CANADIEN

Thanks to Paul Martin. No thanks to Flaherty, who has brought back deficits, and whose government has engaged and is engaged in reckless, unnecessary spending. Interesting that you mention the stimulus spending. The opposition parties basically had to force Flaherty's hand on this. As for the fear of the big bag NDP. This is not the 1990's, and this is not the same NDP. The doom and gloom scenario is the reason why people jumping off the Liberal ship are not swimming the Conservative way. The Conservative are, percentage wise, standing about exactly where they were on election night 1988. People switching from the Liberals are switching to the NDP right now. And it has less to do with Layton and his message and his program that with the arrogance and the naysaying and the gloomy scenarios they perceive in the Conservative discourse.

Duceppe didn't stop campaigning. People in Quebec stopped listening. different. And Layton had the good luck that people turned to him and realized there was an option other than the Bloc. Considering some of the candidates he has, and the fact know very well some of them are not HoC materials, he is very lucky indeed. Not to deny the fact he took advantage of the opportunity. As far Harper... If by a good campaign you mean that he didn't lose much votes... indeed he had a good campaign. Although he was hitting more than 40% two weeks ago. I'll call it a failure though because this was his last chance at a majority, and he is unlikely to get it. I don't think he will be around by the time of the next election, and it may actually be good thing for his party. And Ignatieff. The number of people at his rallies is more a testament to the quality of the Liberal organization than to him. He has proven to be a better campaigner than expected, but it was still not good enough.

Then why refusing to answer this time. A simple "I have already answered" would suffice. Mind you, I do not think Harper is hiding something... just letting his dislike of journalists show is more likely. BTW, it must be very disappointing to you that Harper would be very unlikely to commit TREASON by staging a coup on May 3 if the NDP won on May 2. He is not strong enough.

From 18% to over 30% is many of the recent polls is pretty close to doubling in my book. While the conservative polling is virtually unchanged from the score they got in the last election. Whatever they did, it worked. Mind you, I think it was mostly a result of not being the other parties.

And remember there were a few shall we say controversial figures in the first bunch of Reformers elected to Parliament.

The NDP has managed, in the past few weeks, to almost double its polling number across the country. In Quebec, despite having a second rate group of candidates, they have managed to poll higher than the Bloc. They MUST have been doing something right.

According to the estimed George Jonas, a low turn out is a sign of a healty democracy. And here it goes He is wrong. People who don't vote are people who don't care. Or who think there's nothing worth caring for. I don't see how that could be good.

Earth. Try moving there some time. Well, you are the one who first mentioned that Layton was misleading voters. And I thought the problem was with MPs who barely spoke French.

It is one thing to argue that Layton will have problems dealing with a caucus made up of people who, quie frankly, didn't stand a chance of winning five weeks ago. It is another thing to claim that he mislead the public on this.

And there has been stories about Conservative candidates missing in action - none about Liberal, but I am sure there are some there too. It is what happen when you have to take about anyone who shows up as a candidate for a given riding because nobody thinks there is much of a chance of a win.

The NDP is still not winning this election.

She got what what was coming to her for lying to Parliament. As for the government, it chose not to punish her, but to defend her actions. They should have fired her indeed, but they didn't do it.

If it was not her decision to accept or reject the recommendation, whose was it? Harper? Was it Harper to told her to alter an official document ? She lied and she got the consequences. If holding elected officials accountable for their action is an NDP position, then tell me where I can sign my membership card.

We both agree in our opinion of your postings. . It has been all over the news. I don't see the NDP tanking yet. And most likely, the NDP will do a better job in choosing its candidates in the next election because, unlike this time, they'll have an expectation they can win ridings.

Calling her incompetent when she was clearly caught Laltering an official document and lying about it is providing her with an xcuse for her ceceitful action, no matter how you want to frame it otherwise. Your opinion of her would have been the same had she been from another party? Good for you. Mine would have remained the same as well.

Anyone who claims they knew before the start of the campaign that the NDP would poll at 40% in Quebec and 30% country-wide is a liar.

as demonstrated by each and every poll over the last two weeks.

And I was having my doubt about whether or notthe word boy in your monicker was a reflexion of the level of discourse to be expected. I stand corrected. I would think the exact same thing if Bev Oda had been a Liberal, NDP or Rhinoceros Party minister. Should members of Cabinet be held to different standards based on their political affiliation? I do not think so. Do you?

Oh. I perfectly heard what Harper was saying then. I perfectly hear what he is not saying now. There would be nothing devious or illegal in trying to remain in power even while finishing second - a complete opposite of what he has been saying all along. If he doesn't intend to change his view in the case his party finishes second, he should be applauded for his principled stance. Which is way all he needs to say is - I haven't change my mind on the subject.

Well... what can I say... Crossing a line from an official document then stating that it did not happen would be considered devious, and a ground for dismissal if the document was important enough, in most public and private sector workplaces I've been in.

The celebrity of the victm should not be an excuse for libel.

Nope. She blew it. Just plain saying "I do not accept the recommendation" would have been honest, and quite franly, most simpler anyway.

Nice try. when Harper thought there was no possibility whatsoever another party could get more seat than his, he had no hesitation saying that only the party with the most seats should form government. Now, he doesn't want to respond. Because his respond could be twisted you said... Well boohoohoo - that's a risk politicians run every time they talk straight. Either he sticks to his principle (that only the party with the most seat can form the government), or he doesn't stick to that principle. BTW, that constant flubbering by Ignatieff on that issue is shameful as well. And no, I don't think Layton would have been that different had he been in the same situation.

The "mistake" was to delibarately alter a document then say that she didn't do it or order it. BTW, I do not claim the sky fell, or that Oda is worse than Chrétien, obviously she isn't. But she lied nonetheless - nice of you to find her excuses.

Not that one again. Frankly, that's all you have? The NDP was getting the candidates they could at a time when there was no chance that they would win more than one seat in Quebec. And if you had strapped each and every NDP candidate in Quebec and passed a lie detector test, how many would have said before the start of the campaign they thought they could possibly win? One? Two? The quality of the NDP contingent from Quebec will not be that high. But to argue that Layton deceived Quebecers by deliberately going after bad candidates... Give your head a shake.