ReeferMadness

This thread is still going? Harper supporters must be getting desperate. Drowning man - meet straw.

Check out the twitter hashtag #coyneamovie

To me, Coyne is the only reason to even look at the National Post. Conrad is a bombastic self-promoter and the rest are winguts or nakedly partisan Conservative supporters (or both). I'm curious as to where Coyne has gone, right before an election.

The twitterverse is looking for Coyne. The twitter account of Coyne, normally a prolific tweeter, has been silent for 2 days, right before an election. Something is going on.

A long expose of Harper's legacy of manipulative politics. Depressing. No objective person whose seen how Harper works could seriously defend this guy.

That's the point - nobody can even really give a good guess what a post Harper party will look like. He's such a one man show. And that's why I seriously wonder whether the Globe & Mail's endorsement of Conservatives but not Harper wasn't a passive-aggressive reaction on the part of David Walmsley to instructions to find a way to endorse the Conservatives.

I'm so tired of seeing Canada dragged through the mud in the international press. I don't remember it being this bad with former PM's, not even Mulroney. Let's restore some positive energy in this country by getting rid of the Conservatives.

Yeah. You really care about Mulcair. Are you guys getting your talking points from the campaign HQ?

Vote for us. We'll find someone later!

I think you need to worry less about the strength of the Liberal plurality and more about the possibility that the Conservatives will get back in. This is going to be closer than you think.

Clearly, she's editorializing the editorial. Do you have anything that says she's wrong? If anything, I don't think she went far enough.

This is why we need STV. It's unrealistic for 1 person to represent all of the people in a riding. It doesn't matter who it is, someone will detest that individual.

agreed.

I wonder what went on. Maybe David Walmsley argued that he couldn't, in good conscience support Harper and the dictate from the top said "You will endorse the Conservatives". And this is what came out?

No. Dictators are people who wield absolute authority. Lots of them rule for life because they have absolute authority. Harper is not literally a dictator (although he's got the type of arrogance that suggests he thinks he should be) but he has exercised autocracy to a degree that hasn't previously been seen in Canada.

What he actually said was that being able to vote a dictator out constitutes democracy.

Sounds like "Harper Derangement Syndrome" is actually better applied to the his die-hard core whose ideological blinders won't allow them to see what's going on. The international media has been calling Canada out in a way I've never seen before. It's embarrassing to call this guy a Canadian, much less Prime Minister.

really? Maybe you need to learn the definition of democracy.

It seems that PostMedia has ordered its chain of papers to endorse Harper. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one (or many in this case). But it seems that all is not happy in PostMedia land. Word is the their smartest and most principled columnist has endorsed another - but they won't run it. Will Coyne stick with the Post? Too soon to be sure.

Glad it made your day but don't break out the champagne. It's still really close. Monday.

I suspect this is much closer than many think. My breakdown is as follows: Liberals - 129 CPC - 127 NDP - 77 Bloc - 3 Green - 2 Too close to call. Sigh.

He only needs a plurality. There's still a good possibility that could happen. There seems to be a happy assumption that he's just going to show up for a non-confidence vote he knows he's going to lose. That seems rather naive.

And what happened in 2008?

And Harper is aware of that. What will stop him from coming up with games to avoid parliament long enough to convince his poorly educated base that Trudeau and Mulcair are planning a coup d'etat.

Foibles. That must be a political science term I don't know. Is cheating on election a foible? Del Mastro in chains - is that be cause he has too many foibles? Is there a legal limit? Is race baiting a foible? In addition to the Canadian Media, there are at least a half dozen major international papers calling Harper out for that. They didn't call it foibles though. Bribing a sitting senator - is that a foible? What about interfering in the affairs of a supposedly (according to Harper) body. Would that be a foible? Is evading democratic accountability by using your MP's as pawns and writing 500 page omnibus bills another foible? What about withholding information from parliament and parliamentary officers? Is that a foible too? And gagging scientists - is that a foible? Harper has just accumulated too many foibles and everyone else has foible-envy. They're just jealous of Harper because he has so many foibles.