Newfie Canadian

They don't have to accept the appointment though. Do they? You may be right August, but perception being what it is, and voter apathy being what it is, do the average Canadian see it that way? The average Canuck sees the the CPC and the Bloc bringing down the government. That's it. The Bloc will win more seats. The damage is done. How bad it will be(for the Liberals) and a bigger indication of the upsurge in sovereignty is who will win the traditional federalist ridings.

It wasn't the policies, or the laws or legislation (although there are plenty of them, good and bad). It was the flair, the intrigue, the flamboyance and the personality. Peter Mansbridge once said in referring to explaining to an American the appeal of Trudeau at the time of his death that Trudeau was our Kennedy. He may have been right. At least that's my take.

When I first saw the headline a couple of days ago my first thought wasa great, here we go again. But upon further study of the poll, things really haven't changed drastically. It's far from resounding support for sovereignty. It's not great for federalism (if there really is such a thing ) but it's not a death knell either.

Anyone who can get Newt Gingrich to admit that he was wrong and apologize for it is OK with me. Having said that, Newt was totally wrong. But good on Frank for calling him on it.

How unabashedly stereotypical of you Argus. My problem with the Reform/Alliance/CPC was the possibility of Atlantic Canada being forgotten by a west dominated party, much like some westerners are feeling now (I guess). Add to that the dysfunctionality of some the party's candidates, like Gallant, Reid and White, who just said and did stupid things that make you question the party. I do agree with you about Chrétien though. At this point in time however, as an Atlantic Canadian, I am willing to give the CPC a shot. Not necessarily because they've cleaned up their act, they have to a certain extent, but because the Liberals have severley blown it. As for the speech itself, I wasn't impressed.

As a semi interested observer, it seems as though this pope may not be around for too long. He just turned 78, and I think I remember hearing on one of the newscasts that he has some health issues. I find it interesting that the cardinals would choose a pope that may not be able to physically do the kinds of things that people now expect of a pope, like extensive travel.

In answer to the question when should Harper pull the plug, how does May 18 sound? http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...tion050422.html

Well, after recent revelations at Gomery, recent polls, PM PM's recent national address and recent accusations, Layton looks more appealing to Martin than ever. Martin wants to meet Layton We Newfies call this any port in a storm time.

I don't see anything concerning military spending. Do they have anything on military spending?

I think it is an underhanded move, ethically if not technically. On the other hand, it is a blatant subversion of democratic practices in the House, from an ethical point of view. To change something as important, practiced and necessary as opposition days is juvenile and wrong. They appear to be running scared. If they would have left it alone and the opposition brought down the government, the Liberals could have still played the blame game, as several importnat pieces of legislation have yet to be passed, including te Atlantic Accord, the Pot bill and SSM. So why do it? However, on the one hand, it is a brilliant move by the Liberals. As August points out, the only way now to bring down the government is defeat the budget bills. They do that, they kill the Atlantic Accord deal, the icrease in military money, national daycare, etc. It's the only thing the Liberals can point to in an election. The Conservatives in English Canada will get the blame for destroying these wonderful things, while in Quebec the Bloc will get the blame.

It occurs to me, it may not matter when the writ is dropped, or who the leaders are, the real enemy may be voter apathy. According to Elections Canada, the voter turnout for the last election was 60.9%. http://www.elections.ca/scripts/OVR2004/default.html There was a poll recently that said: Either people will say what's the point and not bother to vote, or will be so ticked off they will vote just to punish the Liberals. I suspect it will be the latter. Should this be a new thread?

By the time it's all said and done August, the CPC could probably run a dog as a candidate and beat Lapierre. According to what I could find, Lapierre won by 2945 over the Bloc candidate. They were followed by the NDP and then the Con candidate. 1)What are the chances Yves Seguin will run for the CPC as opposed to the PQ? As I understand in the article, he's being wooed by all. 2) I also noticed that Outremont has been Liberal in the last few elections, in other words possibly a federalist riding (if there is such a thing). If he becomes the candidate, would his provincial experience and notoriety be enough to beat the Bloc? I'm assuming of course that Lapierre is history.

Well, for the first time in a very long time, Health Care isn't the #1 item on Canadians worry list. According to a CBC poll, it's, surprise, poor govt/Gomery. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...oll-050414.html Some of the other results are interesting as well. Harper has to weigh it all.

Interesting if true.

Alas Sweal, if I may, politics is very rarely about the truth, isn't it? It's all about perception, and if it is perceived by the public that Martin had to know something, it's almost the same as his having the smoking gun in his hand. And it looks like the rats are starting to abandon the S.S. Liberal. Kilgour Sitting as Independant

None of the above. I doubt that the Liberals, when the time comes, will pick anyone associated with the Liberals governments of the last 5-8 years. They will need someone untainted by the sponsorship mess. Who that could be, I have no idea. I don't even have a suggestion. I've always liked Lloyd Axworthy.

The polls are saying that over 80% of Canadians want to hear Gomery's report before an election. That's not barely a majority, it's a pretty hefty one. The last thing Harper needs to do is the send a crooked, weary and ticked off electorate to the polls, where the slightest little misstep on any CPC candidate's part could take some of that anger away from the Liberals and put it on them. The Liberals are hurting and there is no sign, not even subtle little hints from the Liberals that it is going to get beter for them. Bide your time. Wait. Let it fester.

All it proves is that there isn't a viable alternative on a national level. Perhaps the CPC will change that. Just as an aside, Quebec may be shamed and embarassed, but they should also be furious, along with the rest of us by the way.

They need to stop performing with amazing grace the tactical blunders they perfected in the last election. In other words, they need to stop shooting themselves in the foot. Stick to the platform, and if some loud mouth candidate does or says something ...unfortunate, handle it quickly and as quietly as possible.

There has been plenty said here about Coulter. Some of it in this thread: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/community/foru...f=7&t=2321&st=0 For the record, and I believe I've said this before, she's out to lunch.

Well, that's the system, and it is a card Mr. Hinzman played.Mr. Hinzman joined a group, the US military of his own free will (although I remember him saying somewhere his father pushed him in that direction). There has been no evidence presented that I know of suggesting that he was duped into joining, or that he misunderstood his obligations, or that he never knew or understood the UCMJ. All indications are he is an intelligent young man and he knew what he was getting into. He knew when he joined that he was in until his tour was up. He left that group illegally. He has broken a law of a sovereign nation and fled their jurisdiction to claim, of all things, refugee status for fear of punishment and persecution. The only possible reason in the world not to extradite Mr. Hinzman to the US is the death penalty. The SCOC has upheld the extradition treaty with the US in cases where the death penalty is a possibility if the US jurisdiction agrees to remove the death penalty option. Mr. Hinzman on his own website says he would most likely go to jail. The US hasn't executed a deserter in over 50 years. The refugee board said: Mr. Hinzman is not a refugee. I don't know. It's after midnight and I'm tired. I may be babbling. If so I apologize. Good night.

My point is though eureka, that they had to know that they would be asked as soldiers in an army to do things they may not like or even agree with. But that's not entirely true is it?They showed courage in disobeying orders they swore to obey, then skipping the country in order to avoid taking responsibility for their actions, then saying that they will be persecuted, not prosecuted but persecuted, if they return? Come on. Like I said, they need to talk to some refugees from Africa to find out what persecution is. I agree about the indictments. Never going to happen.

According to Newsworld, Hinzman's request for refugee status has been denied. EDIT-http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

As I recall BD, he tried for the CO status before being sent first to Afghanistan, which most would agree was a legitimate campaign. He ended up going in a non combat role, where his application for CO (when it was found ) was denied. I agree with you about the recruiting. But I can't recall Hinzman using recruiting as an excuse.

With all due respect eureka, they signed a contract that had as it's clear proviso that they obey the orders of their superior officers and their commander in chief. Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, Bush is the democratically elected leader. And all this hogwash about illegal war is moot unless or until Bush and Congress are indicted by a war crimes tribunal. The only reason these people shouldn't be sent back is if they face the death penalty for their actions, as prescribed by the SCOC. I don't agree with the war or Bush's actions, but what did this guy expect to be doing when he enlisted? He made his bed and didn't want to sleep in it. Again respectfully, if they are allowed to stay it would be a black mark against those legitimate refugees from tin pot dictatorships who fear for thier lives and have to fight to stay here. Compare this Hinzman guy to a poor destitute single mother from Sudan or Rwanda. Can anyone say that Hinzman et al should be placed in the same category as such a person?