kimmy

The reason this has been out there for a week without any of their opponents attempting to capitalize on it is pretty obvious. -k

Well, William Ashley, depending if he's had his meds or not. -k

David Kilgour made it to Parliament as a Progressive Conservative and later won the admiration of his constituents by quitting the party over the GST. He wrote extensively about western alienation. He stood up for things like humanitarian aid for Darfur and other humanitarian causes. He was viewed as a committed representative, a principled man, a proud westerner ...and a Liberal much behind the rest of those things. Edmonton voters knew he was a Liberal in name-only. "Landslide" Annie McLellan was also greatly respected, was exceptionally intelligent and had a great legal background. She had the added benefit of having a lot of clout in the Chretien cabinet. And those are the only two Alberta Liberal MPs in the past 30 years. Neither were elected because they were Liberals. They were both elected because they were exceptional individuals... they won in spite of the Liberal banner, not because of it. -k

In fairness to Ignatieff, a lot of people would say that upper-management types are not well-grounded in reality, have their heads in the clouds, and have some out-of-this-world ideas about what's actually feasible... so maybe Garneau's space-man experience is ideally suited to running Industry Canada. "Ask the victims..." ...is Dubya helping Ignatieff write this stuff? I saw the end of the English debate where Ignatieff explained how the gun registry keeps police officers safe. I thought that was one of the Dumb Quotes of the Campaign. Maybe Ignatieff can "ask the victims" of the Mayerthorpe RCMP massacre how well that worked. -k

Exactly. Why is this so freaking complicated? -k

After seeing Solomon get clowned by Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, I wouldn't think he'd be likely to "get" Harper. Sending an Angry Leftie to "get" Harper wouldn't accomplish what you guys wish it would. -k

If you can judge the mood of the electorate by the mood of this message board, things look great for the NDP and terrible for the Liberals. The board's NDP faction has quadrupled in size and are posting a lot. Meanwhile, nicky10013 hasn't even been online in almost 2 weeks. -k

Maybe Martha Findlay-Hall or Gerard Kennedy? People seemed to like them when they entered the ring in 2006, and they don't have the kind of baggage a lot of other potential contenders might have. Depends what you consider "privileged", I guess. Not many politicians from any major party are exactly impoverished... A lot of Liberals (and Conservatives, and probably more than a few NDs) enter politics after successful careers in business or law. That doesn't necessarily mean they started off as members of the "old money" establishment or anything like that. What does that actually mean? What do they actually need to do? Next election they run an entirely fresh slate of candidates... anybody who was with the party prior to 2006 has to go, even if they're a long-serving incumbent? Or short of that, is there some definite actions they have to take before people would consider them "rebuilt"? To me, there are a few faces from the Chretien era that I'd like to see gone, and who I would hate to see back in Cabinet. -k

Wow! I think we all knew after Sponsorship that the days where it was either the Liberals or the Bloc were finished. But I don't think anybody anticipated the Liberals to fall this far, or for the NDP to rise to that level. It'll be interesting to see if it holds. -k

I don't personally know any women who care about funding cuts to "status of women" groups. They're just symbols. Women want to be prosperous. Women want to be safe. Women want good healthcare. Women want to be able to obtain education. They want their kids to have good education. Do advocacy groups really provide any of this stuff? I don't think many women believe they do. -k

Well, most of the stuff they're complaining about in the video is the loss of funding for whiny groups that don't actually bear any relevance to most womens' lives. -k

By that argument, it makes even less sense that they would warm up to Stephen Harper suddenly after his 9 years as one of this country's most prominent political figures. Why'd things turn around after 9 years? Team Liberal has been touting this election as the electorate's chance to really "Get to know" Michael Ignatieff... and "to know him" is not necessarily "to love him". That doesn't prove the point you think it does, because real purchasing power is calculated on far more than just housing prices. It is undeniable that housing prices have grown at a rate far out of proportion to income. The big TV, dishwasher, central vacuum, and vacation in Hawaii have all gotten far more affordable than they were back when dad was my age. House prices, on the other hand, have gone through the roof. My 50" plasma was more affordable in 2009 than dad's crappy 19" CRT was for him 30 years ago, thanks to international trade and the global economy. The house on the other hand, is completely the opposite, and I can't buy a home in Malaysia. -k

There's room for you to join C-R in the bottomless pit, you know. -k

I have a mental picture of MikeDavid and his sign... -k

I agree. I remember how heartbroken I was when I discovered that I'd never be allowed to be King of England. I think we should do all we can to spare millions of Canadian girls that heartache and build a future where every Canadian girl can become King of England when she grows up. -k

It does look like the bursaries are for highschool graduates, and I've been out of highschool for a long time. So probably I'm not eligible. That's ok. I don't need to directly benefit from a program to think it's a good idea. That's both funny, and a little painful to watch. I'm not old enough to know... is that what it was like when Robert Stanfield dropped the football? -k

I included their candidate under "granola headed flakes". That may not have been entirely fair. -k

The Liberal and Conservative signs here are awfully similar, aside from the color. "Elect" (or "Re-Elect") "Candidate's name here" "Riding name". The NDP signs say "Candidate's Name", "Jack Layton", and "NDP". "Jack Layton" is about 3 times the size of "NDP" on the sign, which seems odd to me. When the signs started appearing, I was really excited to find that my local candidates included... Kris Stewart! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soC9OojDDio ...and Alice Hooper!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71hVIGjvuVY Man, was I disappointed later. -k

Gee, and people say us Albertans are a touchy bunch. -k

Fair point I suppose. Though I'd again argue that those who can afford to pay for their care in their old age probably ought to pay for it themselves. How about common sense? Most of these people who are taking time off work to care for elderly parents are going to be receiving a lot of wealth from them anyway; all but the dumbest will manage to transfer this wealth without incurring much in the way of taxation. -k

First off, can you name a single instance in Canadian history where a province's (or region's) Senate representatives have ever actually defended that province from "the tyranny of the majority"? Or even attempted to? You're (as far as I'm concerned) the most knowledgeable and respected member of this forum when it comes to this country's institutions, so I give your opinion a lot of respect... but I'm not aware of any historical support for the notion that the senate does or could perform this sort of role. Second, the notion of "regions" is a little suspect. There's a rough equality of "regions", if you consider each of Ontario, Quebec, The Maritimes, and "Everybody West of Kenora" to each constitute a region. But that's a premise that's of dubious value in performing the role you're advocating. For example, Alberta and Saskatchewan have economies that thrive on energy and agriculture. BC's economy is largely based on forestry, minerals, and tourism. Manitoba's economy is based on mud, sticks, and trying to determine whether rocks are edible. If some belligerent federal government attempted to implement some law that was particularly punitive to the energy sector (this is far fetched, I realized) what reason is there to think that Alberta and Saskatchewan could count on the rest of their "region" to support them? What, other than being west of Kenora, do they have in common? And even then, what good is the support of "a region" when that's just 1/4 of the senate anyway? Third, with no accountability to their province of "origin" how can the provinces count on their senators to act as their representatives anyway? Don't they always just vote the party line? -k

Back when the election was in "positive mode", the Liberals based their campaign around 4 main pillars: -the "Learning Passport", a bursary to help students obtain post-secondary education. -the "Early Childhood Learning and Care" fund. -the "Family Care" plan, a package of EI-like benefits and tax benefits to support Canadian families who are caring for elderly relatives. -the fourth pillar of the Liberal plan is the plan to pay for these 3 major plans by cancelling a scheduled 1.5% corporate tax cut. I have really mixed feelings about it. I don't mind cancelling the corporate tax rollback at all. I'm not convinced that it really benefits most Canadians. I'm skeptical that they'll use the savings to create jobs. I also support the idea of making post-secondary more affordable. While the cynic in me suspects that the idea of giving the money directly to students probably has a lot to do with optics, it also has the benefit of allowing the federal government to not have to go through the provincial governments. If they pledged to increase transfer payments to provinces so that the provincial governments can put the money into universities, they really can't guarantee that the money actually makes post-secondary education more affordable for students (more on this in a minute.) This is a good idea. I'm considerably less excited about the "Early Childhood Learning and Care" fund. First off, I gather that it's a "fund" rather than an actual plan, because this is also an area of provincial jurisdiction. As I understand it, provinces will have to come up with plans to create childcare spaces, and the federal government will decide whether the proposals meet the requirements to receive funding. It seems to me like this is once again an area where putting the money directly in the hands of the parents would be a handy way to bypass the red tape of delivering a service that's in provincial juridiction. I suspect one reason they decided to not go this route in childcare is that it sounds a lot like what the Conservatives are already doing. Another potential downside of just giving people more money to obtain childcare is that it might just cause the price of existing childcare spaces to go up. There might be other benefits to working with provincial governments to fund childcare spaces. My chief complaint about the idea isn't really about the manner of delivery, it's about the principle of the thing. As I've said before, I feel there should be means testing. I'm happy with the idea of helping somebody who needs assistance. I'm considerably less happy with the idea of helping well-off double-income couples who are already financially comfortable. As a Canadian with no children, I'm supposed to help a well-to-do couple come up with a few hundred extra dollars a month so that they can ... outbid me for a home I'm interested in buying? Retire a few years earlier? Go on a vacation? That idea isn't that big of a hit with me. I'd like to help people who need help, but I don't want to give my money to help people who are already doing exceedingly well on their own. The other item, and the one I personally find quite off-putting, is the Family Care Plan. And basically the reason why I don't like the idea is that the Baby Boomers are the last people who need my help. This is the wealthiest group of people in the history of the human species. They racked up an immense public debt en route to enjoying a lifestyle of unprecidented health and prosperity. And now we're going to spend more billions to take care of them? I have an alternate plan: how about the wealthiest generation can sell some of their copious assets and provide for their own care? I'm undecided on who I want to win the election. The Conservatives haven't exactly been the most frugal spenders, and will waste even more money with tax cuts that I'm not convinced will help Canada. On the other hand, I'm not really that sold on the Liberal platform either, particularly the childcare and elder care components of it. That's my opinion of the main planks in the Liberal platform. What's yours? -k

One of Chretien's majorities came with just 38% of the popular vote, I believe, thanks to heavily split vote between Reform/Alliance and Progressive Conservatives. And Harper's 36% would go a lot farther if the Liberals and NDP split the vote 25%/25% than it would if they split it 30%/20%. Anticipate heavy attacks from Liberals warning people that voting NDP will help Harper get a majority. -k

or why don't I start cut-and-pasting talking-points memos from anti-Liberal sources and see how long it takes you to start complaining to the mods, rules enthusiast? -k

Yes, the Liberals seem quite excited about this. "Rise up, Canada! Watch the speech that everyone is talking about!" invites the front page of Liberal.ca. They've set the speech to music (though, sadly, not Parachute Club.) -k