Molly

I haven't forgotten how she recieved the nomination here, how she was elected and promoted, held up as a golden girl and appointed to cabinet... I remember, because I had intended to vote Conservative until I discovered the identity of my candidate. My reaction now is something like that Simpsons character, Nelson.. the one who points at misfortune and says, 'Haw-haw!'. I might even vote for her this time.

All parties are partisan, but not all of them are so partisan that the good of the party takes precedence over the good of the nation. This herd idiocy - this frantic gobbling of partisan disinformation so as to angrily regurgitate it all over anyone who will listen- this inspires my revulsion toward the CPC and so many of it's minions. A long time ago, I was doing door-to-doors with a candidate who was tired out, not paying attention to the folks at the doors, and thus was doing himself no favors. I tried to explain that he was turning people off, and needed to pay closer attention, make eye contact, listen.... to no avail. I finally sharpened him up by walking him in to see an elderly woman, a grand dame (great bridge player) who... well, I warned him that there was no vote to be found at that door. She invited him in, and told him that she had taken a keen and active interest in politics for most of her life, and had met many, many people who chose to act upon their opinions. She told him that she knew folks from every party, some of whom she liked and/or admired and some of whom she despised, and for the most part there was no particular relationship between their party affiliation and the esteem she felt for them-- there were good and bad people everywhere, and community-oriented people generally acted in good faith if not good judgement. But there was one clear and undeniable exception: In all those years, she had yet to meet a Conservative she could respect. ....... Bless her heart, she did that candidate a world of good. Unfortunately, I've learned something of the nut of truth in her message.

To Conservative mis-steps and miscalculations rather than to anything that others had done well. Both spoke of Helena; one was agog at the Guelph ballotbox thing; both had a shopping list We didn't discuss who would be the recipient locally, though given those ridings, it would have to be NDP. A breakthrough would take a BIG shift in sentiment since the margins have been wide. I wasn't hearing predictions of NDP seats (though they can't be ruled out) but rather a closing of what has been a wide gap. The politico anticipated that the LPC would benefit nationally and felt that a majority has now become fairly unlikely-- but was calling largely to get confirmation of that take. I couldn't confirm it.

Folks I talk to all ask why Libya has remained unmentioned. It's a strange twoist on the old "What if they threw a war and nobody came?" Halfway through an election, and no one has gotten around to talking about a war... a very minor war, I guess.

Me neither, but some folks have an awfully good nose for what's happening on the ground. FWIW... I would credit one of those two with having such a nose, and the other as being a better than average observer. I'll be watching for it from here on out, especially in the final results. It's not a report I expected.

Just recieved two phone calls back-to-back from Saskatchewan friends wanting to know what's happening to public opinion here in Ontario... one just a very interested citizen; the other has been actively political in the past but keeping a low profile now/ regularly refuses nomination. Both fairly rural, 200 miles apart. Both report an abrupt and substantial softening in Tory support, and wanted to know if I was seeing the same thing here. (No, I'm not.) Interesting. Very, very interesting.

As it happens, she's my very own MP. From that perspective: there should be no mistaking her for a star employee. This was/is not someone who changed nor even someone in disguise. What Mr. Harper and Canada got is exactly the Helena we constituents all know so well. Just sayin'.

Like in a nursing home? Very high indeed. Extremely high.

The kind of control freak that has rally attendees vetted would not bother doing the same for his staff? Speaking of tinfoil hats!

How bizarre. That whole conversation seems predicated on the assumptions that men don't have children, and women don't have jobs.... http://hrblog.goldbeck.com/?tag=canadian-labour-statistics 73% of women with children under 16 and a signifigant other sharing the parenting are in the workforce. Only 70% of lone-parent women with kids under 16 hold down a job.

What utter rot. There is absolutely no rule against such a poll- or at least there wasn't. NOW there's a policy against them specifically as they apply to students, but that's new-- and bad. There is at least as much (more) to guard against double voting when the first is a special ballot as there is when the first is at an advance poll. There is a legitimate chain of process that may be followed to object to the presence of partisan materials, and it does NOT include unauthourized partisan hacks commandeering ballot boxes full of votes.

Advance polls have specifically mandated (extended) hours and days and very restricted rules of conduct. Special ballots/polls have no such time/activity restrictions, so depending on the circumstances, can better serve by accomplishing the same task in a very short time, even if everyone is a permanent resident.

I'm a complete cynic where this particular government is concerned- jaded, disgusted- convinced that there is no depth to which they would not stoop. I would propose that the air fairly trembles with intimidation, and that the apparent incompetence of our recent integrity commissioner was no fluke. These are not good times for maverick idealists. Suppression of student votes benefits the CPC. Edit: One must wonder whether the chill will extend equally to the special polls that might be conducted in nursing homes, hospitals and residential rehab centres. Surely it will not apply to military bases.

And that- exactly that- is a darned shame, and a direct suppression of a very important group of voters (for what appears to be grossly partisan reasons). Special polls that seek out those less likely or less able to vote are a good thing, not something to be discouraged.

(replying to Scotty. Sorry Capricorn.) You ain't seen nuthin! If anyone with a jot of actual knowledge started correcting the rediculous tripe being dished in his defense, this thread would be double it's current page count, and rising. You, for instance, might wnat to visit the Elections Canada website to learn all about special ballots, and how you, too, could have voted today. No pre-printed ballots necessary;, no official 'advance poll' required; no special permission needed since it's one of the tasks a returning officer (she, in this case, not he) is hired and required to perform... etc.

That cavalier attitude to ballots offends me to my core. The bugger should be behind an iron door now, and darned well stay there for a while. If anyone is found to have put him up to it, they should join him.

Calling them malcontents implies that the misconduct they are pointing out was fully 'business as usual' before they were replaced by someone the party seems to percieve as 'better'. If they are horrified to discover that the organization with which they are inextricably linked is blithely guilty of conduct thery would NEVER be a party to, then 'dramatics' is a fully appropriate response-- much more appropriate than condoning it by being discreet.

You should be more cautious in accusing Mr. Goodale of anything out-of-line. I don't for one millisecond believe that Goodale was behind that leak. The reason that he's thought of as 'Mr. Clean' is because it describes him completely accurately. He is a man of honour and integrity. -- and that's coming from someone who campaigned against him several times. Accusing him just means to me that you have no credibility-- either no knowledge, or no integrity, or both.

(Vaguely similar. Not same.) But wouldn`t be, if it gained majority... which is why it must not gain majority.

'Creepy' is a pretty good word to describe it, I'd say. 'Outlandishly paternalistic'- that works , too. -One short century behind things. "...and he never insisted." indeed! Un-flippin'-believeable.

The premise is false. FIRST APTN broke the story; THEN the government was defeated and we entered an election period. The Carson story was pretty much buried under election horse-race coverage, and is only now re-emerging. The story about Peter MacKay's friends getting such great government jobs disappeared under that same avalanche but has yet to come back to light. Pity. I'd like to know a great deal more about that one.

That's right. He "did not... have sekshull relations ... with that woman..." And everyone's out of step except Johnny.

A more interesting question would be how many believe Harper on 'the coalition issue'.

Come on you guys! Trudeau, Martin and Chretien aren't running in this election (or the one before this either ). This one could be a really interesting conversation, but if CPC partisans don't hold up thei end of it, it won't be.