to become Prime Minister ( ) he should learn to calm down a bit.

So, in response to the accusation that something is a rumour, you simply keep spreading the rumour? I prefer facts. So do the Canadian people. So do the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, in my so humble opinion.

Let's see: and I think I have every reason to believe so, based on the very words you provided us. You seem to possess a kind of arrogance when it comes to us 'English-Canadians'. We don't have a clue in comparison to you, even though we know that only two parties have formed governments in this country, without stating the obvious that we are different from the UK and the US. My proposal was the the NDP has to be the left-wing party of choice to govern in this country. Stupid English-Canadian. And your proposal was?