Dion agrees to meet Harper in Labour Day showdown

[jdobbin]

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...prp2HgOao6_qi4w

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will meet with his Liberal rival Stephane Dion in a Labour Day showdown that will almost certainly precede an election.

Harper's spokesman says the afternoon meeting will take place Monday at the prime minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive.

I guess this should dampen the expected announcement where Harper was going to lay the blame completely on Dion for the election for not meeting him.

[Drea]

That, and the fact that he touted "we WILL have fixed election dates when I am PM!" and is now backtracking wanting an election a year early... What a maroon!

Why does Harper want an election now?

1. He believes the Liberals are weak (they are as Dion is not one to "bring the party together")

2. the US election. He knows that if Obama is elected, when our election rolls around (fixed date Oct 2009) Canadians will follow America and vote left. He just wants to ensure that he is leader BEFORE the American election.

Then what? We have a conservative GW groupie up here in Canada, while the US elects a lefty -- how will they ever see eye to eye?

I know our "right" is not as "right" as their "right" LOL

BUT

Harper wants to continue in Iraq -- Obama wants to get out

Harper wants to give away Canada -- Obama will more than likely end NAFTA (he MUST in order for America to recover economically)

Harper does not believe in social responsiblity -- Obama will be working towards a better social safety net for Americans

It will be like a tug of war with Harper pulling toward the right and Obama pulling toward the left.

... unless of course if "they" kill off Obama or McCain "wins the election like GW did in 2004" (wink wink)-- in either of those cases America will (should!) implode into civil war... unless of course America is just too damn fat and lazy to rise up... LOL

[Keepitsimple]

That, and the fact that he touted "we WILL have fixed election dates when I am PM!" and is now backtracking wanting an election a year early... What a maroon!

Why does Harper want an election now?

1. He believes the Liberals are weak (they are as Dion is not one to "bring the party together")

2. the US election. He knows that if Obama is elected, when our election rolls around (fixed date Oct 2009) Canadians will follow America and vote left. He just wants to ensure that he is leader BEFORE the American election.

Then what? We have a conservative GW groupie up here in Canada, while the US elects a lefty -- how will they ever see eye to eye?

I know our "right" is not as "right" as their "right" LOL

BUT

Harper wants to continue in Iraq -- Obama wants to get out

Harper wants to give away Canada -- Obama will more than likely end NAFTA (he MUST in order for America to recover economically)

Harper does not believe in social responsiblity -- Obama will be working towards a better social safety net for Americans

It will be like a tug of war with Harper pulling toward the right and Obama pulling toward the left.

... unless of course if "they" kill off Obama or McCain "wins the election like GW did in 2004" (wink wink)-- in either of those cases America will (should!) implode into civil war... unless of course America is just too damn fat and lazy to rise up... LOL

What is a maroon?

[Drea]

What is a maroon?

You must be a youngin'...

Bugs Bunny (old cartoon) used to say "what a maroon!" Means "what a moron"..

Cheers!

[Ontario Loyalist]

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...prp2HgOao6_qi4w

I guess this should dampen the expected announcement where Harper was going to lay the blame completely on Dion for the election for not meeting him.

I may get flak for saying this, but here goes: I find it an interesting coincidence that in the news last night it was mentioned that the CJC had complained about the possible election date falling on a Jewish holiday. Now suddenly Dion wants to talk with Harper.

[capricorn]

I find it an interesting coincidence that in the news last night it was mentioned that the CJC had complained about the possible election date falling on a Jewish holiday. Now suddenly Dion wants to talk with Harper.

I think everything Dion does ends as being a coincidence.

[blueblood]

That, and the fact that he touted "we WILL have fixed election dates when I am PM!" and is now backtracking wanting an election a year early... What a maroon!

Why does Harper want an election now?

1. He believes the Liberals are weak (they are as Dion is not one to "bring the party together")

2. the US election. He knows that if Obama is elected, when our election rolls around (fixed date Oct 2009) Canadians will follow America and vote left. He just wants to ensure that he is leader BEFORE the American election.

Then what? We have a conservative GW groupie up here in Canada, while the US elects a lefty -- how will they ever see eye to eye?

I know our "right" is not as "right" as their "right" LOL

BUT

Harper wants to continue in Iraq -- Obama wants to get out

Harper wants to give away Canada -- Obama will more than likely end NAFTA (he MUST in order for America to recover economically)

Harper does not believe in social responsiblity -- Obama will be working towards a better social safety net for Americans

It will be like a tug of war with Harper pulling toward the right and Obama pulling toward the left.

... unless of course if "they" kill off Obama or McCain "wins the election like GW did in 2004" (wink wink)-- in either of those cases America will (should!) implode into civil war... unless of course America is just too damn fat and lazy to rise up... LOL

Hmm, Obama believes marriage is between a man and a woman and is beating the war drum for Afghanistan. Pretty lefty of him. Harper believes in individual responsibility as does Obama.

How will ending NAFTA bail the Americans out of their mess? NAFTA has been very good to the Americans.

[Argus]

Then what? We have a conservative GW groupie up here in Canada, while the US elects a lefty -- how will they ever see eye to eye?

I know our "right" is not as "right" as their "right" LOL

In fact, if Harper were to emigrate to the US and run in elections he'd be considered a flaming liberal. He would probably be on the left fringes of the Democratic party.

[fellowtraveller]

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...prp2HgOao6_qi4w

I guess this should dampen the expected announcement where Harper was going to lay the blame completely on Dion for the election for not meeting him.

Dion had stated flatly that he would refuse to meet Harper until after the byelections, Sept 9.

I wonder what changed Dions mind? Attack of the vapours? Chill wind on the spine?

Maybe they found some foolish bank or shylock to lend the Liberals some money, just in the nick of time. Maybe Alfonso Gagliano emptied his piggybank..

Edited September 1, 2008 by fellowtraveller

[Smallc]

In fact, if Harper were to emigrate to the US and run in elections he'd be considered a flaming liberal. He would probably be on the left fringes of the Democratic party.

Oh, I'm not sure about that. The Conservative party would be considered to be in the centre or left in the US, but if Harper and the members could really say what they think on many issues, I think it would be clear which side of the spectrum they sit on in terms of social policy anyway.

[normanchateau]

In fact, if Harper were to emigrate to the US and run in elections he'd be considered a flaming liberal.

Not necessarily. Harper is on record as opposing embryonic stem cell research. Even John McCain supports embryonic stem cell research despite George Bush's opposition to it. As Obama pointed out, McCain and Bush agreed on legislation 90% of the time but disagreed on the remainder. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that Evangelicals like Harper and born-again Christians like Bush agree on this issue.

[blueblood]

Not necessarily. Harper is on record as opposing embryonic stem cell research. Even John McCain supports embryonic stem cell research despite George Bush's opposition to it. As Obama pointed out, McCain and Bush agreed on legislation 90% of the time but disagreed on the remainder. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that Evangelicals like Harper and born-again Christians like Bush agree on this issue.

Citation that Harper is an Evangelical Christian.

Yes Harper is hard core Evie, that's why he buried the SSM debate and why abortion isn't part of his campaign platform.

[Smallc]

Yes Harper is hard core Evie, that's why he buried the SSM debate and why abortion isn't part of his campaign platform.

Those things aren't a part of his campaign because he knows Canadians would hang him out to dry.

[blueblood]

Those things aren't a part of his campaign because he knows Canadians would hang him out to dry.

A true hardcore Evie wouldn't care about that. Harper doesn't run the Christian Heritage party. Harper has taken the wingnut religious aspects of his party and threw them under the bus during his minority gov't stint. If that was his hidden agenda, mission accomplished.

[Fortunata]

A true hardcore Evie wouldn't care about that. Harper doesn't run the Christian Heritage party. Harper has taken the wingnut religious aspects of his party and threw them under the bus during his minority gov't stint. If that was his hidden agenda, mission accomplished.

You will see it should he get a majority.

[blueblood]

You will see it should he get a majority.

So he can lose the next election?? Wow that was intelligent I don't know if I was elected with a majority gov't with no limit to how long I get to stay in office, I would make damn sure I wouldn't enact anything ridiculous like you suggest Harper would, Harper's no idiot he'd like to be in the PM chair as long as possible.

Good grief the loony left is suggesting that a majority gov't is above the constitution. I am now stupider for having listened to that.

[Fortunata]

So he can lose the next election?? Wow that was intelligent I don't know if I was elected with a majority gov't with no limit to how long I get to stay in office, I would make damn sure I wouldn't enact anything ridiculous like you suggest Harper would, Harper's no idiot he'd like to be in the PM chair as long as possible.

Good grief the loony left is suggesting that a majority gov't is above the constitution. I am now stupider for having listened to that.

Don't be ridiculous.

[blueblood]

Don't be ridiculous.

How, the left is always going when Harper gets a majority this that and the other thing will happen. He's bound by the constitution and the fact that he needs to be re-elected to stay PM.

[Fortunata]

How, the left is always going when Harper gets a majority this that and the other thing will happen. He's bound by the constitution and the fact that he needs to be re-elected to stay PM.

So you think Harper will, in a majority situation, govern progressively (i.e. for him all that means will not govern regressively) on issues and not continue down his road of incremental conservatism?

[fellowtraveller]

Not necessarily. Harper is on record as opposing embryonic stem cell research. Even John McCain supports embryonic stem cell research despite George Bush's opposition to it. As Obama pointed out, McCain and Bush agreed on legislation 90% of the time but disagreed on the remainder. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that Evangelicals like Harper and born-again Christians like Bush agree on this issue.

Only 90%???

That's nothing, Stephan Dion has agreed with Stephen Harpers legislation on 100% of the Tory agenda for over 2 1/2 years. No exceptions.

Beat that.

[Keepitsimple]

So you think Harper will, in a majority situation, govern progressively (i.e. for him all that means will not govern regressively) on issues and not continue down his road of incremental conservatism?

This is where centrists and modern conservatives just start shaking their heads. The Left uses the word "progressive" over and over but it never has any context. Canada has a basket of social tools that is the envy of most countries.....from Pensions to Healthcare to Old Age Support, immigration and refugee support, and on and on. These systems have been put in place and tweaked by all stripes of government and no one is going to take them away. Where we differ is in areas of personal responsibility. The Left believes that Government must solve every problem.....support every "poor" person....they beive in Big Government. Conservatives believe in a balance - a healthy balance of personal responsibility and compassion for the truly poor and downtrodden. Conservatives believe in a Justice system that affords people who break the law reasonable opportunities to not enter the Justice System, and rehabilitation, and leniency in parole when they do......but if you flout the law over and over again, a price must be paid. Conservatives believe that the family is society's blessing and should be encouraged and nurtured where possible. These things don't change overnight...so yes, we'll see incremental Conservatism. You'll find that these common-sense examples are favoured by large majorities of Canadians.

So what do you mean by progressive? What changes to social policy or other legislation would you like to see that supports your "progressive" governance?

[Topaz]

So Harper wants an election because one poll had the Cons with 37% of that poll which was asked from 1000 people. IF voters vote the same way as last, he"ll only have a minority government BUT this time around he's peeved off NFLD and ONTARIO so if there's going to be a minority gov't, I say it could be ANY of the parties. His excuses about not being able to get anywhere with the the other parties is crap. As someone point out, one... how does he really know unless he tries and how hard would HE try and two....things may not change, we'll still have a minority, except the voters it be out more money spent by this gov't. Remember someone said, who ever called for an election vote them out!

[capricorn]

So Harper wants an election because one poll had the Cons with 37% of that poll which was asked from 1000 people.

Harper wanted an election before that poll was released.

Remember someone said, who ever called for an election vote them out!

I suppose you don't remember who said that, do you? Actually, it sounds like something Buzz Hargrove would say. Was it Buzz by any chance?

[Keepitsimple]

So Harper wants an election because one poll had the Cons with 37% of that poll which was asked from 1000 people. IF voters vote the same way as last, he"ll only have a minority government BUT this time around he's peeved off NFLD and ONTARIO so if there's going to be a minority gov't, I say it could be ANY of the parties. His excuses about not being able to get anywhere with the the other parties is crap. As someone point out, one... how does he really know unless he tries and how hard would HE try and two....things may not change, we'll still have a minority, except the voters it be out more money spent by this gov't. Remember someone said, who ever called for an election vote them out!

Did you know that Chretien won a majority (155 seats) in 1997 with only 38.5% of the vote? In 2000 he increased that majority to 172 seats with only 40.8% of the vote by calling a snap election. Arguably, the Conservatives have had a steady 35% of the vote in rolling polls. While not guaranteed, Harper has a good chance of picking up an extra 5% of the vote when he is finally seen debating Stephane Dion....and when push comes to shove, many undecided voters will vote for Harper strictly on leadership........and in this election, it's voting for the devil you know....because Harper has been in power and Dion has not. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Edited September 2, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

Did you know that Chretien won a majority (155 seats) in 1997 with only 38.5% of the vote?

That Liberal vote was spread across the country with a right wing that split the vote thereby assuring more seats for the Liberals.

The Tory poll support is influenced heavily by over the top support in Alberta and very strong support in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There are no more seats to win In Alberta, only one more in Saskatchewan and a handful in Manitoba.

Every pollster has said, and this was confirmed by Tom Flanagan in the Globe and Mail, that the Tories either need over 40% in the polls or a 11% over the next party to win a majority.

I know that many Conservative supporters believe that is going to be a walk in the park or that they only need to be where they are now to get that majority but it is probably a case of wish fulfillment.

Edited September 2, 2008 by jdobbin