Monday, January 30, 2006

I think I'm going to be sick

As we all know, earlier this week Prime Minister Designate Stephen Harper went to the hospital because of some respiratory difficulties.

I'm working the night shift and was perusing some sites. One of them is Babble. Suffice it to say I don't think I'll be going there very much from now on. Why?

The absolute vitriol and hatred and schadenfreude displayed by some of the posters left me speechless in this thread. These so-called "progressives" openly admit to a) hoping/rooting for Harper not to be doing well ("How do we know it wasn't just someone trying to smother the son of a bitch?", "Let me put it as clearly as possible - if I had the opportunity to save Stephen Harper's life, I would not do so. And as he died, I would tell him why I chose not to.") and b) threatening to ban anyone who disagrees with them--despite the "progressives" thinking they believe in free speech ("Look - get it through your head - we've heard all this shit before and we are NOT going through it again. Supporting civil union is not acceptable here. Speaking on behalf of those who support it is not acceptable here either. ... If you wish to continue here, I suggest you drop it, because it WILL lead to you being banned.")

And these people consider themselves to be enlightened?

Sheesh.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

An interesting night out...

Friday night a bunch of friends and I got together at a local tavern to celebrate my recent birthday.

At the table of my friends, among others, were a couple of strong NDP supporters. They also happen to be a married lesbian couple.

When they found out I am a strong CPC supporter and, in fact, had a Bruinooge sign on my lawn during this last campaign, one of them came over to talk politics with me.

One of the main issues they had with the CPC was this: "Harper and the Conservatives want to take away my marriage to that beautiful woman over there." Which left me speechless. Which is very difficult to do, by the way. I then spuuttered and pointed her to the CPC platform where it states plainly that any existing same-sex marriages would not be annulled or repealed if the same-sex marriage law were repealed. A grandfather clause, so to speak. The spectre of this legislation being reversed was brought up early in the campaign. And letting the cat out of the bag early, so to speak, seemed to work for the Conservatives. Why? Well, because conventional wisdom has it that if/when a bill to repeal the legislation now in place were to be introduced, it would be voted against and die on the table anyway. Thus, Harper could say that he did what he said he'd do, in allowing a free vote, thereby appeasing the social conservative side, and he'd also have same-sex marriage still there after the votes, appeasing those who fear the hidden agenda socon kitten killing homophobe insert fearmongering phrase here. Smart strategy.

Another issue they had with the CPC was the health care issue. It was admitted that, under Martin, wait times have become untenable. But she told me that she fears private delivery of public health care would result in all the best doctors going to private care, thereby leaving the publicly delivered part of the system in a lurch. Um, the problem lies with the slashes that were made to University programs in the first place. Or at least a big part of it. If you increase the capacity for Canadian Universities to graduate more medical prefessionals, you thereby make sure the system improves. Or at least doesn't get any worse. Just throwing more money at the situation (the Liberals' and NDP's plan of attack) would do nothing to solve the problem because the problem is already that physicians' time is already stretched to the max. More physicians is the answer.

We ended off our ideological discussion with agreeing that we definitely have different viewpoints, although I think I opened her eyes to the fact that she had been victim to a lot of the fearmongering and I hope I positively informed her about what the facts are, not what the scare tactics tried to say. In turn, she said she hopes I'm right about Harper having a moderate agenda and sticking to it.

I bet if the Conservatives deal with their moderate agenda, the 5 priorities that really seem to matter to all Canadians, the Conservatives may just have a couple of votes added to their tally next time.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Ladies and Gentlemen,

...your new Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South,

ROD BRUINOOGE!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

I love those words...

Happy Birthday To Me!

My representative, Rod Bruinooge, beat Reg Alcock tonight!

The vote difference was just over 100 votes, which means a recount, but I'm confident Rod will be representing me in Ottawa. And dude knows exactly where I live! :D

My birthday is technically today (January 24).

I couldn't ask for a better present.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Harper rally

Early this afternoon there was a rally with Stephen Harper and some of the Manitoba CPC candidates.

I walked into the lobby of the hotel and immediately stopped. There was no room to move! And the best part--there were people there of all ages and backgrounds. Young, not-so-young, white, asian, male, female. It was amazing to see. And everyone had smiles on their faces!

I'm not very good at guessing crowd sizes, but I'd conservatively say (heehee) that there were close to 1000 people there. The mood was electric, and the speech was passionate, full of hope and forward looking. I'll have a picture or two about it later.

Now I'm in Rod's office doing some odd jobs that need doing.

Just happy to be part of the team.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Nothing to report

It seems there wasn't much talk about the election while I was in Montréal. At least not amongst my colleagues. What little talk there was hinged on throwing the Liberals out and giving Harper a try.

Of course, it turns out Harper was in town for a rally one of the nights I was available, but I didn't know about it until afterwards. D'oh! It would have been great to meet him personally and take in some of that campaign energy that's even evident on TV when he speaks.

Prime Minister In Waiting.

Monday, January 16, 2006

An interesting trip

This afternoon I get on a plane and am off to Montréal. I work in the federal government and will get a chance to see, if it's talked about, what the fed employees think in that city.

I'd respect Bloc supporters. They have principles and stand by them, even though I might not agree with them. I'd respect NDP supporters. They also have (for the most part, except for Jack!'s health care thing a couple of years ago) principles. I'd definitely respect CPC supporters because, well, I am one. And of course we have principles. I would not respect Liberal supporters because a) any fed employees supporting them are just supporting the pigs-at-the-trough mentality, scared for their own hides, and b) anyone believing that "Paul Martin isn't scary" or "Stephen Harper is scary" is loopy.

As I've said before, anyone who tells me they're voting Liberal I will immediately tell him/her that he/she owes me twenty bucks. Again, I know, I likely won't get any money, but it'll be great to start up a spirited conversation.

Hopefully I'll have something to report on when I get back on Thursday evening.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Really?

I have no doubt that the email shown here didn't come from the CPC. Why?

Well, first off, it would be stupid of anyone in Cook's position, even if he did feel those sentiments, to let them be known. That said, most CPC members don't want to play with the majority of social programs, except the silly socialized child care proposal.

Second off, computer experts have determined that the email originated in St. Petersburg, Russia. This is a place where from people a) spam lots and b) can send anonymous email. If Cook were to send an email like this, would he go through the trouble of sending it by an untraceable server? This humble blogger thinks not. He'd just send it from his own email, and make sure it was only sent to people he really trusted.

Due to both of these things, I can only conclude that this email is a fake, intended to scare the simple-minded into voting other than CPC because of the scary "HIDDEN AGENDA". If this works then I'd be very surprised.

And BTW, I won't say explicitly who I think made this email up, but I'll give you a hint: he disdains those who like beer and popcorn.

Something that could end up giving us a bit of a headache, a real one, is this one, although I think it was handled well. But this will be one to watch. Now it's time for me to go see if Cherniak is doing the Snoopy hope dance.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Interesting tactic

...and a good one, I think. Peer pressure, for lack of a better term.

They've got new radio ads using person-on-the-street interviews (real or contrived, I don't care) to hammer home the point that the Martin and Liberal legacy is and will be apathy about everything except lining their own pockets.

These ads are not brutal, and they use opinions by ordinary Canadians or "ordinary Canadians". They're cutting to the heart of the matter.

And what's more, I think they walk the fine line between "attack" and "edgy truth", a line the Liberals crossed so very badly last week.

Here are the ads.

Toronto Star article

There's an article in the Star today that talks about the Toronto area and their views of the Liberals and the Conservatives.

At first I was just reading this article and then after a while I found myself alternately laughing and yelling at the screen. I felt I had to rebut this article here, because it's so funny and stupid.

The premise is this: the writer went around talking to normal people all round the 905 area code. The responses were essentially in question to "what do you think of Harper and Martin?" I'll clip and respond as I find stuff to rebut. Here goes.

"I'm not too keen on the Conservatives, but how else can you house clean?" computer technician Dave Archibald says over lunch at a Port Hope doughnut shop. A former ironworker, Archibald grew up in a union household and describes himself as "basically a New Democrat."

"I still remember (former Conservative prime minister) Brian Mulroney," he says with some distaste. "But something has to be done about the corruption."


Amen, brother. We must never forget the corruption the Liberals have perpetrated upon Canada. It's unprecedented.

...

"I'm scared of the Conservatives because of Harris," says unemployed security officer Gord Bell, as he cradles 5-month-old daughter Colleen in the front hall of his Pickering townhouse. "It's hard to forgive and forget. I still may end up voting Liberal. I've always favoured the Liberals. But the Conservatives look quite good right now ... A change in government may be what we need."

Scared of Conservatives because of Harris. Am I wrong in saying, then, that despite the pain he inflicted, Harris did exactly what he said he'd do? If so, then tell me what's scary about what Harper is putting forth. Personally, in some areas, I don't think he goes far enough. But that's just a Winnipegger's (formerly a Vancouverite's) opinion.

What would finally convince him?

"Someone has to do something about gun crime. I have two kids and don't know if we can walk down the street in Toronto ... That's what driving me to the Conservatives. They say they'll do something. But I don't know if they are lies or not. If they can seriously do something about guns and crime, that would be a benefit."


Of course, you know whether or not the Liberals are lying. Snicker.

A few blocks away, Troy Gibson, a 32-year-old event planner, says that for the first time in his life, he's going to vote Conservative.

"My parents tell me to go Liberal again," says Gibson, who lives at home with his mother and father. "But there's too much blood in the water. I'm thinking Stephen Harper now, even though he is inexperienced. His proposals are clearer than Martin's."

Troy's father, Fred, who has retired from the high-technology business, says he will stick with Martin.

"I am a Liberal. I don't always agree with them but I identify with them most closely ... I would like an independent leader who doesn't always follow the U.S. That's not the way with Harper."


Well, so much for the Conservatives being the party of stodgy old men.

In Markham, consultant Reg Jordan says he found Harper too frightening in 2004. "The gay thing (Harper's opposition to same-sex marriage) really turned me off his party. That is scary.

"But this time, I think he's going to leave abortion alone. His fiscal policy is better ... His social policy is on the edge of scary, but I don't think he'll do anything there."

And in the end, Jordan says, he sees no alternative.

"You just can't vote for the Liberals."


"The gay thing? The one where he said he'd allow a free vote in Parliament if someone else proposed a bill? Why are you scared? Because actual democracy scares you? And of course he's going to leave abortion alone. Oddly enough (in my opinion). He said exactly that.

...

A few houses away, mortgage broker Karu Selliah expresses the uncertainty of someone who is not happy with the Liberals but not sure if he can trust the Conservatives.

"I'm 50-50," he says. "So far, I support the Liberals. I like what they say about gun control and gas prices; hopefully, they will do something. I'm still supporting the Liberals."


Gun control? Ummm buddy, don't know know handguns are already ostensibly banned? When Martin announced this policy plank, I thought, in the words of Don Brodka (from the Simpsons), "If I wanted smoke blown up my ass I'd be at home with a pack of cigarettes and a short length of hose."

In Richmond Hill, software engineer Chris Gorgani is just preparing to sit down to dinner with his family. But he's willing to stand at his door and tick off some of the issues that he says are important.

First and foremost, he says, is health care. "None of them will deliver. The Conservatives are going to privatize; the Liberals just flash a little more money. Neither has a proper plan."

But the bottom line, he says, is that the Liberals have to go.

"I've voted Liberal the past several elections. But this time, I think it will be the Conservatives. Paul Martin should be sitting in the opposition chair."

Gorgani says he is making his choice with some trepidation and hopes Harper wins only enough seats to form a minority government.

"I'm not a Conservative. The Conservatives are a mirror image of the Republicans in the U.S. But let's give them a chance."


Mirror image of the Republicans? DUDE! The CPC is to the left of the Democrats!

In Oshawa, Monique Collins says she feels badly for Martin. A long-time Liberal voter, she went with the Conservatives in 2004 and says she'll do the same again.

"I feel we need change," she says. "I like Stephen Harper's approach. He has a fresh, new image. The Liberals want to control your life from birth to death. Mr. Harper tried to give you back your life — to a point.

"It may not all work out. But at least it will be an attempt."


Exactly. Give him a chance. Harper cannot possibly mess it up any worse than Martin!

...

In Port Hope, retired Bell employee Jaci Michaelis wrestles with her decision. "I'm undecided. I'm not Conservative, but I may vote for them. I'm getting closer to voting for them.

"Maybe we should let them in so they can fall flat on their face and wreck us like Mike Harris did. I'm afraid of what they don't say as much as what they do say. So, maybe I'll vote New Democrat, or Liberal — or Conservative."


You're afraid of what they don't say? So you must be scared of everyone. Because almost nobody says they're going to take an axe and chop your arm off. Just because they're not saying it doesn't mean they're not thinking it, right? Sheesh. This is the same logic as the Liberals used (oops, logic? silly me) in their ad. You know, the one that "wasn't approved", "was personally approved by me", and "some idiot approved".

A few doors away, Maureen Godfrey and Bruce Beatty invite me into their kitchen, where they pick up a conversation they've been engaged in for some time. Both cast ballots for the Liberals in 2004, which helped local MP Paul Macklin to squeak in by 313 votes. But this time, Beatty, a retired Pitney-Bowes worker, is edging toward the Conservatives.

"I'm fed up with the Liberals," he says. "It doesn't mean I won't vote for them. I'm on the fence. The Liberals are too lax with law and order. And that Young Offenders Act is a crock.

"But then I hear Harper on that same-sex thing or the abortion issue. When I read what he'd said (that he would allow a free vote in Parliament on banning same-sex marriage), I said `I'm not voting for him.' Then, Martin said all of that stuff about the notwithstanding clause (Martin has promised to amend the Constitution so that elected MPs would no longer have the power to override certain kinds of Supreme Court decisions) and I disagree with that."


On same-sex marriage: that he'd allow a free vote. Ooh, scary that democracy might be practised. On abortion: he has no plan to do anything. Ooh, scary. Although to me, abortions on demand (at private clinics, no less) up to the date of delivery is scary. Call me a scary socon or neocon or whatever derogatory name you like. I'm big. I can take it.

"Oh, I do too," says Godfrey, a bookkeeper. "We don't vote for judges. They're just supposed to interpret the law.

Good point. And I think that's the most compelling reason not to vote Liberal.

...

Godfrey shakes her head. "I'll vote for Martin," she says. "I prefer him to Harper. I don't trust Harper. For some reason, there's something about him. As a woman. He has this little smirky smile. I just don't like it."

Smirky smile. Okay. Scary Harper, but you can't put your finger on it. That's thinking!

Indeed, if the Liberals have any hope in the 905, their best chance seems to lie with those voters, often women, who still can't stomach Harper. I run into plenty of them, too.

"Anybody but Stephen Harper," says Markham graphic designer Ann Orr.

"I will vote Liberal because I absolutely don't trust the man."

Orr lists Conservative policies, from gay marriage to child care, that she finds lacking or just plan wrong. But she keeps coming back to Harper.

"I just hope everyone gets their act together and doesn't give us a Conservative government ... If people think Stephen Harper has changed, they'll be in for a rude shock."


"I absolutely don't trust the man." Does that mean that you trust Martin? If so, wow. I mean, wow. Gay marriage--I've mentioned this twice. I won't repeat. I can't change your mind on child care, I guess. On this, I believe Martin's plan is just plain wrong. So that's just a complete disagreement, and I can respect that. But blind fear based on who knows what? Come on.

In Pickering, nurse Natasha Johnston says that while the Liberal government has been good in most areas, it went too far when it legalized same-sex marriage. She also doesn't approve of Martin's plan to remove Parliament's right to overturn certain kinds of Supreme Court decisions.

But she says she could never vote for Harper — not under any circumstances.

"There's just something about him," she says. "It's not his looks. There's just something about him."


"Something about him. That's great logic.

A few doors away, Jacqueline Brackett shakes her head vehemently when asked about Harper.

"All he wants to do is take away, not give," she says. She'll be voting Liberal.


Unlike Martin, who gave. Except it was to his buddies and political lackies. In brown envelopes. I'm not making this up.

At a Canadian Tire store in Ajax, Ron and Leslie Spaeth say they too have no time for Harper.

"A snake in the grass," says Ron, a trucker.

"He never looks you straight in the eye," says Leslie, a computer trainer. "He reminds me of (Ontario Liberal Premier) Dalton McGuinty."


Okay, I'm willing to bet a lot of money these people have never met Harper in person. But let's just say they have. He never looks you straight in the eye? Really? And yes, I suppose these people are being metaphorical. If so, please educate me as to how Harper isn't looking you straight in the eye. He's released his platform. He's not ducked a question. He's answered everything honestly. So please, enlighten me, O Ontari-airy-o voters.

In Markham, 23-year-old Sarah Comper is making dinner when I appear at her front door.

"I'm looking at the Liberals," the Ryerson University business student says. "It's not that I like the Liberals. It's that I don't like the Conservatives.

"Stephen Harper scares me. I just don't know why."


Again, brilliant reasoning. That's the kind of thinking I want voting on the future of my country.

Up the street, pharmaceutical sale representative Cathy Fullarton says she's always voted Liberal. "It's a scary thought," she says, referring to the recent sponsorship scandals associated with the Liberals. "I don't tell my neighbours."

But she doesn't think Harper would make a good prime minister.

"He doesn't seem firm," she says. "I see him as being swayed — especially when dealing with foreign countries ... like the United States or China."


Right. Because Martin was so good at dealing with the States. Besides, when dealing with friends and allies, you need compromise. Jean Poutine and Martin couldn't understand that, and as a result our relationship with the United States is frosty, to say the least.

Still, there are some female voters in the 905 region who are amenable to Harper.

Lucy Cunningham is a business development manager in Richmond Hill. She says she voted for the NDP in the last election, but this time will support the Conservatives.

"We need change," she says. "New blood." As someone who has lived in Alberta, she says she is not repelled by Harper. Quite the contrary.

"He's straightforward. He's good looking too. He's younger. And maybe the younger generation should have a chance at running Canada. ...

"I know he loves Canada. Having said that, I don't see him as reaching out to a diverse culture."


I like the way this woman thinks.

In nearby Markham, Mary Brown says she too is not put off by Harper. She's planning to switch her vote to the Conservatives because she thinks, as finance minister during the sponsorship scandal, Martin should take some responsibility for whatever money was wasted.

Definitely. Lying or incompetent, he had to have been. And I'm not comfortable having the PM of our country be either.

...

Another possible source of Liberal support lies among voters who have been paying little attention to the past seven weeks of an election campaign that has not gone well for Martin.

At a Rona building supply store in Brampton, Bell Canada manager John Marsella says he hasn't been following the campaign and will probably vote Liberal "because I've always been a Liberal kind of guy."


Oh good. The Liberals may benefit from people who haven't been paying attention. Isn't that just a great bunch of people to have voting. People who have lo idea what's going on.

Man, this article really got me going. I suppose, though, it serves to remind me that not all voters pay as much attention as I do. Does that make me a political junkie? ;)

Friday, January 13, 2006

Too true...

I know I've been posting nothing much but lame spoofs and links to other good blog entries recently, but a guy's gotta work and have a social life, y'know?

That being said, I completely agree with N's take on things. We cannot, must not let up now. Don't let up until all the votes are counted, and even then don't let up until all the lefties are done their inevitable whining about a dirty campaign and how the media wouldn't cut them some slack.

Don't let up.

Not.

One.

Inch.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Implosion

Paul Martin actually torpedoed

his entire re-election campaign in one second.

The English Debate.

Notwithstanding.

Beer and popcorn, too.

In Canada.

The ads didn't help.

Choose your Canada.

The Charter

Paul Martin
actually announced

he wants to
remove
the Notwithstanding Clause

in our Charter.

The Canadian Charter.

Of Rights And Freedoms.

In our Charter.

In Canada.

We did not make this up.

Choose your Canada.

Phew

Well, they did it. They couldn't withdraw him from the race, because the last day to do that was January 5. But they did make sure that until and unless he's acquitted (okay, the press release says "until charges ... are resolved"), and he's elected (which is pretty doubtful right now), he will not be a representative of the CPC.

Net loss: 1 seat.

Net gain: immeasurable credibility.

I'll take that trade-off any day.

Stephen Harper? Scary?

Canadi-Anna has a wonderful, passionate post about why the "Harper is scary" meme is such a crock. She dispels, one by one, the misgivings and misunderstandings of a left-leaning target of the scaremongers.

Will it work?

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

They're right, this is going to hurt...

Unless proper action is taken. And I mean now.

So there is one fleck of mud that will stick. And frankly, rightly so.

Personally, as a die-hard Conservative, I wouldn't want this guy running.

As has been said many times before, it's not just imopropriety that's wrong, it's the appearance of impropriety. We were (and still are) demanding that Goodale step down because of the investigation; so should Derek Zeisman. He should step away from being a candidate, and the Conservatives should, as Paul says, cede the seat. It would show that what's good for the goose is good for the gander--that the Conservative Party is serious about clean government and clean people therein. It would show that the CPC isn't afraid to lose a seat because of some asshattery. Worse off, though, I fear that if they don't have him step down, the Libs can point to it and say "see, they don't really believe in accountability.

Of course, on second thought, the Libs wouldn't be able to get away with it. The "they're no better than we are" argument (from them) is the same as saying "look at us again, we're crooked and unaccountable." But the NDP or Bloc could ream them a new one on it. And besides all that, politics aside, like Quaker Oats, it would be the right thing to do.

Who knows? You might be able to salvage the seat anyhow--the second-place finisher in the riding's nomination, if he/she wanted to, could run for the last 10 days and potentially win, buoyed by the display of ethics in the CPC.

No matter how I look at it, buddy has to go. It would reek of hypocrisy not to do so.

Please, CPC braintrust.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Mike Duffy: smackdown!

I'm watching the CTV NewsNet coverage of the after-debate festivities. The Liberals released (on their website) their new attack ads today, and then retracted one saying the Conservatives would have the armies in the cities, implying martial law.

Mike Duffy was talking with the Liberal Strategist (the other Duffy?) about the and accused the strategist of trying to intimidate Mike (during a commercial break) into changing the subject. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, I think, "I will not be intimidated and I will do my job of journalism!" Mike Duffy smacking down a Liberal? Now I've seen everything!!!!

It seems

...that on my last post, Chuppa agrees with me about Harper's closing statement. Good, now I don't feel alone in the wilderness about that.

Now that the dust is settling and it seems the majority of people agree that Harper is clearly in the lead and needs to, as Angry puts it, walk on eggshells, I wonder openly about the best track for the Conservative leader to take for the next 13 days.

He pretty much has 2 choices. He can
  1. Keep his mouth shut and let the Liberals self-destruct, or
  2. Keep on keeping on, with sensible platform announcements and public engagements, nothing too radical.


Personally I like option 2, because it precludes the Liberals from steering the tone of the election, keeps them from trying their silly fearmongering, and it keeps Harper foremost in peoples' minds.

Pedal to the metal, Stephen. This thing is yours. I want my birthday present.

Closing statements

Right now all the focus, of course, is on PM's idiotic statement about banishing the notwithstanding clause. That's fine.

Angry touches on Harper's profound yet glossed-over statement about enshrining property rights into the Charter. He expounds on it much better than I ever could have.

But I want to touch on something I haven't seen anyone talk about yet. (Of course, I might have missed something someone wrote--I tend to miss things once in a while...) I want to talk about the leaders' closing statements. Specifically those of Harper and Martin.

For the sake of completeness, though, I'll comment on the other ones, too. (Transcript is here.)

Layton seemed stuck on one message all night--the "we'll make Parliament work for the working people, we'll hold whomever accountable, so please elect more NDP members." That's fine, except that it got a bit tiring, knowing what he was going to say in response to every question--deflect, bridge, vote NDP. He sounded like a walking (okay, standing there) TV ad. His closing statement was more of the same.

Duceppe was bluntly honest, and I like that about him. "The Bloc will make strategic alliances whenever it's expedient to the desires of Quebeckers." This is straight-shooting at its finest. I don't agree with his politics, but damn, the man gets his point across, even when he can't properly pronounce 70% of the words he's saying. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

(Side note here: okay, you caught me, I'm straying off the closing statement part here because Paul essentially said nothing but "I love Canada, and Stephen Harper will destroy Canada as we know it because, fundamentally, let me be very very clear about this, my number one priority is how much I love being Prime Minister".) Through the debate Martin seemed to have the election equivalent of Homer Simpson's makeup gun and he, like Homer, had it set on "whore"--all kinds of different things in the gun, and hoping one of them would stick. Harper is scary. Harper would override rights. Harper would increase taxes. Harper would put us into deficit by cutting taxes. In essence, he seemed barely restrained in his panic at seeing the polls over the past couple of days. Too bad for him he opened his mouth early in the debate and lost himself the election.

Finally, and paint me as a partisan shill (because that's exactly what I am), Harper sounded like a Prime Minister. Notice I didn't say "in waiting". He calmly and succinctly told Canadians his plan for Canada on finances, crime, and accountability. He was self-deprecating, thereby showing his humanity. After his statement, as Jack started talking, I turned to my friend and said, "wow, now that was a good closing statement" and she agreed.

One thing for sure: this debate was a lot more interesting to watch (in my opinion) than the last one. Of course, the self-destruction of the Liberals helped my enjoyment. ;)

Monday, January 09, 2006

The Notwithstanding Clause

I watched the debate tonight and I can't help but think that someone in the Liberal camp wants Paul Martin to be Kim Campbelled.

Remove the notwithstanding clause? Are you serious? First off, that would never gain traction because of the consensus needed. But more importantly, he's proposing giving near absolute power over our country to a gaggle of unelected partisan hacks.

That's about the scariest thing I've ever heard come out of PMPM's mouth.

I won't say majority, although after tonight it appears more possible. But I think Paul Martin is pretty much done as Prime Minister. And he likely took down a whole bunch of Liberal MPs with him tonight.

Good riddance.

Strahl vs. Solberg: the saga continues

Seriously, folks, if you haven't read Chuck Strahl's blog (Monte's has been around for a lot longer, so I know you ALL do), now's the time to start.

Monte makes me chuckle.

Chuck makes me laugh out loud. Like his most recent post.

It's good to have a little bit of levity what with the exhausting holiday season just having finished (I'm Ukrainian), winter giving us the blues, and this long election campaign.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

I hadn't even noticed

...but JL is right.

If you're running a campaign, don't be ultra hypocritical!

Then again, I don't mind. ;)

Sigh of relief

It appears to be more likely that this is going to be getting the smackdown I was hoping for. And that it apparently deserves.

When this comes to be seen more closely under the microscope, if it's panning out like Monte says and like the (still only alleged) press release says, the CBC reporter should be ordered to post a story on the full Conservative tax platform, and then summarily fired. Yes, fired. This kind of blatant bias and half-truth smearing is sickening. It's bullshit. Can his ass.

Friday, January 06, 2006

Say it ain't so!

If this a) turns out to be true and b) isn't offset by a different tax structure, we're done.

Please tell me there's more to the story that we don't yet know.

Edit: of course it is offset by other tax reforms, including the GST cut and others, but don't expect that to be mentioned. Sigh.

Update, 12:40 AM: M K Braaten is reporting that a "Reality Check" will soon be on the CPC website denouncing this report as absolutely false. Here's hoping.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Star editorial

Okay, this is disingenuous.

It starts off fairly, but they just can't help but let the bias leak out. And at times it's mendacious, too. (I love that word!)

"On gun crime, the Liberals have caught attention by promising to outlaw handguns, and they favour tougher sentencing."
I haven't heard about the tougher sentencing (not that it isn't there--I just haven't heard of it) but it's blatantly silly of them to conveniently forget to mention that we already have a handgun ban in Canada. But never mind, this one doesn't bother me too much. It's the next one that gets my blood boiling.

"On social law, the Conservatives promise a vote in Parliament to reverse the law allowing gay marriage."
On the Toronto Star editorial board, I call BULLSHIT. The only mention of this was when a reporter asked Harper about his stance, and he said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that, if an MP were to propose they have a vote, then he would allow a free vote. IF. That ain't a promise, doodleheads. It's an option. So this is just stupid and biassed.

Then again, it is the Star...

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Oh well...

So much for that idea.

Never mind that, though.

I'm currently working a bunch of night shifts so, in keeping with recent non-happenings on this front, blogging will be light.

But let me make a couple of points.

  1. The polls are encouraging. And oddly enough it makes me a bit nervous because of all the scared people who could potentially change their NDP vote to a Liberal vote in a strategic vote. I'll say it like someone on a blog's message thread did today: strategic voting is stupid, lazy, and morally dishonest. Which means that Liberals would do it if they could.
  2. ITscam is really going to smoke someone. I'm just waiting for Martin and Goodale to have a public blowout. Personally I don't think Goodale will survive in his riding.
  3. The CBC is seeming to be fair to the Conservatives. Who'da thunk it?!
  4. The new Conservative ads, both TV and radio, are pretty good. I like the "Ottawa" radio bit the best, as it made me laugh out loud. Of course, so did "Entitlements", which would have been my fave, had the production value not been as amateurish as it is. But maybe that's the idea--get the public in the mindset that the Conservatives aren't slick--they're just like you and me. Which would be kinda smart.
  5. The so-called "negativity" of the Conservative ads, especially the "Entitlements" one, is nothing (and actually true!) compared to the Liberals' one in 2004. You remember the one--it fired a gun into your face. And now Stephen Taylor has posted a Conservative-positive voice-over-ed version of the exact same ad. It's brilliant.
  6. Stephen Harper has finally pulled out one of the big guns I had been expecting all along--questioning Paul Martin about CSL and how he manages not to pay Canadian taxes. Good. Although perhaps a bit early. Then again, I'm not a political strategist.
  7. In my neighbourhood, I only saw a few campaign signs last night, while I was out for a run. 3 for the Conservatives and 2 for the Liberals. Is everyone waiting, is everyone undecided, or is it just that people don't want to put up campaign signs?


Hopefully I'll be volunteering for Rod some more after these night shifts. If so, I'll write about anything else here.