Liberals, Tories in dead heat

[cybercoma]

I don't think that Rae's past will be much of an issue, the people I know don't seem to be upset by what happend and relaize that he was just trying to deal with the recession,

I was and am a little older than you, and I and others my age still clearly remember Rae, his hypocrisy, his huge deficits - despite big tax increases, his pro union legislation, his affirmative action legislation, and so much more.

And if I were running the Tory election machine I would portray this as an NDP takeover of the Liberal Party. I would tell people it will be an NDP federal government with affirmative action programs, huge deficits, huge tax increases, tons of money going to public sector unions, minorities, gays, arts groups, the environment, etc. I would energize the right that way, and by pointing out that an NDP government would start picking fights with the US, and thus damage our economy, and probably endanger our international relationships by trying to pull out of NATO and allign ourselves with the likes of Cuba and Venezuala.

Go on about how SCAAAARY Jack Layton is because he wants to have dinner with the Taliban. Make sure to smear him as an advocate for human rights violations against women.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Go on about how SCAAAARY Jack Layton is because he wants to have dinner with the Taliban. Make sure to smear him as an advocate for human rights violations against women.

Didn't see anybody mention the Taliban

The huge tax increases, deficits, damage to our economy, weakening Canada's position within NAFTA...

[geoffrey]

Rae is an easy target because of what Argus said. His track record is dismal economic performance, tax increases (who the hell increases taxes?), debt, deficit, skyrocketing spending... minority focuses, weak on Indian affairs. Oh my. His track record is nearly 100% complete failure. I really contend the best way to a Tory majority is Rae leading the Liberals. He's horribly weak in Ontario, the Liberals would like lose all but a few downtown Toronto seats... even those would likely run away to the NDP then risk more Rae days.

Kennedy has a fighting chance outside of Quebec. Dion has a fighting chance inside Quebec (horribly weak elsewhere). Ignatieff... likely would leave the Liberals at the status quo. Can't see where he'd make gains, can't really see where Harper could steal votes from him either. I could see under Ignatieff a vote bleed to the NDP with all the foreign policy isolationists getting a little freaked by a very hawkish Liberal leader.

[jdobbin]

Rae is an easy target because of what Argus said. His track record is dismal economic performance, tax increases (who the hell increases taxes?), debt, deficit, skyrocketing spending... minority focuses, weak on Indian affairs. Oh my. His track record is nearly 100% complete failure. I really contend the best way to a Tory majority is Rae leading the Liberals. He's horribly weak in Ontario, the Liberals would like lose all but a few downtown Toronto seats... even those would likely run away to the NDP then risk more Rae days.

Kennedy has a fighting chance outside of Quebec. Dion has a fighting chance inside Quebec (horribly weak elsewhere). Ignatieff... likely would leave the Liberals at the status quo. Can't see where he'd make gains, can't really see where Harper could steal votes from him either. I could see under Ignatieff a vote bleed to the NDP with all the foreign policy isolationists getting a little freaked by a very hawkish Liberal leader.

I think the Conservatives will continue to fall if Afghanistan continues to be Canada's war. NATO has reneged on helping and Harper's committment keeps them in place for a long time. Quebec soldiers will be in country soon. We'll have to see how fall the Tories could fall.

It might not matter who is Liberal leader. Even Ignatieff would have to admit that NATO and the U.S. has left Canada high and dry.

[gerryhatrick]

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

I could offer a bevy of reasons that would explain why I think this is happening, but I'll just point out one. Ok, two.

The freeze out of the press and the continuous finger pointing at the Liberals.

Canadians are starting to see this Government as petulant and immature, and that's quite the turn off.

From your Strategic Council post:

Mr. Harper is seen as the best prime minister when put up against any of the four leading contenders for the Liberal mantle

So what does that mean? Does that negate a straight up poll on parties?

[geoffrey]

I think the Conservatives will continue to fall if Afghanistan continues to be Canada's war. NATO has reneged on helping and Harper's committment keeps them in place for a long time. Quebec soldiers will be in country soon. We'll have to see how fall the Tories could fall.

It might not matter who is Liberal leader. Even Ignatieff would have to admit that NATO and the U.S. has left Canada high and dry.

Perhaps. The lack of support of NATO isn't Harper's fault, Chretien made the commitment to Afghanistan and we made a commitment as a country to the treaty many decades before that. I don't think pulling out is an option with those commitments. Not to mention the commitment to those in Afghanistan getting their first tastes of freedom, the women, the kids. It's important.

And I don't think Quebec will neccessarily react poorly to having their soliders in Afghanistan. While they are the least likely to support the war, maybe some identification with those soliders and the humanitarian aspect will change some of the Quebeckers minds. Many are isolationist and won't be satisfied until Canada has no foreign policy at all, but I'm sure many war nay-sayers in Quebec simply don't get what's on the line in Afghanistan.

Ignatieff or Harper shouldn't hide the fact that Europe has abandoned us in Afghanistan. Where are the Germans? Where are the Italians? The French are there, but hide in only peaceful areas. These countries have real power to contribute, but choose to ignore their commitments to the treaty. Very odd. I'd want the US and Canada to back me if my country were attacked, but I think we should seriously reconsider continuing NATO membership to these fairweather friends.

The Aussies, non-NATO members, have 300 troops there. Why not more? They can contribute some very well trained soliders. The Aussies have felt an attack from al-Qaeda, yet seem unwilling to help. They even have a conservative government. Pffftt!!

Some of the countries are contributing along the lines of Canada's commitment, the Dutch for example. Way above their nations expected level there, and we need to stress the importance of their support.

Harper needs to make a statement to Europe and the South Pacific... get involved. All of their security depends on it. The Americans need to step up support as well, though they are rather limited in their ability right now.

The solution to the shortage of men on the ground isn't withdrawl though, I can tell you that much.

[Higgly]

The same poll which you are gleefully quoting ...

I'm not the one quoting the poll. Your usual level of accuracy, I see.

I was and am a little older than you, and I and others my age still clearly remember Rae, his hypocrisy, his huge deficits - despite big tax increases, his pro union legislation, his affirmative action legislation, and so much more.

And if I were running the Tory election machine I would portray this as an NDP takeover of the Liberal Party. I would tell people it will be an NDP federal government with affirmative action programs, huge deficits, huge tax increases, tons of money going to public sector unions, minorities, gays, arts groups, the environment, etc. I would energize the right that way, and by pointing out that an NDP government would start picking fights with the US, and thus damage our economy, and probably endanger our international relationships by trying to pull out of NATO and allign ourselves with the likes of Cuba and Venezuala.

Apparently not old enough to have been making payments on a loan, nor to remember the stagnant economy, the Rae days (that was the public sector unions, was it not?)....

I'm not surprised, Argus, that we would be able to look forward to another American-style campaign of attack ads from your kind. Another election filled with sleazy Tory spin doctors (sorry, Party Strategists), fear mongering .... And with ol' Lyin' Jim Flaherty in charge of the books, another pre-election cooked budget.

[Higgly]

Perhaps. The lack of support of NATO ....

Ignatieff or Harper shouldn't hide the fact that Europe has abandoned us in Afghanistan. Where are the Germans? Where are the Italians? The French are there, but hide in only peaceful areas.....

The Aussies, non-NATO members, have 300 troops there. Why not more?

Not everybody is blind enough to miss the fact that we are backstopping the US folly in Iraq. We are in Afghanistan spilling blood and our citizens can't even expect decent treatment under US law when in their country, not to mention living up to NAFTA obligations.

We are not a partner to the US, we are a sidekick.

[Canadian Blue]

I'm not surprised, Argus, that we would be able to look forward to another American-style campaign of attack ads from your kind. Another election filled with sleazy Tory spin doctors (sorry, Party Strategists), fear mongering .... And with ol' Lyin' Jim Flaherty in charge of the books, another pre-election cooked budget.

I think the worst fear mongers in Canadian political history have been the Liberals, remember the "soldiers in our cities" claim that was completely false.

[daniel]

...

remember the "soldiers in our cities" claim that was completely false.

Yes, I remember Harper proposing that as their policy in light of the Toronto shootings.

I also remember Harper's attempt at mud slinging trying to paint Martin as a pedophile.

[Rovik]

Perhaps. The lack of support of NATO isn't Harper's fault, Chretien made the commitment to Afghanistan and we made a commitment as a country to the treaty many decades before that.

Yes, the Liberals did indeed make the original committment and I hope that people don't forget this, but it was the Conservatives that rushed the vote through the House for a two year extension, otherwise we could be either leaving or perhaps changing our role (perhaps to how it first was) in less than 6 months.

Many other counties have signed that same treaty but are either not putting the their military resources into Afghanistan or they are stationing their soldiers in the safer areas of Afghanistan unlike Canada who has put their soldiers directly in harm's way in the worst part of Afghanistan.

[jdobbin]

Perhaps. The lack of support of NATO isn't Harper's fault, Chretien made the commitment to Afghanistan and we made a commitment as a country to the treaty many decades before that. I don't think pulling out is an option with those commitments. Not to mention the commitment to those in Afghanistan getting their first tastes of freedom, the women, the kids. It's important.

And I don't think Quebec will neccessarily react poorly to having their soliders in Afghanistan. While they are the least likely to support the war, maybe some identification with those soliders and the humanitarian aspect will change some of the Quebeckers minds. Many are isolationist and won't be satisfied until Canada has no foreign policy at all, but I'm sure many war nay-sayers in Quebec simply don't get what's on the line in Afghanistan.

Ignatieff or Harper shouldn't hide the fact that Europe has abandoned us in Afghanistan. Where are the Germans? Where are the Italians? The French are there, but hide in only peaceful areas. These countries have real power to contribute, but choose to ignore their commitments to the treaty. Very odd. I'd want the US and Canada to back me if my country were attacked, but I think we should seriously reconsider continuing NATO membership to these fairweather friends.

The Aussies, non-NATO members, have 300 troops there. Why not more? They can contribute some very well trained soliders. The Aussies have felt an attack from al-Qaeda, yet seem unwilling to help. They even have a conservative government. Pffftt!!

Some of the countries are contributing along the lines of Canada's commitment, the Dutch for example. Way above their nations expected level there, and we need to stress the importance of their support.

Harper needs to make a statement to Europe and the South Pacific... get involved. All of their security depends on it. The Americans need to step up support as well, though they are rather limited in their ability right now.

The solution to the shortage of men on the ground isn't withdrawl though, I can tell you that much.

Every day Canada begs for support in Afghanistan. We can longer do it by ourselves.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/canada_afghan_canada_col

NATO keeps Canada on the frontline. It is time we were off the frontline.

[geoffrey]

NATO keeps Canada on the frontline. It is time we were off the frontline.

It's ok to be on the frontline, the others just need to step up every once in awhile. I do agree, it's time for our combat troops to take a little breather and let someone else fulfill their commitment to NATO. The unfortunate thing is all those European countries are too disinterested (until they get attacked like Britain and step up, or run scared like Spain) to bother contributing.

We can't just abandon Afghanistan, I'd say that's completely unacceptable. But I'd love to see someone else step up and take command, even if for only a year so our troops can get some rest and our military better equiped for the next term in charge in Kandahar.

[jdobbin]

It's ok to be on the frontline, the others just need to step up every once in awhile. I do agree, it's time for our combat troops to take a little breather and let someone else fulfill their commitment to NATO. The unfortunate thing is all those European countries are too disinterested (until they get attacked like Britain and step up, or run scared like Spain) to bother contributing.

We can't just abandon Afghanistan, I'd say that's completely unacceptable. But I'd love to see someone else step up and take command, even if for only a year so our troops can get some rest and our military better equiped for the next term in charge in Kandahar.

So far no one has said they will be standing in for Canada. We could be at the front for two years. Already the Defence department is saying Canada can't handle that type of committment.

[geoffrey]

So far so one has said they will be standing in for Canada. We could be at the front for two years. Already the Defence department is saying Canada can't handle that type of committment.

I agree with the defence department. Someone needs to give us a break in the future... sooner the better.

[gerryhatrick]

So far so one has said they will be standing in for Canada. We could be at the front for two years. Already the Defence department is saying Canada can't handle that type of committment.

I agree with the defence department. Someone needs to give us a break in the future... sooner the better.

I disagree. The debate was held (what was it, 4 hours? 2?) and the vote was two more years. Canadians now should bear the brunt of that decision.

As well, it does not good moving our troops from region to region to quickly. Maybe it will save some Canadian lives, but it can't help the mission. Just when they're getting to know the area and the people they get replaced with other NATO nationals....no good.

[jdobbin]

I disagree. The debate was held (what was it, 4 hours? 2?) and the vote was two more years. Canadians now should bear the brunt of that decision.

As well, it does not good moving our troops from region to region to quickly. Maybe it will save some Canadian lives, but it can't help the mission. Just when they're getting to know the area and the people they get replaced with other NATO nationals....no good.

The Defence department is already saying they are stretched too thin. This will just end up with more trrops dying.

A British soldier was killed today.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Yes, I remember Harper proposing that as their policy in light of the Toronto shootings.

I also remember Harper's attempt at mud slinging trying to paint Martin as a pedophile.

That's the beauty of the "Harper is scary" crowd they remember things that didn't even happen.

Even the Liberals didn't try and claim something so patently false. What Harper did propose, which the Liberals tried to capitalize on, thankfully handing us the win, was as follows.

Harper proposed stationing a small task force with the specific job of dealing with emergencies in bases in, and close to, all of Canada's major cities. Somehow this becaome "soldiers ... in our streets ... with guns ... we aren't making this up."

The Liberals made a tragic error in this won. The hardcore anti-Harper people would believe this. But it wouldn't matter because they would never vote for Harper no matter what. The swing voters were turned off by it and gave Government to the Conservatives as a result.

[geoffrey]

Martin was a pedophile? Where the hell did that come from?

[gerryhatrick]

Martin was a pedophile? Where the hell did that come from?

Daniel is confused, Harper made Martin out as being soft on pedophiles...or supportive of them. It was a fairly big splash in that election, as you probably remember.

Note that when I say Daniel is "confused" in this instance, in no way do I mean that as a "PERSONAL ATTACK". The state of being confused about a particular subject is a passing one, and not reflective on the individual or their relative worth.

[Argus]

The same poll which you are gleefully quoting ...

I'm not the one quoting the poll. Your usual level of accuracy, I see.

All of you are gleeful about the poll in question. Try a little honesty.

And if I were running the Tory election machine I would portray this as an NDP takeover of the Liberal Party. I would tell people it will be an NDP federal government with affirmative action programs, huge deficits, huge tax increases, tons of money going to public sector unions, minorities, gays, arts groups, the environment, etc. I would energize the right that way, and by pointing out that an NDP government would start picking fights with the US, and thus damage our economy, and probably endanger our international relationships by trying to pull out of NATO and allign ourselves with the likes of Cuba and Venezuala.

I'm not surprised, Argus, that we would be able to look forward to another American-style campaign of attack ads from your kind.

Talk about short-attention spans! The kind of ads and campaign I'm talking about are EXACTLY what the Liberals and NDP attempted last election! They put considerable effort into saying the "Conservative" Party was nothing more than the "reform/alliance" in sheeps clothing, having gobbled up the "Progressive Conservatives" and taken over the party.

But of course - that was okay with you. Hypocrisy is not something which shames you at all.

Guns, in the streets, in Canada.

No, that was a pure, clean, gentle, positive CANADIAN style campaign, right?

The Liberal attack ads in every one of the last several elections were identical to the kind of sleazy attack ads we see in the US.