kimmy

In terms of campaign strategy, I think the Liberals' biggest mistake was not starting until after New Years. A number of writers have suggested that when Canadians got together with their families and friends over the holidays, they talked politics... and the Conservatives had given them a number of policies to talk about. The Liberals had given them nothing to talk about at that point, except for their own record. But I think the crummy campaign is hardly the cause of the Liberal Downfall, it's just another symptom. I think thick books could (and will) be written about the downfall of the party, and I think it'll have a lot to do with Chretien, Martin, and Chretien Vs Martin. Commenting on Chretien is hardly fair because of my pure hate for Chretien's smug, arrogant, autocratic, confrontational style... but I think that problems in accountability during his reign (including and not limited to the sponsorship program) put the skeletons in the closet. With Paul Martin... he's just not a prime minister. I've written on that over and over again... others have done it better; Paul Wells in particular has written a couple of good essays about Martin's personal shortcomings. Warren Kinsella's quip that Martin is a perfect example of "the Peter Principle" is stunningly accurate. -k

If Stephen Harper's "cowboy outfit" from last summer was embarrassing, then this... ...this is downright mortifying. -k

Something that occured to me earlier tonight, Norman, is that as Harper will more than likely have the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is once he's elected. I suspect that facing down a Cheryl Gallant after he's elected will prove more to Canadians about Harper's tolerance than anything he's said during the election. -k

Harper will broaden the powers of the provinces through non-interference and by broadening their fiscal abilities. Martin will broaden the powers of the provinces by haphazardly giving the premiers whatever they want as they rush to his door with their demands, emboldened by the fact that Martin has no fortitude and no principles at all. I'm not convinced at all that Martin is a better alternative, even on just this issue. I don't see how another term of the weakest Prime Minister we've ever had will make our central government stronger. -k

Another re-election of Martin will be the straw that breaks the camel's back in Quebec. Sending Martin back for another term will doom Jean Charest when he has to go back to the polls in a year or so. Quebec voters will be so mad that the federal Liberals were returned to power that they'll elect the PQ in a landslide of epic proportions. When the PQ puts their referendum on the table, do you think having the federal Liberals there to make the case for federalism is going to help or hurt the federalist chances? Unless you're delusional, you know the answer to that question. So yes, I do think that if Paul Martin Jr and his party are returned to power, this country is headed for a crisis that we'll never fully recover from. -k

Harper's presense at the Bilderberg conference should eliminate any worries over his international experience. After all, he's already part of a Secret Society with every important partner Canada has. -k

The NDP have no realistic chance of forming a government, and another term of Paul Martin at the helm will break this country irreparably. If the Liberals are so crucial to this country, then they must be sent from office, at once, so that they can find a real leader and rediscover themselves. The country will survive a few years of Stephen Harper. It won't survive a few more years of Paul Martin. Paul Martin is the biggest disappointment since the Crucifixion. And he won't even do what you'd have us believe he would, eureka. Programs with national standards? Is that why Ken Dryden has been making deals with individual provinces, handing out cash for daycare with no strings attached and no commitment to even a single daycare space? Is that why the much-ballyhooed Health Accord was likewise really just about the provinces banding together to shake down the federal government for cash, with again virtually no commitment as to how the cash would be spent. The only national standard that Paul Martin holds dear is that premiers must give him a photo-op before he forks over the dough. Likewise he's proven that he'll bend over backwards to accomodate each premier who comes running to him with a list of demands. In this respect, the difference is that Harper is honest about what he stands for while Martin is not, and that Harper will do this out of his political philosophy while Martin will do so out of cowardice and fear of confrontation and the belief that he can curry favor in regions where he needs more votes. Paul Martin is a piss-poor imitation of the kind of centralized federalists you admire, eureka. In fact he's not even an imitation of those prime minister, he's a mockery of them. I'm surprised you can hold your supper down while you write your messages of support for him. -k

True. You can reverse that logic and assume that the reason the opposition rushed to call the election before the full Gomery report was released was because it would show much less corruption and they would stand a lesser chance of unseating the Liberals. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's as valid as the above comment based on what we know. That assumption is based on a faulty premise. The portion of the Gomery report dealing with accountability has already been released. The remaining portion of the Gomery report is not about assigning blame. The remaining section is recommendations for improving accountability and transparency in government. -k

I don't see why not. If AIDS were cured, that would mean more and healthier slaves to build the Galactic Annihilator Cannon. The Dark Overlords would be most pleased. I might even get that raise I've been hoping for. Chris, Chris, Chris... if I can be completely serious for a moment... Len Horowitz is *not* a scientist. He is a crazy person. I took some time to read over some of his writings and speeches, and it is pure drivel. It is sheer fantasy. Even though he might use scientific-sounding words, the stuff he writes has absolutely no scientific value. Something I would strongly recommend, Chris, is to study science for a while. If you're still in school, take some science courses. If you're out of school, consider signing up for some Continuing Education science classes. Learning things will help you recognize when you're being fooled. And I am sorry to have to tell you this, but if you're reading Dr Len Horowitz and taking it seriously, then you're being fooled. -kimmitaru {Dark Zone Lieutenant of Earth Occupation Forces.}

One thing that I think is very important to consider is that *none* of the opposition parties will want to go back to the polls any time soon. -the BQ will likely be in a situation where the only way to go is down. -the NDP will likely also be in a position that's as good as it gets for them: Layton's best situation is to be in a minority government where he has enough seats to bargain with the PM to get some of his own issues on the table. He'll have that after this election. He might not have it after the next. -after this election the Liberals will be so deep in debt that it will take years to get their finances straightened up. That might just give them enough time to choose a new leader, reacquaint themselves with the Ordinary Canadians that now make up the large majority of donors to other parties but only 12% of Liberal donations, and heal the infighting between the internal factions. -and all of the opposition know that after 2 elections in 18 months, Canadians do *not* want a third any time in the near future. Unless Harper attempts something that's extremely unpopular or has some sort of major scandal, voters will probably blame the opposition for forcing an election. None of the opposition parties will *want* an election any time soon, and they'll avoid defeating Harper on a confidence vote if they have any way of getting around it. And I think that if the opposition parties attempt to obstruct Harper on issues that aren't confidence votes, it could backfire on them. If it looks like political opportunism, Canadians will respond negatively to that sort of posturing. -k

The Bloc says explicitly what Paul Martin and Buzz Hargrove have been not-so-subtly implying over the last few days. There's really just 2 differences between the new BQ ad and what Liberals have been saying for the past few days. One, the BQ has the guts to say it bluntly while PMPM and Buzz Yesteryear attempt to pussyfoot around it, say it without actually saying it. And two, the BQ is a regional party that has no reason to give a crap what happens beyond Quebec's borders. The Liberals, on the otherhand, claim to be a national party. Think about that one for a while, Liberal supporters. Think about what kind of guy you're voting for. "Paulberta." Doesn't that seem hilarious in hindsight? -k

I once went to Wikipedia's "George W Bush" entry to look up a couple of things, and found a one-word entry: "Asshole." I did think the Titanic photo was kind of amusing, but yes... also juvenile. I've also giggled lately at blogs that have been using a photo of the Hindenburg disaster to represent Paul Martin. Would Conservatives be howling if the same was done to them? I offer a qualified answer. When Liberal-supporters have offered similar sorts of satire towards the Conservative party, we have seen them use swastikas and the little photoshopped cartoon of Harper as a marionette with Dubya holding the strings. Which I think is meaner in spirit than the use of the Titanic as an emblem of the Liberals' floundering campaign. Virtually everybody, Liberals included, concedes that the Liberals have struck a few icebergs during this campaign. Satire attempting to equate Conservatives to Nazis, or Harper to Bush's puppet are by nature a lot more controversial. -k

I would just add that (as has been pointed out) although there are irregularities occuring does not mean that Ann McLellan or anybody associated with her team is at fault. If I was a Liberal supporter who had an opportunity to either vote for a losing candidate in my home riding, or improperly register myself as an Edmonton Centre resident to try to support an important Liberal MP who is in a tight race, I would think it would be pretty tempting... Likewise I would suspect some anti-Liberal voters would want to see Ann McLellan lose badly enough that they'd do the same. It's hard to say which group might have a bigger impact on the election, but clearly it's not proper. And clearly Hawn's staff was concerned about this; they probably have a hunch that it would have worked in McLellan's favor more than their own. -k

So basically, you're saying that AIDS would be stopped if we just let the Star Angels intervene, like they did with SARS and Avian Flu? Oh. Ok. You tell them to go ahead and do it, then. They have my permission to proceed. -kimmitaru {Lieutenant of Dark Zone Earth Occupation Forces.}

OMG, Frank Chu is my new hero! I only hope to someday have a bar named after my insane theories where I can get free drinks and rant on-stage any time I walk in. Now I have something to aspire to. -k

Of course not. We don't know how the mis-registered people intended to vote. And I don't claim this is a "Liberal scandal". Earlier in the campaign when a reporter asked him about polls showing he was ahead,Hawn made a cryptic remark about people getting around voters lists. And it's Hawn's people who've filed this complaint and had Elections Canada get after it. It seems to be the Hawn campaign's opinion that something's up. Whether they're right or wrong, having Elections Canada scrutinize the voters list does no harm, does it? -k

I think recent polls have shown that less than 60% "despise" Harper. He's now winning these "Best PM" polls quite handily, isn't he? But yes, our system needs an overhaul. How did a pig of a man like Jean Chretien win 3 majority governments without ever getting more than 41% of the vote? It's been in need of fixing for a long time. -k

The Edmonton Journal is not a reliable source? Elections Canada is not a reliable source? The Journal article that August provided confirms, with quotes from Elections Canada, that the problems alleged by Hawn's staff are genuine and are being corrected. Check it out, homeslice: Buildings incorrectly identified as residences? Check. People identifying their office as their residence so that they can be on the Edmonton Centre voters list? Check. Now, if Elections Canada has responded to this issue and corrected the problem, or is attempting to, then great. All we can ask is that they do their best, but I hope their recognition that there has been a problem will allow for the proper scrutiny and deter some potential fraud. Keep in mind that "Landslide Annie" got her nickname from extremely narrow wins. It doesn't take a lot of votes to make a difference in Edmonton Centre. A few out-of-riding people listing their downtown office, or Mailboxes Etc box, or storage locker as a residence so they could come to Edmonton Centre to vote for Annie could have potentially made a difference. -k

In Australia last month, Muslim and Jewish groups were campaigning to have Christmas renamed, so as to not offend non-Christians. The day that happens in Canada is the day that I will start a campaign to have Ramadan renamed "Weight Loss Month", and Hanukkah to be renamed "National Candle Week". I'm not even a Christian. But I take offense at the idea of people campaigning against others' traditions. The overwhelming majority of Christians in Canada respect the traditions of non-Christian groups, and only ask in return that their own traditions also be respected. -k {I want a RoboRaptor too! }

You've been corrected again and again on what bill C-250 actually contained, and yet you continue to spread this fiction. Why is that, Norman? -k

If he questioned his own leadership for even a moment, he is not the man for the job. (...) Proper way for a PM to act? Well first off they are human. But showing weakness is not an option. Out of all the PMs in the past that I have taken note of.. I would say Trudeau was how a leader should act. I have not really liked a PM since. I don't think spending some time reflecting on whether he's the man for the job is a sign of weakness. A lot of smart and experienced observers said before, during, and after the 2004 election that Harper would never be PM. After the disappointment of his 2004 loss, how can you blame the guy for taking some personal time to consider the question of whether maybe they were right? Do you really feel that it would be more admirable for a leader to pigheadedly refuse to step aside until power is ripped from his cold dead hands? That was Chretien's way, and look at the damage that was done to the Liberal Party as a result. We didn't see Paul Martin step aside after his near miss in 2004 either, or even (publicly, at least) admit to giving any thought to the idea. Do you think Paul Martin will have the wisdom to step aside after this election, be it defeat or narrow victory? I think that what Harper has accomplished, first in merging the old PC party into his own party, and uniting it into a cohesive party that is on the virge of winning this election is actually a testament to the kind of leader Harper is. By comparison, look at the "leadership" the other guy has shown. Martin's quest, over the better part of a decade, to engineer a coup-d'etat against Jean Chretien created scars in the party. Even 2+ years after Chretien's retirement we still have warfare going on between the "Chretien" and "Martin" factions of the Liberal party, we have Liberal candidates stripping the word "Liberal" from their own advertising, we have people openly organizing their leadership campaigns in the middle of an election.Harper has taken 2 parties and turned them into a single and effective factor in this election. Martin has taken Canada's traditional governing party, an election-winning machine, and turned it into a confused mess divided by internal conflict and plagued by poor strategy, bad planning, and a series of errors. At this point how can there be any question as to which man has stronger leadership skills? -k

Listen today and hear me on Monday. -k

At a time when many observers said that Harper's own unpopularity hurt his party or that he would never win an election, I think taking some time off to decide whether he was really the guy to lead the party shows (1) introspection and (2) a willingness to consider the party's welfare ahead of his own aspirations. In other words, two qualities completely foreign to Paul Martin Jr or Jean Chretien. So I suppose it's not surprising that a young Canadian such as yourself would wonder if that's a proper way for a prime minister to act. -k

I am not married. However, I tell my cabana-boy and house-wench how to vote. The threat of deportation or reductions to their 2 meals a day keeps them in line. -k

When there are only 2 parties that have a realistic chance of forming a government, "he is not as bad as the other guy" is a very strong argument in Harper's favor. Harper supporters here have been willing to acknowledge that he has little experience in foreign affairs. You, on the other hand, have been unwilling to acknowledge or discuss any of Martin's glaring flaws. He's a weak, indecisive leader who can't make up his mind on any issue without consulting his polling firm and his PR consultants. He divided the Liberal party in his quest to unseat Chretien and claim power for himself, and in doing so has created a rift in his party that remains to this day. He can't even unite his own party, let alone the country. He has been flatly rejected by the vast majority of Quebec voters and has now set his sights on attacking Albertans as well. He continues to drive wedges between the regions to try to shore up his strength in his southern Ontario power base. He offers no response on issues of democratic reform, no response on issues of accountability, just more of the status quo-- the status quo that has put this country on a collision-course with break-up. And to all of this, the only response you have is "yeah, well Harper has no international experience." So who is really the one who is denying the issues? Yeah, Martin has international experience. He's put this country on the brink of disaster, but at least he has international experience. -k