Support for a Coalition Goverment Now at 50%

Molly · January 21, 2009

I find it interesting that folks like Blue throw around things like 'your party' with wild abandon, as though it precludes any though or assessment of the present state of affairs. Like it's a religion, a dogma, a tribe, and not a moment-to-moment decision.

Just so you know, Blue, 'my party', if I can be said to have one, would be the Progressive Conservatives. Unfortunately, I no longer have that option.

I figure it's a lot like the cheating spouse accusing his signifigant other of infidelity. If all one can imagine is blind devotion to a political party, even when they are way, way wrong, then one is inclined to assume the same blind, unflinching hyper-partisan faith from others.

How's it workin' for ya, Blue?

Argus · January 21, 2009

If Ignatieff votes down Harper, Ignatieff will remain Prime Minister for about three years, in accord with the coalition agreement with the NDP and the BQ, and given the dynamics of election-calling.

There is not a single political analyst in this country, west or east, french or english, who wouldn't laugh out loud at a ludicrously naive statement like that.

Argus · January 21, 2009

Political junkies all had their minds made up from the start....and typically along partisan lines.
"The new poll suggests Canadians' feelings have evolved, with 50 per cent of respondents favouring a coalition government, while 43 per cent are happier with the current Conservative government".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

I started out if favour, but seeing how many people were against the coalition...my support wavered. Any thoughts?

According to the same poll - no sign of the wording of the questions or the documentation btw - the majority of Canadians want an election if the Conservatives are voted down, not a coallition.

Progressive Tory · January 21, 2009

According to the same poll - no sign of the wording of the questions or the documentation btw - the majority of Canadians want an election if the Conservatives are voted down, not a coallition.

49% isn't a majority. I don't think the GG will call another 300 million dollar election in the middle of an economic crisis. Not just the money but 6 more weeks without action on the economy. As the country is warming to Ignatieff, they will warm to the Coalition in time. The Conservatives can run 18 months of attack ads or ...oh... I don't know. Do what they were elected to do and help their constituents weather the storm. Just a thought. It's a shame because there are so many intelligent, devoted members from all parties, who I think just want to get on with it.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Progressive Tory

Canadian Blue · January 21, 2009

I find it interesting that folks like Blue throw around things like 'your party' with wild abandon, as though it precludes any though or assessment of the present state of affairs. Like it's a religion, a dogma, a tribe, and not a moment-to-moment decision.

To people like yourself it is. That's why you seem to have this ridiculous belief that with a change in government all the games will somehow stop, because that's how it always works in politics.

Just so you know, Blue, 'my party', if I can be said to have one, would be the Progressive Conservatives. Unfortunately, I no longer have that option.

Awe yes, so you just state your a "Progressive Conservative" even though their's nothing conservative about you. You're likely one of these people who think that your conservatives just because you support a balanced budget, something that even the NDP can attain.

I figure it's a lot like the cheating spouse accusing his signifigant other of infidelity. If all one can imagine is blind devotion to a political party, even when they are way, way wrong, then one is inclined to assume the same blind, unflinching hyper-partisan faith from others.
How's it workin' for ya, Blue?

Don't ask me, your the one who thinks Ottawa wasn't partisan before the evil Conservatives became government.

I never said anything about Trudeau being better on the economy than Mulroney. Where do you get these things? Are you just making things up as you go along?

No, general observations.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Canadian Blue

jdobbin · January 22, 2009

No, general observations.

Your general observations on my thoughts on Trudeau told you this? I think my general observation about you is you're lying and lashing out. I have no idea why since I can't recall personalizing things with you but you make over the top remarks and offer no evidence of my commentary on the GST, NAFTA or Trudeau.

normanchateau · January 22, 2009

Awe yes, so you just state your a "Progressive Conservative" even though their's nothing conservative about you. You're likely one of these people who think that your conservatives just because you support a balanced budget,

So what criteria would operationally define a conservative in your opinion?

On the Ignatieff thread, you stated:

"I'd rather be ruled by the whores at a typical Nevada brothel than the faculty at Harvard."

Is this one of the defining criteria?

Progressive Tory · January 22, 2009

So what criteria would operationally define a conservative in your opinion?
On the Ignatieff thread, you stated:

"I'd rather be ruled by the whores at a typical Nevada brothel than the faculty at Harvard."

Is this one of the defining criteria?

I find it rather ironical that radicals are now considered to be 'conservative' and those in favour of basic human rights, tolerance and compassion, are 'radicals'.

In one of Bill Mahr's monologues he spoke of another irony. Obama went to the same Christian church for 20 years and was called a 'Muslim'. McCain hadn't been to church in 20 years, but was a 'Christian.'

Wild Bill · January 22, 2009

Just so you know, Blue, 'my party', if I can be said to have one, would be the Progressive Conservatives. Unfortunately, I no longer have that option.

Interesting perspective, Molly. I bailed on the PCs in favour of Reform. I had felt that the Liberals and PCs were too similar and was attracted by the populism streak espoused by Manning. Frankly, I had done riding work for the PCs and found them very elitist. Lots of party platform work groups that were always totally non-binding and ignored. I felt like just a mule for banging in signs and raising money for others to tell me what was good for me.

From my POV, the PCs won the war! They were down to a tiny rump when they merged with the Alliance. Now virtually everything that Reform stood for and had printed in their Blue Book is not only gone, it's never mentioned! "Down the memory hole, Winston!"

This was the party that had destroyed that of Mulroney and now Harper sucks up to him??!!

Why are you complaining? The Tories today are virtually the same as the old PCs! They have no populist mechanism that is binding from their membership. They have no published binding equivalent to the old Blue Book. They have campaign planks to cater to what they consider their most marketable demographics. At the moment they are closer to my own values than the Liberals, but not by that much. Iggy seems to be morphing the Liberals into something totally different than the vision of Dion and he may well carve support away from Harper.

The parties are now just like they always were. Opportunistic power brokers willing to wear any coat that works. Once again, they are all fighting so hard for the middle that voters on either side of the mean are turning away.

I think I should change my signature to read:

"WHY DID MANNING EVER BOTHER?"

Molly · January 22, 2009

There's lots of us out there, Bill.

I'm a candidate voter, more than party (becoming even moreso) and have been all over the map, depending on who is on the menu. I voted Reform though (best candidate), twice as many times as I've voted NDP (my cousin was running), and Liberal twice as many times as I've voted Reform (twice because the candidate was so very much better than all others that he'd have had my vote regardless of party affiliation, and still would), and twice because my Conservative candidate was/is a waste of skin, and that's what was left.

Mannings was a different party from Harpers; Ignatieffs is a different party from Dions. Election platforms are downright irrelevant- they are so unlikely to be carried out, and policy handbooks should all have "in an ideal world" engraved on the cover. Both function primarily as a guideline to the style of thought of the personel of the moment, a wish list, not really a 'to do' list.

That's just as well. Conditions change, sometimes very quickly, and policy points are often written and voted in under conditions of very casual thought, without full knowledge of the complications. We don't need to micromanage good people, if they've shown us judgement worthy of trust- that they would do what we would do, only maybe better.

Wild Bill · January 22, 2009

There's lots of us out there, Bill.
I'm a candidate voter, more than party (becoming even moreso) and have been all over the map, depending on who is on the menu. I voted Reform though (best candidate), twice as many times as I've voted NDP (my cousin was running), and Liberal twice as many times as I've voted Reform (twice because the candidate was so very much better than all others that he'd have had my vote regardless of party affiliation, and still would), and twice because my Conservative candidate was/is a waste of skin, and that's what was left.

Mannings was a different party from Harpers; Ignatieffs is a different party from Dions. Election platforms are downright irrelevant- they are so unlikely to be carried out, and policy handbooks should all have "in an ideal world" engraved on the cover. Both function primarily as a guideline to the style of thought of the personel of the moment, a wish list, not really a 'to do' list.

That's just as well. Conditions change, sometimes very quickly, and policy points are often written and voted in under conditions of very casual thought, without full knowledge of the complications. We don't need to micromanage good people, if they've shown us judgement worthy of trust- that they would do what we would do, only maybe better.

I can appreciate voting for the most appealing candidate but I haven't been able to do such for years now. The reason is, with the total lack of free votes and ruthless party solidarity practiced by ALL parties I don't see how the individual candidate makes any difference! His campaign office staff may differ in effectiveness. When you visit some MP or MPP's riding office some staff are more capable at helping out a constituent than others.

What I see is that if my MP was of the ruling party and the party thought that all of us in his riding should have their property confiscated and sold to buy votes in some other part of the country, my MP would either vote along with his party or be allowed to dissent as a 'token', after the party whip had done a nose count to be sure that it wouldn't affect the outcome. Manning would have changed that. Chuck Cadman proved it!

I understand the need to be pragmatic. Also the need for flexibility. However, that is not the same thing as having no principles at all. Or no common set of values and beliefs.

Oh well, I'm not dead yet! Someone inspiring might come along again before I'm gone. I just don't see anyone in today's bunch!

Argus · January 22, 2009

Why are you complaining? The Tories today are virtually the same as the old PCs! They have no populist mechanism that is binding from their membership. They have no published binding equivalent to the old Blue Book. They have campaign planks to cater to what they consider their most marketable demographics. At the moment they are closer to my own values than the Liberals, but not by that much. Iggy seems to be morphing the Liberals into something totally different than the vision of Dion and he may well carve support away from Harper.
The parties are now just like they always were. Opportunistic power brokers willing to wear any coat that works. Once again, they are all fighting so hard for the middle that voters on either side of the mean are turning away.

Yup. I've been saying much the same for a while now. But it doesn't matter to the Left. If Harper and his party stood openly for banning all abortion, locking up all homosexuals, bringing back the death penalty, and forcing women to stay at home with the children, the Left would treat them and think of them exactly as they do now. Because their hatred is unthinking. Whatever manner of evil they think the Tories are harboring in their hearts they will always suspect it, no matter what they do or say. Most of them can't even do more than froth at the mouth if you ask for actual reasons, and the reasons they do manage to come up with are ludicrous in that they're the very same actions every government has engaged in for the past forty years. It's kind of dreary, to tell you the truth, to keep encountering these people here. I mean, there just is no point in even attempting to hold any sort of intelligent discussion with them. They won't even understand what you write. All they know, and all they care about, is the Tories are inherently evil, and their party, be it NPD, Liberals or Greens, are wonderful, honorable, honest, well-meaning people who love their country and everyone in it.

Ignatieff is practically a God. Never mind that he's never actually enunciated a single bloody policy, program or idea. It doesn't take substance to be a God to the Left. You just have to be opposed to their current Devil.

ToadBrother · January 22, 2009

The parties are now just like they always were. Opportunistic power brokers willing to wear any coat that works. Once again, they are all fighting so hard for the middle that voters on either side of the mean are turning away.
I think I should change my signature to read:

"WHY DID MANNING EVER BOTHER?"

And it's a good question. The fact was that Reform's stronghold was the West, in part because that's where a good chunk of the social conservatives came from, and more importantly, because there was a distinct anti-Eastern bent to Reform, which, along with some rather irresponsible individuals in Reform who couldn't keep their mouths shut, basically made the party unelectable.

But I'll tell you Manning's real failure, the real point at which he lost it, and that was the whole Canadian Alliance scheme. I think Manning could very well have won an election, maybe a minority, but still won, if he had hung on. Instead, he tried to cozy up to the PCs by the whole uniting the right gambit, and not only failed to, but lost his crown in the process, to precisely the kind of guy that scared the living $hit out of conservatives east of Manitoba.

Harper had little choice but to basically make the Conservative Party middle-friendly. It was the only way to get MacKay to go along with burying the PC corpse, and the only way the Conservative Party can stay together, the only way it has ever been able to stay together, is by basically ignoring the social conservatives, disillusioned Western Separatists and the various other members of what constitutes the right wing lunatic fringe.

Manning, in his turn, would have hand to abandon a lot of it. He would have had to do what Harper has done, for the most part. Maybe it's better for Manning, in the history books, if he never had to make the compromises that Harper did. Manning can now occupy that space on the right that Tommy Douglas does on the Left, because both men substantially influenced the policies of the governments of their day, but never got tainted by the kinds of compromises that are required to actually govern.

Wild Bill · January 22, 2009

And it's a good question. The fact was that Reform's stronghold was the West, in part because that's where a good chunk of the social conservatives came from, and more importantly, because there was a distinct anti-Eastern bent to Reform, which, along with some rather irresponsible individuals in Reform who couldn't keep their mouths shut, basically made the party unelectable.
But I'll tell you Manning's real failure, the real point at which he lost it, and that was the whole Canadian Alliance scheme. I think Manning could very well have won an election, maybe a minority, but still won, if he had hung on. Instead, he tried to cozy up to the PCs by the whole uniting the right gambit, and not only failed to, but lost his crown in the process, to precisely the kind of guy that scared the living $hit out of conservatives east of Manitoba.

Harper had little choice but to basically make the Conservative Party middle-friendly. It was the only way to get MacKay to go along with burying the PC corpse, and the only way the Conservative Party can stay together, the only way it has ever been able to stay together, is by basically ignoring the social conservatives, disillusioned Western Separatists and the various other members of what constitutes the right wing lunatic fringe.

Manning, in his turn, would have hand to abandon a lot of it. He would have had to do what Harper has done, for the most part. Maybe it's better for Manning, in the history books, if he never had to make the compromises that Harper did. Manning can now occupy that space on the right that Tommy Douglas does on the Left, because both men substantially influenced the policies of the governments of their day, but never got tainted by the kinds of compromises that are required to actually govern.

I'll buy some of what you say. Reform was stronger in the West but so are the Tories today! Reform did pull nearly 2 million votes in Ontario alone. That's far from an insignificant number and it was growing.

I didn't sense the anti-Eastern sentiment you describe but I did find that the Calgary HQ were prone to try to run the show in Eastern ridings. They always failed spectacularly, as they did in the Sheila Copps byelection over the Liberal promise to axe the GST. They pushed their locals aside and proceded to run a national issues campaign in a riding full of Italian mamas who read and spoke little English and tended to vote loyally for any locally popular candidate, like Ms. Copps! Not only did Reform lose, they actually lost ground over the previous election.

Those cowboys always complained that the East didn't understand them but they themselves were like Martians when it came to understanding the East!

I agree the Alliance was a mistake. I think the party got a bit too impatient. Stockwell's gaffes cost us dearly in membership and volunteers in my riding. That's when I bailed myself.

Where we disagree is that I don't think Harper had to be so ferocious in bringing in the PCs to the point where he seems ashamed to mention any Reform roots at all!

This is a disturbing echo of a tactic that was an open secret during Mulroney's terms. He and his people were well aware that there were large numbers of voters that didn't vote for them because they truly loved them but only by default, considering the alternatives worse. The catchphrase was 'disenchanted conservative' meaning a conservative who had no real choice but to vote for the Tories for lack of anything more closely matching his own values.

I think this is an exceedingly dangerous marketing scheme! It only works as long as your marketplace has no other choices. If a more attractive option DOES appear you instantly can lose shovelfuls of marketshare!

This is essentially why Reform was able to decimate the Tory support at the time, except for a tiny rump in the Maritimes. Too many people were fed up for lack of a real choice. When Manning spoke up they flocked to him in droves.

So now Harper is trying to capture that fuzzy 'middle'. I can understand that. It's just that meanwhile he seems to be breeding 'disenchanted conservatives' all over again, taking his core vote for granted, just like Mulroney!

Mulroney may have won the two greatest majorities in our history but a lot of that can be attributed to anti-Liberal dissatisfaction at the time. The very next election the Tories went down to TWO seats! Have all Harper's advisers forgotten that?

I know that if another Manning populist comes along I'll be gone like a shot! Still, I'm just one vote.

The big question is, how many other Canadians feel as I do? Given the present choices, how can anyone tell? It's only if something attractive appears that we would see the results.

I suspect that Harper's Tories might be in for both a savage shock and a bitter disappointment!

SSD · January 23, 2009

In '93, the Tories were not doing very poorly in the polls. They were going to lose but it didn't look like it would be the upset it turned out to be and cause a Liberal majority. The trigger that set it off was the face ad. Any party can make a mistake like that. After that huge loss in 93, no one took them seriously since the Reform took over the right. Had that ad not aired, we would be living in a different Canada right now. It probably would have taken until 2000 to get as many seats as they did in '93.

Who's Doing What? · January 23, 2009

Yup. I've been saying much the same for a while now. But it doesn't matter to the Left. If Harper and his party stood openly for banning all abortion, locking up all homosexuals, bringing back the death penalty, and forcing women to stay at home with the children, the Left would treat them and think of them exactly as they do now. Because their hatred is unthinking. Whatever manner of evil they think the Tories are harboring in their hearts they will always suspect it, no matter what they do or say. Most of them can't even do more than froth at the mouth if you ask for actual reasons, and the reasons they do manage to come up with are ludicrous in that they're the very same actions every government has engaged in for the past forty years. It's kind of dreary, to tell you the truth, to keep encountering these people here. I mean, there just is no point in even attempting to hold any sort of intelligent discussion with them. They won't even understand what you write. All they know, and all they care about, is the Tories are inherently evil, and their party, be it NPD, Liberals or Greens, are wonderful, honorable, honest, well-meaning people who love their country and everyone in it.
Ignatieff is practically a God. Never mind that he's never actually enunciated a single bloody policy, program or idea. It doesn't take substance to be a God to the Left. You just have to be opposed to their current Devil.

And ofcourse your feelings towards politically left leaning people are always fluid and you take each individual one at a time and get know them, and listen to them and don't just lump them into a group labelled "Lefties".

Your post is so soaked in hypocrisy I am checking under my monitor for a puddle.

Molly · January 23, 2009

The charm of the Reform movement was that it was so highly idealistic, even if, on some subjects, missing the mark by a mile. They were spot on in wanting everyone fairly in on decision-making. That remains a laudable goal.

The Alliance/ Conservative incarnations replaced the idealism with equally extreme cynicism, and closed the door to all but a secretive few. IMO, they tossed out the good stuff, and kept only the undesireable bits; went from one noble extreme to the ignoble other.

Agreed- "Why did Manning bother?".

normanchateau · January 23, 2009

Yup. I've been saying much the same for a while now. But it doesn't matter to the Left. If Harper and his party stood openly for banning all abortion, locking up all homosexuals, bringing back the death penalty, and forcing women to stay at home with the children, the Left would treat them and think of them exactly as they do now. Because their hatred is unthinking. Whatever manner of evil they think the Tories are harboring in their hearts they will always suspect it, no matter what they do or say. Most of them can't even do more than froth at the mouth if you ask for actual reasons, and the reasons they do manage to come up with are ludicrous in that they're the very same actions every government has engaged in for the past forty years. It's kind of dreary, to tell you the truth, to keep encountering these people here. I mean, there just is no point in even attempting to hold any sort of intelligent discussion with them. They won't even understand what you write. All they know, and all they care about, is the Tories are inherently evil, and their party, be it NPD, Liberals or Greens, are wonderful, honorable, honest, well-meaning people who love their country and everyone in it.

Your post implies that Liberal supporters are leftists. Is it possible to accept the idea that some might in fact be centrists? In my opinion, there are many supporters of both CPC and LPC who are centrists. Arguably, most Canadians are centrists.

Ignatieff, who supported the US invasion of Iraq and who condemned Chretien for his cuts to military spending, does not qualify as a leftist by most Canadians' definitions.

I hope your comment that Liberal, NDP and Green supporters believe that all "...Tories are inherently evil..." is mere hyperbole. Tories aren't the problem. It's Harper. No matter how hard he pretends to be a centrist, he can't convince Canadians that his core beliefs have changed. In the past, you acknowledged that Harper was a social conservative even though he hasn't governed as one. Harper's history is general knowledge though some of his past flirtations with the lunatic fringe are not. I don't expect that the mainstream media will ever report this story:

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Fron...2/11/02902.html

Argus · January 23, 2009

I hope your comment that Liberal, NDP and Green supporters believe that all "...Tories are inherently evil..." is mere hyperbole. Tories aren't the problem. It's Harper. No matter how hard he pretends to be a centrist, he can't convince Canadians that his core beliefs have changed. In the past, you acknowledged that Harper was a social conservative even though he hasn't governed as one.

In what way is Harper more socially conservative than Obama or Clinton? Here's a question for you. Has Harper spent as much time in church as Obama?

It's JUST HARPER - because he's the leader. Before him it was Day, before him Manning. After Harper it will be whoever else the Left wants to demonize. It really doesn't matter what the man says or does. The Left will despise him as the focal point of the evil of the "right wing", even if he isn't really right wing.

normanchateau · January 23, 2009

In what way is Harper more socially conservative than Obama or Clinton? Here's a question for you. Has Harper spent as much time in church as Obama?
It's JUST HARPER - because he's the leader. Before him it was Day, before him Manning. After Harper it will be whoever else the Left wants to demonize. It really doesn't matter what the man says or does. The Left will despise him as the focal point of the evil of the "right wing", even if he isn't really right wing.

I believe my question in the last post was whether some Liberal supporters might actually be centrists rather than leftists, and not how does Harper compare in social beliefs to the leaders of foreign countries which attach greater importance to religion.

The Pew Research Center has shown that the importance of religion in the US more closely resembles that of some African, Muslim and various third world countries than it does European countries. The importance of religion in Canada more closely resembles that of European nations:

http://people-press.org/report/167/among-w...tions-%E2%80%A6

The US is unique among wealthy nations in that a majority of its citizens attach importance to religion.

KeyStone · January 24, 2009

Political junkies all had their minds made up from the start....and typically along partisan lines.
"The new poll suggests Canadians' feelings have evolved, with 50 per cent of respondents favouring a coalition government, while 43 per cent are happier with the current Conservative government".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

I started out if favour, but seeing how many people were against the coalition...my support wavered. Any thoughts?

Well, I think the majority of Canadians were uninformed about parliamentary procedure in Canada.

Harper was the only one running ads, to tell people how it worked.

He had great success initially.

Then two things happened.

Firstly, Canadians had a chance to tell their friends how full of shit Harper is.

He knows perfectly well how our parliamentary system works given that he planned to take power from the Liberals in the same way previously.

Generally, if no one party gets 50% of the seats, the party with the most seats does not automatically rule.

Usually they rule, because usually, they can get along with at least one of the other parties to hit 50%.

But since he is unable to get along with anyone else, the other parties have a chance to form a government.

Secondly, Dion mercifully stepped down.

Many fence-sitting Lib-Cons could not stand the man's incompetence and incoherence.

Plus, now was not the time to bring in the leader of a coalition who was stepping down in three months.

At a time like this, we need a stable government, not one about to morph into some new form in 3 months.

So, with Ignatieff becoming the de facto leader, Canadians were now given a second option for stable leadership.

Argus · January 24, 2009

I believe my question in the last post was whether some Liberal supporters might actually be centrists rather than leftists, and not how does Harper compare in social beliefs to the leaders of foreign countries which attach greater importance to religion.
The Pew Research Center has shown that the importance of religion in the US more closely resembles that of some African, Muslim and various third world countries than it does European countries. The importance of religion in Canada more closely resembles that of European nations:

http://people-press.org/report/167/among-w...tions-%E2%80%A6

The US is unique among wealthy nations in that a majority of its citizens attach importance to religion.

I didn't raise Obama because I cared what Americans think of him. I raised Obama because the Left in Canada seems to be almost universally infatuated with him. He's practically a God to them. Yet they despise, loathe and fear Harper for some reason, even though, for the most part, his political and ideological beliefs are either the same as Obamas or to the left of Obama. I'm pointing out, because I like to do so, the hypocrisy, and ignorance of much of the Left.

eyeball · January 24, 2009

I didn't raise Obama because I cared what Americans think of him. I raised Obama because the Left in Canada seems to be almost universally infatuated with him. He's practically a God to them. Yet they despise, loathe and fear Harper for some reason, even though, for the most part, his political and ideological beliefs are either the same as Obamas or to the left of Obama. I'm pointing out, because I like to do so, the hypocrisy, and ignorance of much of the Left.

For me, Harper just seems plain mean and vindictive and Obama doesn't. That's about it in a nutshell. Maybe its not Harper so much as the reflection of the people who support him. That said, I'm watching Obama to see what he does about the huge disparity in numbers of blacks in US prison vs whites for many of the same sorts of crimes and vices. Unless he does something soon I'll pretty much be writing him off too I'm afraid.

The political and ideological differences between right and left have never been as important to me as the authoritarian and libertarian differences, that said I do believe right wingers are more naturally predisposed towards showing deference to authority and expecting others to do the same. I really do think the top down nature of religion as typified in the relationship between a shepherd and his flock accounts for this deeply enculturated predisposition of conservatives and if your not with it as they say then you must be against it.

How can you be with something if you don't even get it in the first place?

bush_cheney2004 · January 24, 2009

That said, I'm watching Obama to see what he does about the huge disparity in numbers of blacks in US prison vs whites for many of the same sorts of crimes and vices. Unless he does something soon I'll pretty much be writing him off too I'm afraid.

He will do the same thing Canada is doing about the "huge disparity in the numbers" of Natives in prisons. Still, one should never have "written" a foreign head of state "in" to begin with, as it only telegraphs a domestic "leadership" inadequacy and neurosis.

Edited January 24, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

eyeball · January 24, 2009

Still, one should never have "written" a foreign head of state "in" to begin with, as it only telegraphs a domestic "leadership" inadequacy and neurosis.

So what's your country's excuse?