kimmy

I don't know why I'm spending my time responding to a guy who appears to just be reposting form letters, except that it's a good excuse to write about why I believe so passionately that we need to choose a new government on Jan 23. I don't think it is "downplaying Canada" to point out that Prime Minister Martin can't even keep his own party in line or manage his own election campaign competently. How's he supposed to lead the country when it seems as though he couldn't even organize a game of hide and seek at his grandchildrens' birthday party? and neither was Martin. Canadians who believe that our ability to contribute in trouble spots around the globe is important should be quite excited about Harper's plan to bolster our military and expand our capability of providing aid in places that need our help. Are you watching the same election as the rest of us? Harper has been talking about his own policy and plans and his hopes for the future for weeks. Martin is the one who has done nothing but point fingers, spending the entire campaign trying to convince Canadians that Stephen Harper is a Bad Guy. Next time you fly by, why don't you respond to questions like how Paul Martin can possibly address national unity when his party's been so thoroughly discredited in Quebec. Or why we should trust a guy who proposed a major policy idea in the middle of a debate without even consulting his own party. -k

aw, come on, Shakey, get on board the love train! Quebec voters have firmly rejected the Liberals and are turning to Harper as the federalist choice in Quebec. The Liberals have alienated too many Canadians from the federal government. Harper is the only leader who can reduce regional tensions in Canada. Hands across the country! -k {feel the blue tide of pan-Canadian love! }

translation: "Long thread and time to repost the form-letter that I've already posted in this forum, and probably in several others like it." What instability? What crisis? The only crisis was of the Liberal party itself. If you are claiming national unity was at stake, consider that replacing Paul Martin as prime minister might be the most important action Canadians could take towards resolving that issue. If you're talking about the loonie dipping a few cents at the international currency markets and so forth, get real. We have a parliamentary system that allows elections to be forced when the prime minister has lost the confidence to govern. Quite clearly Paul Martin had done so, and parliament was well within its right to exercise that power. Forcing an election is not of itself "instability". It's a natural occurence in our parliamentary system. Martin also said at the time that if he was prime minister, we'd be in Iraq. Harper and company introduced their policies early in the election, and have stood by them. Martin, on the other hand, is running about with new policy announcements trying to recapture the attention of voters. What more graphic example could one find of a policy invented on the fly than Paul Martin's promise to scrap the notwithstanding clause? He presented this pledge in the middle of a debate on national TV. His own people are unable to explain when the plan was made, "some time ago" being the most specific answer they've provided. The promise to scrap the notwithstanding clause does not appear anywhere in their "Red Book" policy document. Anne McLellan, the Deputy Prime Minister, one of Martin's staunchest supporters, a member of every committee worth knowing about, and a professor of constitutional law, says that she wasn't even asked about the idea. (read article here.) The Conservatives look quite united, don't they? The Liberals, with the well-publicized feud between the pro-Martin factions and Chretien supporters, are the party with a great deal inner turmoil. It has only become worse, as the campaign has floundered and some Liberals are openly expressing dissatisfaction with Paul Martin and with the campaign team. Even Anne McLellan, Martin's closest ally, basically pulled the plug on him today. Prominent Liberals are now making little secret of their preparations for the fight to replace Martin. Why on earth would Canadians vote to elect a prime minister whose own party considers him a lame duck? I don't think anyone has ever claimed that absolutely every Liberal is corrupt or that absolutely every Conservative is perfect. However, as the Liberals stumble from one high-profile controversy to the next, I don't think that "hey, nobody's perfect" is an adequate excuse for their performance or a compelling reason to reelect them. Talking about Martin's international contacts seems a little odd when he's done his best to alienate our most important international partner, as an election strategy no less. It is not Martin's international contacts that put Canada in such a strong position. It is our immense national resources. Using our resources to open doors, and improving relations with the Americans, will allow Harper to continue and expand our trade opportunities around the globe. The greatest threat to Canada's prosperity is not our relationship with other countries, it is the danger of Quebec separatism. And on this front, electing Paul Martin to another term would be disasterous for the country and a threat to our continued existance. Under the Liberals, regional tensions within the country have risen to an all-time high. The Liberal party has discredited federalism so badly in Quebec that it has put this country in danger of breaking up, and another term of Paul Martin as prime minister will push us to the brink. We need a different prime minister, one who doesn't come with all of the baggage the Liberals have accumulated since 1995. Not long ago the Liberals claimed they were the only federalist option in Quebec, but now polls show twice as many Quebec voters support the Conservative party as the Liberals. Quebec voters prefer a socially conservative party with a western Canadian anglophone leader to the Martin Liberals. What further proof does one need that the federal Liberals are damaged goods in Quebec? What further proof does one need that the Liberals are incapable of addressing national unity? What could be a more convincing argument for change than that? "This is not a chain letter, this is real. Forward this to nobody, and Revenue Canada will audit your tax return. Forward this to 5 people, and you will receive an Industry Canada grant. Forward this to 10 or more people, and you will be made ambassador to Denmark!" -k

I just saw the new Liberal ad too, and I think it is actually quite good. It shows Paul Martin looking and sounding like a Prime Minister, something he has not looked like throughout the whole campaign. This is the Paul Martin that we wanted when he took over from Chretien; sadly we've seen precious little of this Paul Martin for a few years. If they had come out with this sort of thing sooner it might have had a bigger impact than the attack ads they went with instead. -k

A slightly different take on things than my own Star Wars inspired rant, but ok. I strongly disagree with the claim that we're spending close to $1 billion to find out what happened to $147 million; particularly because you arrived at that figure by including the cost of three (3) $277 million elections. We're not having 3 elections to find the sponsorship money; we didn't even have 1 election to find the sponsorship money. Paul Martin called the 2004 election, he said, because he wanted a mandate from the Canadian people. That is certainly his right to do so; it was a little early, but not unduely so, and after all he had not been elected Prime Minister by Canadians. He wanted to go to the people and earn that title. He did, after a fashion. The present election might be considered a referendum on the Gomery findings, though as we have seen it goes far beyond that. This minority government lasted about a year and a half, and by minority government standards, that's not bad. The previous minority government, you'll recall, lasted only 9 months before Darth Trudus struck down Clueless Joe Kenobi. All things considered, I think the opposition was actually quite patient with Chancellor Martin. There is also an inherent logic to having an election at this point in time: elect less than half a government, and it seems only fair to get less than half a term out of them. The next election, if current trends hold, will not be about sponsorship money either. It will be a referendum on Stephen Harper's performance. Hopefully that election will be a few years away. The Liberals had best hope so, at least... they'll need a long time to rebuild their party and replenish their bank account. The cost of elections is something that we, as citizens of a democracy, consider to be a cost of our ideals. -k

Well, if this is indeed what the hype is about, then it's not a bomb in the "Fat Man and Little Boy" sense, but it does seem likely to bomb in the "Adventures of Pluto Nash" sense. I think that if there was a window of opportunity where this sort of stuff would have worked, I think that window is now closed. I think the problem the Liberal campaign team faces is that now that many voters seem to have decided on change, the "same-old same-old" is not going to lure them back. If anything, this might have an opposite effect: you can scare somebody away from trying something... but once they've made up their mind to do it, telling them "you'll be sorry!" can galvanize their resolve. -k

It's not often I laugh out loud while I'm reading messages on this board, but I did at this. -k

I think there's a notable difference between making fun of a medical affliction and making fun of a personal grooming choice... especially a bad one. It was not Jean Chretien's choice to have Bell's Palsy. Jack Layton's pornstache, on the otherhand, is nobody's fault but his own. I also do not think the intention is to make fun of Layton's moustache. The idea of pasting Layton's mouth over top of "regular guy" Canadians is to ask "does Jack Layton really speak for you?" Obviously, this wouldn't work if Layton's mouth and stache weren't so recognizeable, but I don't think the ad makes fun of Layton's stache per se. -k

I think it would be neat if they raised the GST and eliminated income tax altogether. -k {however, my pocket calculator doesnt have enough zeroes to figure out whether this would be fiscally viable.}

What's your concern here? That the mock-ballot that came as part of the Conservative candidate's advertising material does not make mention of the opponent's names? So? I don't think a candidate is under any obligation to mention his opponents in his advertising. I mean, if you'd found evidence that Conservatives in Ottawa West/Nepean had managed to switch the Elections Canada ballots with ballots that have a big color photo of John Baird, list fictional opponents sans party affiliation, and already have an X in the box by Baird's name, I think that yes, you'd have found a bigtime scandal. As it happens, though, I think you've mistaken a humor column for the real thing. -kimmy {man, if this is the Liberals' "nuclear bomb", they're in bigger trouble than I thought. }

I found this blog entry that I assume talks about the bogus email you're referring to: http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index/weblog/3517/ I wouldn't assume the Liberal Party itself is behind such an idea, but supporters of all political parties can get into trouble if they've got too much time on their hands. -k

On the topic of the supposed "nuclear bomb" ...I would have to think that if the Liberals had anything good, they'd have used before now. I suspect this will be the Liberal equivalent of the Gurmant Grewal tape... something long on innuendo and lacking in substance. The timing-- 6 days before the election-- suggests to me something that will have some shock value but won't stand up to much scrutiny. That would be my guess, at least. I could be wrong, of course. We'll find out soon if there's anything to this. -k

I think you made a four sentence post with each of the conservative daily talking points in it. Congratulations. Is it now a "talking point" to point out that our Prime Minister looks frantic and stammers whenever he's asked a question nowadays? Did you notice how much he stammered under questioning from Mansbridge during their fireside chat last week? Did you notice his wild hand-gestures during the 2nd english debate? (Before somebody accuses me of picking on a handicapped guy, I should point out that Prime Minister Martin did not exhibit a speech impediment or spastic movement before the election started. It seems to be a recent development, and stress related one might guess.) It seems to me that one should be allowed to point out the obvious without being accused of getting the information from "talking points". It would also seem to me that people who've been snickering non-stop about Stephen Harper's "fake smile" have no business complaining about how Paul Martin's body-language is now being interpretted. Even the CBC has picked up on it, if you visit the editorial cartoons on the election section of their website. -k

I disagree with the claim that the Conservatives have run a totally negative campaign. Although many of their ads have been negative, they have also articulated their own positions through the series of policy announcement after policy announcement that dominated the pre-Christmas portion of the campaign and Harper continues to speak in positive terms at his campaign stops. As for the NDP: is it smart for them to pursue the remaining Liberal voters? I think so. A Conservative minority appears to be the most likely outcome of this election, and having more NDP members in the HOC will put Layton in a stronger position to advance his own issues. I believe that despite their differences on some issues, Layton and Harper actually have some common ground that they can work on-- issues like accountability, electoral reform, and so on. I also believe that Harper is a pragmatist and that Layton is sincere when he talks about cooperating to get things done. So, I think that they will probably be able to reach some compromises. Layton might go to Harper and offer support for this bill in exchange for supporting an NDP cause. -k

I assume you're referring to this: Hill and Knowlton Election Predictor How good of a prediction is it? It depends on their methodology. Because of the way our system works, it's hard to translate polls into seats. If I was guessing, 166 seats seems far too high. Another election predictor is at Democracticspace. He uses results from the last election in each riding, then adjusts to account for changes in polling. It's flawed, I think, but probably not bad as these things go. His latest predicts 135 Conservative seats, which I find more believable than 166. Democratic Space Projection for Jan 15 (PDF file) -k

What Harper will do if elected Prime Minister is limited in great extent by political pragmatism. And, what Harper would do for ideological reasons, Martin would do out of fear, political weakness, and the lack of any convictions at all aside from the need to do whatever is required to retain power. Of all the things that you've seen during your many years in Canada, eureka, I imagine that watching this desperate, fearful little man inherit the mantle of "Defender of Canadian Federalism" must be among those that have caused you the most despair. -k

no, no. The middle and upper income families breed *pretend* gangstas. Kids that would wet their pants in terror if faced with the sort of experiences the real gangstas regard as normal. Everybody wants to be a "bad-ass", hence the rich kids adopting the music and clothes and other adornments of the real gangstas. But when it comes down to shooting someone or (even worse) getting shot at, few people have the stomach for it no matter how bored they might be at home. However, I do applaud your efforts to be an involved and informed parent. I am sure it will make a difference! -k

An interesting idea, I suppose, but I do object to the idea of "without pay". I think that earning a salary is a part of the process of building pride and self-respect which you mention. Without pay, you're probably just building resentment of the experience. Is it feasible? Perhaps judges could offer military service as a form of alternative sentence. -k

Up to about 2 days ago, the status of the Kelowna Accord was one of the negatives for the Conservative campaign. To address this, and get an endorsement from native groups for their plan on the issue, has to be a major coup for Harper and Prentice. I confess complete and intentional ignorance of pretty much everything to do with native policy in Canada, so I'm not familiar with the issues Kinsella refers to. Is the First Nations Governance Act something we actually want back on the table? Were the reasons it was killed political, as Kinsella claims, or were there other issues at work? -k

Let's look at both of these: I have believed for a while that a good chunk of the BQ support in Quebec is actually made up of people who don't want sovereignty but just hate the Liberals. For a similar effect, consider the "strategic voting" issue in the Greater Toronto Area ridings. A lot of the voters are probably NDP supporters who do not want to see Stephen Harper become Prime Minister. All things being equal, they would prefer to send a Dipper to Ottawa, but as Conservatives show increasing strength in polls, many NDP supporters will probably vote Liberal instead, because they believe that electing a Liberal MP will help prevent Stephen Harper from becoming Prime Minister. In Quebec, same idea but different parties. And here... ...is something I think makes a lot of sense: the lack of options in Quebec has been disasterous for the federalist cause. In Quebec for several elections, the choice has been painful: you can go Separatist, or you can go Liberal. Harper is pleading for Quebec voters to view the Conservative party as an alternative. It might not happen this election, but if Harper wins this election then I believe that the following election will see a dramaticly reduced BQ vote, as people who vote BQ out of disgust for the federal Liberals will finally accept the Conservatives as a credible option in Quebec. I believe that the Conservatives will attract much stronger candidates next time, as more prominent and influential Quebecers will believe the Conservatives have a chance of winning Quebec ridings and of forming a national government. Even now, any Quebec Conservative who can win a seat will have an excellent chance of holding a Cabinet post. That would be an intriguing possibility for notable Quebecers who are considering entering politics but are uninspired by either the Liberals or BQ. I believe that eliminating this "either/or" problem in Quebec-- you can either elect a separatist, or a Liberal-- is of such key importance to our country's future. I believe that a Conservative win here, even if there's not a single Quebec Conservative elected, will put us on a path to reducing the regionalism that has become such a powerful and divisive force in Canadian politics, not just in Quebec but in other parts of Canada as well. -k

I suspect that Drea has assumed that conditions that are true of the far north boom-towns-- Fort MacMurray, High Level-- apply elsewhere in the province. -k

Which was a novelty, wasn't it? It seems to me that Dinosaurs got more discussion in the 2000 campaign than any policy issue. And 2004 was negative pretty much from the start. I don't remember the 1997 campaign very well, but I suspect it was more of the same. I think it is worth pointing out that the Conservatives' strategy from the start has been to use Harper's speeches and the policy announcements for discussion of policy, and use TV advertising for the negative stuff. They perhaps believed there was some necessity to attack the Liberals but also believed that having Harper do so would again play to the "angry guy" image that has hurt him in the past. So they have had him be Mr Positive out on the campaign trail; when there is mud to be slung at the Liberals they have relied on TV ads to do so. I believe the Liberals probably intended something similar, except that now Paul Martin's speeches have also become primarily attacks on Harper as well; if Martin has anything positive to say in this campaign it's now being completely drowned out by his own campaign's attacks. -k

If Harper leads a minority government, I think that we will see things a lot like we saw in the past 18 months. Harper will not form an official coalition. He will attempt to govern issue by issue. For items relating to governmental accountability and reform, he will probably be able to get the support of the NDP and the BQ. For other issues, he might have a harder time finding allies among the opposition. For some issues he might find himself in the position of having to give concessions to an opposition party to get his legislation passed. Some people will say it is healthy cooperation and compromise, others will use words like blackmail, vote-buying, prostitution, etc. The same sort of stuff we saw during the past parliament. One thing Harper would have going for him is that the opposition might not have a lot of enthusiasm for an election any time soon either. The BQ will probably be in a situation where the only way to go is down. The Liberals need to regroup, get their internal problems sorted out, choose a new leader, and rebuild their bank account. Who knows how long it'll be before they're ready for another election. And the NDP will probably be in a pretty good situation, by their standards. A minority parliament with more NDP members could see Jack Layton holding a balance of power which he could use to advance some of his pet causes. I could see Layton and Harper cooperating on some sort of electoral reform issues, even if they have little common ground in other areas of policy. And, like in the past parliament, I don't think the opposition will want to go back to the polls until the timing looks favorable. They know the public doesn't want an election soon, so they won't go until there's an issue they think is worth fighting another election over. Right now it's hard to guess how long it'll be before one presents itself. If Harper leads a minority government. -k

My view of the media has been evolving over the time I've spent on this forum, in some measure due to ideas and comments from thoughtful people like yourself and Sparhawk. And my current view-- the pirhanas-- is, I think, representative of the cumulative actions of a large number of individuals all motivated by self-interest and advancement in their chosen field, which comes through competition with each other but with similar objectives that can make it seem almost like there's a single guy named Joe Media carefully planning his next move. Kimmy, I have copied this from the other thread to which you linked.Are journalists like piranhas in a feeding frenzy? Maybe, but you would have us believe that the piranhas are attacking a skinny kitten when an obese St Bernard is floating in the water nearby. I suspect piranhas, when hungry, attack whatever is edible and there would likely be more around a big animal than a small one. I would not you believe that at all. The Liberals have clearly made themselves the more tempting target, as I think I have expressed in my messages. For columnists, the Liberals have provided more attention grabbing antics; for news editors, the Liberals have provided the more interesting material, stuff that leads off shows and attracts viewers to their programs. For analysts and bloggers and so on, the Liberals have provided endless fodder for discussion. Back in the Amazon, the Conservatives have stayed safely on shore, while the Liberals have fallen in... thrashing wildly... with bleeding wounds... and a sign that says "Buffet!" around their necks. An excellent point. I think that in the aftermath of this election, there'll probably be a lot of scholarly speculation as to what role blogs have played. Both the "professional" types-- Wells, Coyne, so on-- and the hobbiests-- Angry GWN, smalldeadanimals, etc... (I am unsure as to which heading to file Kinsella under; he could be argued to be both or either...) have played a role in this, but to what extent, I am unsure. -k

The appearance, if you're having a hard time following, is that this person Joe Ng paid Tony Valeri far more than the property was worth. Perhaps Joe Ng is just not a very smart guy and had no idea that he was paying twice market value. Who knows, maybe Joe just made a foolish purchase. However, the article seems to indicate that Joe Ng was a successful businessman who was able to arrange government financing to land a big contract, so I'm somewhat skeptical as to whether he was really so naive as to the actual value of the property. Suppose for a moment that Joe Ng did know he was paying Tony Valeri far too much for the property. Think about reasons why he would do so. Think about that for a while and write back to me if you're still puzzled as to why this has the appearance of impropriety. -k