Neal.F.

[on the wall. It says "Stephen! Withdraw the motion! You've been weighed in the balance and found wanting!" This poll is Not good news for anyone except Federalists and Liberals. Note that Bloc support appears to have declined (from 13%-10.6 nationally) despite the disturbing finding that 50% thought Quebec separationwas likely in the next 5 years. By knocking the Bloc down to pre-2004 levels we could see that number reduced as well. If all Federalists line up together, and don't cast protest votes for (especially!) the Bloc Quebecois, as happened in '04, there is a good chance of taking back 15-20 seats from teh separatists. I am a Canadian first, and a Conservative second. A a canadian, I would be pleased to see the Bloc's momentum shattered, or better yet destroyed. As a Conservative, I am saddened that we appear headed for another term in Stornoway. The lesson to be learned is that though scandal may contribute to the groundwork that will result in a government's fall, to wit, give someone motivation to vote against the poops in power, but the corrollary is that the alternative needs to give the jaded voter a reason to go through with the switch. Ths clearly has not happened,given that Tory numbers haven't been able to crack the 30% level for more than a few hours. Given the scandals that have plagued this Govt, not to mention its excreble perfomance as a government, the alternative government party should be at a minimum of 40%! This won't make me popular with anyone, but it is the truth, and needs to be stated. w'll hear the typical rantings about how Ekos and frank Graves are in teh Liberals' pocket, but would somebody care to explain why all the other polls fail to show the Conservatives cracking 30%? And don't say its the policies...Most people don't know what those policies are!It's been all Adscam all the time, and all people see is the anger, and not the substance. And righteous indignation will only take you so far. The voters response is "We're angry too, but why should i trust you, and why should i vote for you?" It's not the policies so much as having done a poor job of articulating them.

Harper is clearly an idiot. He just handed the Liberals a club to beat him with over and over again. It does not make a difference how reasonable, measured or accurate his comments about the sponsership fraud are from now on: the Liberals can now play the victim and claim that the opposition critics are exagerating the extent of the corruption. It is the 'child porn' gaff all over again.It is still early in the campaign so it may be long forgotten by the vote comes but the episode does show a disturbing lack of judgement on Harper's part. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Fleabag is right, but I'll expand on the magnitude of the error. First off, we know the CP does not have enough boots on the ground to take more than 2-3 seats...if they're lucky. All his coments will do is drive more voters into the arms of the SEPARATIST Bloc Quebecois. If he does get to be PM, he is very possibly going to have to fight a referendum on Quebec independence, and if he's prone to hyperbole, like that, and like the Paedophila thing, he's not up to doing battle with Duceppe and Boisclair on their home turf. Conservative or not, he should want as many Federalist allies as possible in the HoC, who WILL lay partisan issues aside for the duration of a refeendum campaign. the more seats the Bloc loses, the bigger the hit to separatist prestige, and the less likely a referendum becomes. Has he ever stopped to think "what if the Bloc gets 58-60 MPs?" They will use their influence (and or money) in the provincial election, and in the referendum that will folow if the PQ wins. he's out of his league in Quebec, and its ;argely his own fault. he ignore the province for nearly two years, and lost the momentum of June 2004. He needd to concentrate on te few serious prospects he has. and more long term, has he figured out that for the long term, his future prospects in QC will depend on his being able to dislodge ant-liberal federalists and soft nationalists from the BQ? After all that was the traditional Tory base in QC. As long as the bloc remains strong, and has prestige, and the tories look mickey mouse, it's not goingto happen. Let teh Block be talen down a peg, and suddenly there';s an opportunity!

seems this is getting off topic... as far as who will win and why, I offer this. It will either be a Conservative minority, if the Tories can stay on message or a Liberal majority ifthey can take harper off message. I think the Libs are going to run two campaigns. One in Quebec, Where the Tories are not a factor, and one oin the ROC, where they will try the same tactics that have worked before. In Quebec, the Liberals will attack ferociously with a message that the Bloc is treating this as a dry run for the provincial election and that anyone considering casting a protest vote with the Bloc should seriously reconsider. The Liberals are actually right in this case: 1)if the Bloc holds what hey have, or worse, makes gain, they will spin it as support for separation. They will have the Big Mo' in heir favour as we apprach a provincial election. 2) Every seat the Bloc has weakens us vis a vis the next election, and referendum, if there's to be one. The elected Bloquistes will use their influence, and riding offices to help Pequistes win in the next election. They will use YOUR tax dollars to do it. 3) There will be too few federal representatives on teh ground to add legitimacy to the Federalist cause. 4)The Bloc is a separatist party. They are not altruistically looking out for the interests of all Quebecers, they are seeking to weaken and deligitimize tehe federal system any way they can. They exist solely for the purpose of preparing the way for the PQ to destroy the country. 5) Taking the Bloc down to 35-40 seats will damage their prestige, and lead to their unravelling, and if they lose prestige, so does Boisclair and Co. , and perhaps a referendum can be avoided entirely. 6) Staying home on voting day is not an option. The Seps won't. That will be the message, and if it works, we could see the Bloc go down to those levels. And if it results in a Liberal minority or even a majority, if the separatist movement hits the wall, it would be worth putting up with 2-4 more years of the Liberals. Whatever the Tories do, they must NOT enter into coalition or any kind of deal with the separatists! If they do, they can kiss Ontario goodbye forever. The Bloc will just use them to advance their goal, which is separation, not a better deal with Canada. In Quebec, as I;ve said I do hope the Liberals are able to get Federalists away from casting protest votes for the Bloc. These separatists need to be taken down and hard. A Conservative minority, possible ONLY f they follow this blueprint could then enter into a grand coalition (such as is being currently tried in Germany, and was done here during the wars) with the Liberals so as to get the Quebec representation they need. However, they would need to distance themselves from the tainted ones, and instead put Stephane Dion in as Intergovernmental affairs minister, Marc Garneau as Sci. & Tech, Francis Scarpeleggia, Massimo Pacetti, Pablo Rodriguez, Eleni Bakopanos and others could be given something else. (leave Cotler, Robillard, Pettigrew, Frulla etc on the backbenches. Hopefully they'll take the hint and get out of the game.). I am hoping that the NDP gets beaten up so badly that they lose official party status, so that Jack Layton and his marxist louts can never again hold the taxpayers hostage as they did for the past 8 months. I'd like to see them wiped out, but Bill Blaikie, Judy Wascilycia-Lys and pat Martin, and Libby Davies are safe. And i want the Bloc gone. though the best we can hope for is to take them down to 35 seats at worst, this time. But it would be a major blow to their prestige, and they'd unravel rather quickly after that. Here is, given a dose of reality and some wishful thinking, the ideal way it will finish up: Con: 144 (that's as good as it gets:gains in On, BC and Atl) Lib: 125 (Gains in QC offset losses elsewhere) BQ:35 (Still to damned many, but Federalists wake up) NDP: 4 (hopefully the end of the line)

Klein be damned! How the Tories can win the election The above article pretty much sums it up. I will only add that While many Canadians have their suspicions about the Libs, pursuing this line about organized crime, and personal attacks on MPs without red-hot, irrefutable and tangible evidence is risky business for Harper. It sounds like the "Martin supports paedophilia" thingy that called into question whether or not he was ready for prime time. The first crack in what had hitherto been a flawless campaign. Harper needs to be positive, upbeat, and talking abot what he has to offer, not about what soundrels the Liberals are. We know that already. But people will vote for the devil they know, if they are convinced you are the devil they don't. he needs to define himself and his party, before the Liberals define him.

It is astonishing that the NDP doesn't mop up in Quebec. A party based on socialist trade unions, and radical social liberalism should win every time.... They have even affirmed Quebc's "Right to self-determination" yet people still don't flock to them, logically, Parti Quebecois members who would dabble in federal politics should be embracing them. It would even make more sense on startegic grounds too... Elect a bunch of wet noodles who are on the hook as having supported Quebec's right to "self determination, and you have a referendum cakewalk. The Federal government (If NDP) would not have a leg to stand on.

August, My absence from this forum has been rather prolonged, and I have not yet had the cjhance to become accustomed to your personality yet, so forgive me for misinterpreting your intent. I believe that while one might get a bloody nose for standing up to a bully, ONCE, more often than not the bully (and others like him) will leave him alone once they see he is willing to stand up for himself. That is my observation from the schoolyard to the world stage. On the other hand, whistling past the graveyard will yield even greater consequences down the road. I have said dozens of times, that had Britain & France been willing to stand up to a bully named Hitler in '37, at the cost of very few men, they could have spared the world the carnage that resulted as a result of their failure to act. Likewise, I beleive that the actions being taken by the Coalition of the Willing at this time, while costing some lives, will in the long run spare us unspeakable carnage in the future. That means going after Islamofascists abroad, and reining them in at home. Are there mistakes being made? Certainly. Mistakes are made in any war. War being what it is, does not happen in a controlled environment, but is rather subject to factors beyond anyone;'s control. The biggest mistake of all would be failure to act decisively, since thugs and bullies understand force alone. They have no fear of lawyers and International Criminal Courts in The Hague. I think that GWB should concentrate on working with Putin, maybe not on Iraq, but on other anti-terrorist operations. Russia could become a valuable ally long term in creating a balance to keep China in check. Also Friendly relations with Russia could produce an atmosphere whereby control over loose nuclear materials and technology can be regained.

Tony Campolo is a notorious liberal, who is on the wrong (left) side of just about everything, but I do know this, he does legitimately love Jesus, and shares the Gospel at every possible opporttunity. If you meet him, he'll have his new testament out, and give you the plan of salvation. Even though he is politically liberal, anti-Christian bigots will hate him anyway. HE has suggested that Christians take a page out of the Latter Day Saints playbook and require a mandatory two year service in the Mission field.

(I posted this in another thread, but will add, in light of something august said, that marriage is not a contract between two people. That's acivil union. A mariage is a COVENANT between one man, one woman and God) Same sex marriage undermines the traditional nuclear family, which is the basic building block of western society. It undermines the extended family which is the building block of Asian society. It's bad enough that traditional families are being undemined at every turn by various forces in society that snicker, calling it archaic and irrelevant. The families that are strong and do stay together are a testament to the fact that it is the best system under which to produce shealthy balanced adults who will contribute to building, not tearing down a better society. Nobody is suggesting denying homosexuals to dispose of their estates as they see fit, or that hospital visits be denied, however, I and others like me do not think that marriage should be extended to anyone but heterosexual couples consisting of one man and one woman . Nor do we believe that mariages should be , as Rod Stewart once put it, like Dog licenses, renewed every year if the couple sees fit. we need couples to be committed fopr a lifetime, raising their childen and strengthening families, not a society that just shacks up for awhile, then moves on when one partner outgrows the other. the damage to society resultant from such a cynical worldview should be obvious to all. I personally don't think that heterosexual common law relationships should be viewed as marriages either. for they are not. neither, in my opinion, are civil marriages. why not just call them what they are? Civil unions. The only people who will benefit from same sex marriage, ar the divorce lawyers, social workers, and psychiatrists. Here's an interesting perspective from some who has lived the homosexual lifestyle. http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/NotAbou...riage_ExGay.htm

Sweal, I don't expect you to accept my answer about why gay marriage is detrimental, but here it is. Same sex marriage undermines the traditional nuclear family, which is the basic building block of western society. It undermines the extended family which is the building block of Asian society. It's bad enough that traditional families are being undemined at every turn by various forces in society that snicker, calling it archaic and irrelevant. The families that are strong and do stay together are a testament to the fact that it is the best system under which to produce shealthy balanced adults who will contribute to building, not tearing down a better society. There are loyalties that transcend generations. The utilitarian forces that are trying to adbvance alternative lifestyles are doing their best to drive wedges into families. It will facilitate their end game of eliminating the weaker member of society, ie: the old and infirm via euthanasia (After all if it's grandpa and yoiu bnever really knew him anway since he moved downeast to be with his 3d common law wife, the decision comes from a more detached persepective) or abortion, for children that are less than perfect... Nobody is suggesting denying homosexuals to dispose of their estates as they see fit, or that hospital visits be denied, however, I and others like me do not think that marriage should be extended to anyone but heterosexual couples consisting of one man and one woman . Nor do we believe that mariages should be , as Rod Stewart once put it, like Dog licenses, renewed every year if the couple sees fit. we need couples to be committed fopr a lifetime, raising their childen and strengthening families, not a society that just shacks up for awhile, then moves on when one partner outgrows the other. the damage to society resultant from such a cynical worldview should be obvious to all. As I said earlier it depersonalizes things. I personally don't think that heterosexual common law relationships should be viewed as marriages either. for they are not. neither, in my opinion, are civil marriages. why not just call them what they are? Civil unions. The only people who will benefit from same sex marriage, ar the divorce lawyers, social workers, , and psychiatrists. Here's an interesting perspective from some who has lived the homosexual lifestyle. http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/NotAbou...riage_ExGay.htm I believe in traditional values because they are time tested to produce the best results, not because of any "superstious beliefs" I further believe that God gave us the Bible in part to teach us the best way to live, for ourselves, and the benefit of others. It also serves to give us a long term perspective on things, rather than an expedient "what course of action serves ME best at this time?"

Now that Bush has been re-elected, the idea of going stateside is tempting. Vist New hampshire sometime. I challenge you to find anywhere else a place with better state parks. The only state taxes there are are value added taxes, and that is only on hotels & restaurants and other luxuries. yet they manage just fine. I will agree that some taxation is neccesary, but not the outrageous taxes we pay in Canada for 3d rate healthcare, non-existent so-security, 5th rate roads and infastructure and undefunded armed forces. What is being taken from us is in large part wasted, or mismanaged. It's really about poor stewardship. we could cut our taxes substantially if money was well managed. Why not defund special interest groups, multiculturalism, and political parties just for starters?

Maplesyrup, Paul Martin may have been BORN in Windsor, he is truly a Quebecer in every way. That is a charade. Official bilingulaism is grossly unfair, and a huge waste of time and money. I grant you that knowledge of more than one language is an asset, but for someone in BC, for example, it would make more sense to speak English and Chinese, or English and Punjabi, and in Saskatchewan, Ukrainian would be more useful than French.

Sweal, Canada needs to pull its weight in the world, and not leave all the heavy lifting to others. Australia is a country roughly the same size as canada, geographically and in terms of population, yet they show common sense, resolve and character. In addition to backing the USA in the war against Terrorism and islamofascism, domestically, they have had a sensible immigration policy. It is one of the most difficult countries to get into, and as a result it does not face the serious threat canada now faces because of Trudeau's multiculturalism at all costs policies, and allowance of a dual immigration policy. W never kowtowed to the US and Britain's intersst, due to affinities resulting from historical development it is in all of our common interest to protect Judeo-Christian western civilization from atheistic, utilitarian humanistic socialism and fascism in whatever form it takes. Nothing cheapens life more than atheism and utilitarianism. Remnant moralistic statism? Abortion, for example is not about religion. it is about civil rights... the most basic one of all: the ruight to life, from conception until natural death. By legalizing abortion the right to be free of an "inconvenience" that results (in the forfeit of an innocent life) from one's own actions, supersedes the right to life. I don't see that as progress. the War against terrorism and Islamofascism served the citizens of these countries in many ways. by taking the fight TO them, the initiative and momentum is on the side of right now. Afghanistan is now free, Iraq is free, and on its way to democracy. Islamic police states are now under threat from within. get rid of the enabling police states and you weaken the terrorists. Charest: Yes i think it is a bad thing when a government voluntarily goes about dismantling the traditional nuclear family by bringing in gay marriage, and by brining in a "physician" who is trained in partial birth abortions, and will require taxpayers to fund this horrific practice.

the governments in our excessively overtaxed jurisdictions should become more accountable for how they spend our money. As I said if New hampshire with no state income tax can build good roads, so can Canadian provinces.

Typical post Trudeau canada: Hoping to find utopia in the mushy middle. Trudeau sissified the country, and few people are willing to publicly take a principled stand on anything. The only thing many canadians seem to believe in is that they must show the weasels of the world that they are agaisnt anything the americans do. The new canada would probably have stayed neutral in the second world war (a Quebec appeasement attitude) "After all, who are we to judge tha Nazis? It's up to the germans to decide on their own goverment" would have been the mantra. or "The Poles brought it on themselves for refusing to use diplomacy and work out a deal giving the Germans what they wanted, ie the Polish Corridor and Danzig." Israel has repelled attack after attack by Arab police states, and repugnant terrorists like Yasir Arafat and his PLO. Canada should take the principled stand that until the Palis abandon terrorism and violence, and rescind their principle that Israel has no right to exist, they deserve nothing. Let's see some good faith. I wonder how safe Canadian Jews must feel

Terrible Sweal, Pierre Trudeau destroyed the moral fabric of this country. This is NOT the country my father and gradfather fought for in the two world wars. Quebec is holding the rest of the country back. Canada should be showing the class and backbone of the UK and Australia & Poland not kowtowing to Islamofascistsand globalists in the spirit of France and Germany. We have had a Quebec agenda foisted on us for too long. The country is becoming sissified, and i think the only to turn things around is to get rid of Quebec. Jean Charest's government is bent on making sure Quebec becomes the most socially liberal jurisdiction in North America. I live in quebec, and my house is on the market so we can get out and watch Quebec leave, and watch the Liberal party go down with them. The Liberals have been blessed with a gift called the separatist movement. They are able to scare enough people to vote for them lest the nasty separatists come up the middle, so as to ensure enough of those 75 seats to guarantee at least a minority government. BTW, Pierre Berton once said that 1967 was canada's last good year... since that time, 38 years we have had Quebec prime ministers (and the Quebec agenda) for all but 13 months. (7 months of Joe Clark, 4 months of Kim Campbell, 2 months of John Turner)