I've made up my mind

[whosinpower]

After watching the debate last night, I have decided who to vote for.

At first I must admit to being angry with Layton for getting us into this election in the first place - it was he that ultimately brought government down - for without his vote - it would not of occured. But while the debate was going on - I grew to understand his frustrations with the liberals.

Harper does not deserve to be prime minister. I simply do not like him. He is false, fake, plastic and insincere. But he tries to look authentic.

There has been allot of discussion here about strategic voting - if you hate the cons enough - vote liberal to stop the conservatives from gaining power. But - the liberals do not really deserve to be in power - so my vote will go to the NDP.

Best line of the debate last night came from Duceppe - leader of the Bloc.....he stated that Martin campaigns sounding like the NDP.....and governs like the tories! Bwahahahaha - too true.....sadly....too true.

[Spazito]

1. My vote is going to the NDP as well, but only because they have

a REAL chance of defeating the faux Con who holds the seat here. If it were a Liberal that had the best chance, I would be voting Liberal. It is more important to me to keep the faux Cons out than just about everything else. I remember what Mulroney did to Canada and the faux Cons will be EVEN worse there is no doubt.

[iverglas]

2. Gilles should have credited Huey

http://forums.cbc.ca/ridings/2005/11/223.html

Conservative party strategist and newly minted senator, Hugh Segal once said that "Liberals campaign like the NDP and then govern like Conservatives".

(That's the only attribution I can find, but it sounds about right.)

Huey was the one Conservative I ever voted for, btw. No-hope riding for the NDP, despised the Trudeau Liberals.

Hugh hated Joe for taking Maureen McTeer away from him. McTeer always had an eye for which side her bread was buttered on and whose coattails would give her the best ride, even though she isn't too bright. Lucky for him, I think he hooked up with her after the election in question, or I might have thought better of my vote.


Anyhow -- congratulations! You'll still respect yourself in the morning, at least. ;)

[Spazito]

3. Yep, party before country always allows one to hold one's head

up with pride for sure regardless of the outcome! ;-)

[iverglas]

4. I'm scratching mine

Is that what I said?

At least in 74 I had the opportunity to vote for a party other than the Liberals (assuming no NDP vote) that wasn't run by bigots and loons and free-marketeers. So I did vote country before party: I abandoned the candidate/party I'd pounded on doors for, and voted for what I thought was the better party of the two remaining (the candidate actually had pretty much nothing to do with it).

And I voted province before party last time around, being in a no-hope NDP riding provincially that year. And I might vote country before party this time around if I were in a no-hope NDP riding federally (which I'm not) and if it looked like the Conservatives were heading for government. Although, as I've said, if it looked like the Liberals were heading for a majority, I'd give serious thought to voting Conservative to try to ensure that the Liberals got only a minority in a House where the NDP would of course exercise clout, which would thus amount to voting NDP indirectly, you see.

Of course, voting "party" isn't really as reprehensible as you seem to be making it sound; it is usually indistinguishable from voting "country", since I imagine that we all vote for the party that we think is best for the country, where we think our vote might contribute to that party winning, in any event. Since we can't actually predict how the rest of the electorate is going to vote, we might even not want to risk losing in a 3-way split that we might not have predicted, and vote our conscience (oops, "party") anyhow.

[Spazito]

5. In this case, where the NDP don't have a hope in hell in forming

the next government nor doing so in the foreseeable future, a vote for them in CLOSE ridings where a vote for the Libs may take the riding from the faux Con seems,to me, to be a vote for party above country. If the NDP already has the riding then it is a great vote, nothing lost albeit nothing gained either.

The NDP lost their chance to become the governing party, imo, when the faux Cons consolidated under one party instead of being split. The best they can do is be the voice of conscience to a Lib minority which is not a bad place to be, imo. Layton did a great job during this last term of the Lib minority until he forced an election for reasons that one must question.

The majority of Canadians do not vote party over country, thank goodness, most are more pragmatic than that.

[iverglas]

8. I guess that kinda says it

If the NDP already has the riding then it is a great vote, nothing lost albeit nothing gained either.

And I guess that -- "nothing gained" in reference to electing an NDP MP -- would be a matter of opinion.

I don't happen to share it. My NDP vote is not a strategic way of defeating a Conservative, it is a principled effort to elect a member of Parliament who, and whose party, I believe will best serve Canada.

Any Liberal (or Conservative) vote I might cast, on the other hand, would be with my eyes closed and thinking of, er, England.


The best they can do is be the voice of conscience to a Lib minority which is not a bad place to be, imo.

Yes, it's a good line. Actually, what they can be is the VOTE of conscience that influences what a Liberal minority does, and that's just a bit different.


The majority of Canadians do not vote party over country, thank goodness, most are more pragmatic than that.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, and whatever it means I really don't think it's accurate in any event. I just don't think that a "majority" of Canadians holds its nose and votes for someone it doesn't want to form a government rather than for someone it does.


Layton did a great job during this last term of the Lib minority until he forced an election for reasons that one must question.

Yes, yes, and your Conservative counterpart would be on the news blaming the NDP for everything the Liberals had done since his/her party's non-confidence vote was defeated by the NDP if he hadn't.

Funny how the whole election and everthing done by everybody else just didn't count; Layton forced an election.

But, now, there's somewhere that "pragmatism" really does have to be applied. Would one rather be blamed for what the Liberals did, or blamed for not letting them do it? Sometimes, one really is thrust onto the horns of a dilemma with no third option, 'tis true.

[Spazito]

9. There is NO question that Layton pulling his support from the

Liberals forced the election. He has no problem admitting that. What he has not done is specify why it was so important to do it when he did, we will probably never know.

What I meant by:

"The majority of Canadians do not vote party over country, thank goodness, most are more pragmatic than that."

is that most Canadians do not hold party memberships and tend to vote more pragmatically than those who do.


As to your comment:

"Yes, yes, and your Conservative counterpart would be on the news blaming the NDP for everything the Liberals had done since his/her party's non-confidence vote was defeated by the NDP if he hadn't."

who cares what the faux Cons say or would say? That is a red herring, imo.

Oh, and it seems you have me as a Liberal supporter if I am reading your comment "your Conservative counterpart" (aren't they your Conservative counterpart too?) yet I have made it clear I hold NO party membership nor overriding loyalty to any party but support small l liberal policies be they put forth by the Liberals or the NDP.

[iverglas]

11. too facile

Yes, yes, and your Conservative counterpart would be on the news blaming the NDP for everything the Liberals had done since his/her party's non-confidence vote was defeated by the NDP if he hadn't.
who cares what the faux Cons say or would say? That is a red herring, imo.

Actually, it's been a fact of Canadian life for decades now.

The NDP, in a House with a minority government, is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. It knows perfectly well that it is throwing itself in front of a train no matter what it does. It attempts to use its influence for the good of the country, until the dilemma arises: when it holds the casting votes in a non-confidence motion.

Layton did not start the talk of non-confidence, and it was not an NDP motion that brought the house down. I do not believe that you will find that the NDP introduced the motion, or otherwise triggered the vote, that brought down any minority government in memory.

What the hell does the NDP want an election for? So it can go deeper into debt? Gimme a break.

It became obvious that the Conservatives had stirred up so much shit over Liberal Party corruption this winter that it was going to be impossible for the NDP not to get smeared with it if the NDP supported the govt on a non-confidence vote (or averted one by not stating its intention to support it). The NDP would have been blamed for propping up the corrupt government. Now it's being blamed for bringing down the government unnecessarily. Do we think this is something new?

Who cares, you ask? Well, how 'bout a whole bunch of people who like to have a nice handy hook to hang their votes on, largely because they can't be bothered using their brains and prefer to use their fingers to point at someone to blame for something? There's quite a lot of those people in the world, including Canada.

I don't need a good reason for voting for the Liberal, I'm just pissed that there is an election and that's good enough reason to offer up for voting against the other guys.

YOU may not care what Conservatives say, but that doesn't mean that they do not influence the framing of the discourse. The fact that they were already framing it this way made it just about suicidal for the NDP to do anything but vote non-confidence. Frankly, I don't think we should have, as I've said here before, because I think we should have opted for governance and forced the Conservatives to either shut up or look like the disruptors they are. But I'm a bit of a starry-eyed dreamer, as we know, and I simply couldn't predict that we wouldn't have just ended up covered in Liberal shit anyway.

Yeah, yeah, the NDP could have voted country over party, ha ha. And it would have been in the country's interest for the NDP to get obliterated in the next election because they got painted as Liberals by Liberal-haters and painted as unnecessary Liberal appendages by Liberal-lovers ... how? I can't think of any way, myself.


I have made it clear I hold NO party membership nor overriding loyalty to any party but support small l liberal policies be they put forth by the Liberals or the NDP.

Yes. Well. I don't see that as translating into much other than that you will vote Liberal unless pragmatism bites hard enough.

[Spazito]

12. Ahhh, jumping to conclusions yet again

but 'translate' away if you must, even if your translation is lacking.

I actually find this part of your post very interesting:

"It became obvious that the Conservatives had stirred up so much shit over Liberal Party corruption this winter that it was going to be impossible for the NDP not to get smeared with it if the NDP supported the govt on a non-confidence vote (or averted one by not stating its intention to support it). The NDP would have been blamed for propping up the corrupt government. Now it's being blamed for bringing down the government unnecessarily. Do we think this is something new?"

and I think I will try my hand at 'translating' and say this is another way of saying 'party self-interest' at play.

I am curious as to where this quote? comment? came from given you have emphasized it by isolating it and putting it into italics. Is it simply your thought or is it a quote from someone somewhere?

[iverglas]

13. you could say that ...

and I think I will try my hand at 'translating' and say this is another way of saying 'party self-interest' at play.

... if you didn't want to answer the question I asked when I specifically addressed that point:

Yeah, yeah, the NDP could have voted country over party, ha ha. And it would have been in the country's interest for the NDP to get obliterated in the next election because they got painted as Liberals by Liberal-haters and painted as unnecessary Liberal appendages by Liberal-lovers ... how?


I am curious as to where this quote? comment? came from given you have emphasized it by isolating it and putting it into italics. Is it simply your thought or is it a quote from someone somewhere?

The italics were meant to indicate that I was speaking in a voice not my own -- a voice that I submit was articulating what's in the minds of a whole lot of people who, in my humble opinion, have no business voting at all.

No, no, that's too harsh. If they're going to vote Liberal, let 'em have at it -- just let 'em take responsibility for their own actions, and not pretend that the reason they aren't voting NDP is because the NDP voted non-confidence ... exactly as the bloody Liberals will do at the first opportunity if we end up with a Conservative minority. Well, maybe not; the punishment meted out by voters for yet another election would probably make it very unworth it.

The Liberal Party did not have the confidence of the House. The Liberal Party itself seems to have got over this; sour grapes isn't attractive. It could have got the House's confidence if it had wanted to, by agreeing to NDP terms. It didn't. So now, whose fault is this election?

[Spazito]

14. Surely you didn't expect me to fall for that red herring?

The NDP will and would have gotten the same percentage of votes, give or take a few points, whether the election had been held in April, or as is the case, now and to say anything else is simply trying to pass a red herring as having substance.

LOL in that the Liberal party didn't have the confidence of the house. Aside from the NDP, it never did so nothing was different except for the NDP deciding not to support the government. You can try every which way to get around that but the facts are the facts. The NDP had the deciding vote in whether the government would last or not and only the NDP had that deciding vote.

[iverglas]

16. did that straw really break that camel's back?

I guess so, eh? And the tail really does wag the dog. (Yes, the NDP tail has wagged Liberal dogs during minority governments -- but it very definitely and obviously wasn't wagging the Conservative cur that brought this one down.)

The NDP will and would have gotten the same percentage of votes, give or take a few points, whether the election had been held in April, or as is the case, now and to say anything else is simply trying to pass a red herring as having substance.

Okey dokey. That's your opinion and you're sticking to it; no Liberal shit would have stuck to the NDP. (That couldn't be because of a partisan belief that there was no shit to stick, could it? Might partisan feelings, or simple starry-eyed dreaming, blind one to the fact that some other people plainly do see shit, and also vote, for whatever bad reasons they might have?)

So I guess the NDP backrooms are just full of a bunch of really really stupid people. They wanted to go into an election in debt, knowing that they would come out of it with fewer seats, or at least pretty certainly no more seats, than when they went in.

I give up. Why *did* the NDP vote non-confidence? For the sheer fun-loving hell of it?

We could always consult history.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-2004.html

1957: Conservative minority govt, CCF 25 seats.
1958: Conservative majority govt, CCF 8 seats.

1962: Conservative minority govt, NDP 19
1963: Liberal minority govt, NDP 17
1965: Liberal minority govt, NDP 21
1968: Liberal majority govt, NDP 22

1972: Liberal minority govt, NDP 31
1974: Liberal majority govt, NDP 16

1979: Conservative minority govt, NDP 26
1980: Liberal majority govt, NDP 32

Is it a crapshoot?

In one case when the government changed after a minority govt fell (1980), the NDP won more seats than in the previous election.

In one case when the government changed after a minority govt fell (1963), the NDP won fewer seats than in the previous election.

In two cases when the government did not change after a minority govt fell (1965, 1968), the NDP won (in one case marginally) more seats than in the previous election.

In two cases when the government did not change after a minority govt fell (1958, 1974), the NDP won (drastically) fewer seats than in the previous election.

It's those last two you gotta watch out for, if you're in the NDP's position.

In both those cases -- Diefenbaker's 1958 sweep and Trudeau's solid 1974 win (read his lips: no wage controls) -- the NDP's share of the popular vote did not change significantly. But it went from 25 seats with 10.8% of the vote to 8 seats with 9.5% of the vote, in 1958, and 31 seats with 17.7% to 16 seats with 15.4%, in 1974. More polarized voting?

When the govt changes, the NDP seems to fare better: a slight loss in 1963, with an almost identical popular vote; a significant gain in 1980, with 2% more of the popular vote. Less polarized voting?

I just don't think anybody's expecting 1980 all over again this year, of course.

So ... why would the NDP want an election?

If the likely result is another Liberal govt, the NDP is likely going to lose seats, or at least not make any gains.

If the likely result is a Conservative govt ... well, really, what are the NDP, traitors? To bring down the house in the hope of a big swing away from the Liberals, some of which the NDP might grab hold of, but resulting in a Harper government? The odds of not getting wiped out might be better, but even if we assume it's completely amoral, can the NDP really expect to exercise influence on a Conservative govt today? So the point of the exercise would be ...? And who will get blamed if it brings that one down?

If people, generally, don't seem likely to want a Conservative govt, surely the NDP knows perfectly well that they're going to vote rather heavily for the Liberals. Triggering an election just seems kinda stupid in that case, no?

Did the NDP see a tide swinging toward the Conservatives, and think that an earlier election was more likely to head it off? And this would be bad?

Anyhow, just some grist. But I'm really not getting it. What was the NDP's motivation here? It seems like an expensive crapshoot with not a lot of likelihood of winning big, or at all, so it doesn't really look like something that enlightened self-interest would lead anyone to choose unless the alternative were pretty certainly going to be worse -- in "party self-interest" terms, indeed. But on that point, I'd have to ask again: how would obliteration of the NDP be in Canada's interest?

If one is going to fault someone for doing something one doesn't like, one really needs to ascertain that their motivation was bad. One wouldn't want to execute a thief for stealing bread to feed her children, right?

[Spazito]

17. Seeing as we are BOTH postulating without any inside knowledge

I will answer this question from how I see it:

"What was the NDP's motivation here? It seems like an expensive crapshoot with not a lot of likelihood of winning big, or at all, so it doesn't really look like something that enlightened self-interest would lead anyone to choose unless the alternative were pretty certainly going to be worse -- in "party self-interest" terms, indeed. But on that point, I'd have to ask again: how would obliteration of the NDP be in Canada's interest?"

The motivation was simple, internal polling was showing the Libs were gaining back credibility and if the election were left until April the NDP might lose some seats giving them a reduced influence on the government, simple party self interest.

Man on man, the NDP party is a good party but it is nowhere near the Godlike status you seem to want to give it. The party was acting in the party's interest NOT in Canada's interest in their decision to support the fall of the government and to try and put it otherwise is ridiculous.

I really seemed to have hit a SORE spot in daring to question the reason the NDP caused an early election, interesting.

I think Layton was wrong in causing the government to fall in the winter instead of waiting. To put forth the ludicrous argument that they would have been decimated otherwise holds no water, imo. It is, to say the least, hyperbole at it's best.

[iverglas]

18. excuse me

It's one of those days when I've had allegations about moi up to my nose around this site.

Man on man, the NDP party is a good party but it is nowhere near the Godlike status you seem to want to give it.

I "seem" to, do I? What is it that makes me seem that way?

The fact that I said that Jack conducted himself like a total twit in the debate and isn't really very bright? The fact that I have several times stated my unenlightened disagreement with the decision to vote non-confidence? The fact that I characterized Jack as pandering to the right wing and the stupid on crime, and the western bits of the party as pandering to the right wing and the stupid on firearms? The fact that I characterized some of those western bits and individuals as homophobic bigots? (Yeah, not in so many words, but I don't think the meaning was too unclear.)

When I was first asked to run as an NDP candidate, I tried to decline to take out a party card, as I had every time Michael Cassidy had tugged on my elbow for the preceding decade. Didn't work. So, out of base self-interest, I gave up my income for a total of about 6 months out of the next four years, to beat my head against a stone-stupid brick wall of congenital Liberal voters in my then riding. (The sitting Liberal was actually quite a pleasant fellow, and I got a standing ovation from his crowd for my concession speech in ... I think it was 1988 when for some reason we all seem to have had some moronic notion that we were looking at a PC minority ... for saying how I hoped to see them all again real soon; so it wasn't all bad.)

I guess, when I vote NDP, I'm voting country over party, actually. If I were to vote party, well, there might not actually be one I'd pick, but if there were, I would. Except, of course, I would still say I was voting "country".

Btw, I rather think that's MrPrax's position on the spectrum as well: left. (I don't hold social democrats in quite as much contempt as he seems to; I think that most things are a matter of, like, as social democratic as necessary in the circumstances. I stopped believing in the proletarian revolution about 30 years ago.) And I still find attempts to portray someone on the left as a Conservative fellow traveller to be lame and incivil.

(You do know the one about Macleans' contest for a Canadian motto, right? "As American as apple pie" ... apparently, according to Michael J. Fox at a NYC roundtable on Cdn humour, the winner was "As Canadian as possible under the circumstances".)


The motivation was simple, internal polling was showing the Libs were gaining back credibility and if the election were left until April the NDP might lose some seats giving them a reduced influence on the government, simple party self interest.

Okay. You regard the desire for the NDP to have influence on the govt as "simple party self-interest". I'm not sure how you would then define ANYthing a party does -- and most especially trying to win an election -- as anything other than "simple party self-interest". So I guess I can apply that epithet to every single thing that the Liberal Party does as well, not that I wouldn't anyhow. And Stephen Harper, he's not a tool of Ralph Reed after all, he's just acting out of simple party self-interest.

Seems pretty hollow and tautological to me.

Anyhow.

If the choice appeared to be between a Liberal majority that would be able to do whatever the hell it wanted (which as we all know would be very different from anything it "promised" to do) and a Liberal minority that might be subject to coercion into doing things that were actually in the interest of Canadians ... well, yes, I can see how door number one would have been much better for everyone.


The party was acting in the party's interest NOT in Canada's interest in their decision to support the fall of the government and to try and put it otherwise is ridiculous.

Yeah. Unless you happen to believe that it is in Canada's interest that the NDP maintain a position of influence. Which, hm, 15.7% of the electorate did last year. Oh, that's not counting anybody who held his/her nose (and accepted the blindfold) and voted Liberal, of course, and we do know there were some of them.


I really seemed to have hit a SORE spot in daring to question the reason the NDP caused an early election, interesting.

No, actually, what I find interesting is the dogged partisanship you apply to the question and think can be concealed by disclaimers of not owning a party card. Seriously, do you not know how obvious that partisanship is?

By the way -- if we were to rephrase your statement as a question put to me, it would read like this:

Did I hit a SORE spot in daring to question the reason the NDP caused an early election?

and my answer would have to be "mu". Your question is loaded with a premise that is, if not flatly false, unproved: that the NDP caused an early election. I wouldn't answer it any more than I would tell you whether I have stopped beating my dog.

So what you find "interesting", I find to be just another false allegation. You did not hit a sore spot, and if you had, the reason would not have been the unproved allegation you advance. And if any of it seemed otherwise to you, you can't have been paying attention.

There's nothing particularly or inherently wrong with partisan feelings and words. They are things that people will disagree with, but that's life. There may not be nice motivations behind them. They may be based on stupidity and misinformation. But they may not.

My problem is with people who deny their partisanship and insist that it's patriotism (and, i.e., that anyone else's differing partisanship is unpatriotic).

I'm partisan because I'm patriotic, and I have chosen the party that I believe is most likely to act in the interests of the country. The rationality of my choice, or my identification of what's in the interests of the country, can be questioned and challenged and disputed. But it pretty much ticks me off to have the choice characterized in the kind of terms you choose.

The Liberal Party is not Canada. The Liberal Party has no more a priori claim to having Canada's interests at heart than any other party does. The Liberal Party is not the natural governing party, or the middle of the road, or even the choice of a majority of bloody Canadians, for that matter. (You do know that it hasn't hit 50% at the polls since 1953? Hasn't even come close to the Conservatives' 53.7% (1958) and 50% (1984)?)

The vicissitudes of the Canadian electoral system deny any real voice to the 1/10 or 1/7 or 1/5 of us Canadians who want an NDP federal government (that just being the ones who express that desire on a ballot), and we actually would like some representation and some policies that reflect something of our wishes occasionally, instead of having to settle for the few seats that our votes get us -- way fewer than half of what our vote would have secured, on a popular vote basis, this time around -- and virtually no influence on our country's economy and social/cultural life. Call our acting on that desire party self-interest if you like; I call it democracy and acting democratically and in the interests of democracy.

I think Layton was wrong in causing the government to fall in the winter instead of waiting.

And this would be because ... you are pure of heart and sharp of mind ... and I'm not, I guess.

Otherwise, I still don't really know why you think it.

Oh. Because the Liberals won't likely get the majority they might possibly have got in the spring?

[Spazito]

20. ROFL, you would see anyone that did not hold the NDP on high

and mute any criticism of them as partisan regardless of how they might vote. Hmmm, how would you explain this then, I wonder:

Spazito (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-10-06 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #56
78. LOL, I agree, I don't trust Martin as far as I could throw him and
do NOT want the Libs to get a majority government again until he is no longer the leader, him or his ilk like Manley. I am not sure who I would trust among the current crop of Liberals, to be honest, to take the leadership.


and this:

Spazito (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-10-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. If Martin had had a majority government, we would have become
part of the Missile Defense fiasco of the US. Martin was and is supportive of participating and has said so in the past. The only reason Martin said no to MDS was because he was in a minority situation. As to Iraq, he was VERY quiet during that time, it was Chretien that said No, not Martin. He is complex, imo. He has a very genuine social conscience that shows at times but he also has the corporate businessman side, the one that made sure his shipping corporation was able to access and use the off shore loophole to avoid paying Canadian taxes and that, imo, stinks. My feel is that the corporate businessman side is stronger than the social conscience side ergo I don't trust him.


and this:

Spazito (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-10-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. As an elected member of parliament, I don't feel your argument
holds water. An elected member of parliament should not be actively avoiding paying Canadian taxes simply because they can, imo. I think a more accurate statement would be that his corporation would not profit as much if they had to pay the taxes owed, it is as simple as that.

If his shipping corporation was more important than paying the Canadian taxes owed, he should not have run even as an MP, and certainly not as leader.

Because I don't trust Martin certainly I equate him, in any way, with Harper and the faux Cons. Quite the opposite but that doesn't mean I have to turn a blind eye to what I don't like about him either. He has not proven he is trustworthy yet, to me anyway. He may yet or not.


Damn, I guess the Liberals would see these comments as fiercely partisan too, but for whom, one would have to ask!

As to this:

"If I were to vote party, well, there might not actually be one I'd pick, but if there were, I would. Except, of course, I would still say I was voting "country"."

That is exactly where I stand, there is not a party I find that I would want to carry a membership card for.

You stated this:

"I tried to decline to take out a party card, as I had every time Michael Cassidy had tugged on my elbow for the preceding decade. Didn't work."

So I can assume you promptly tore up that membership when the election was over....or not?

You see everything that doesn't support the NDP as partisan as opposed to a difference of opinion. Not all differences of opinion are stated as a partisan attempt to smear one party to support another. Sometimes it is just criticism but I doubt you can see it that way, it seems not anyway.

[Mother Jones]

15. IMHO, that is still the saddest thing about this entire situation.....

That Martin rejected Layton's health care deal.


Martin had a HUGE opportunity to do the right thing here, and gain some of the support (and respect) back.

[whosinpower]

10. In my riding

a conservative won last time. The liberals are just not making any headway here - and haven't for decades. So - my vote goes to NDP - the fellow running is one whom I know well and trust.

But - I do hope the liberals suffer a little - but still maintain minority status....dreaming I guess. The conservatives - I'd like to see have serious setbacks. Martin scored some real hits last night - America is our neighbor - not our nation. And of course - bringing up Harpers exact words in a speech he gave to a group of Americans......that was pure gold. Harper insinuated that Martin was attacking his patriotism - which is kinda funny because they were Harpers exact words - and he would not refute them even though Martin gave him the opportunity to do so.

[Mother Jones]

6. LOL!

You'll still respect yourself in the morning, at least.

LOVES it!

You know, I was irritated by Gilles at the start of the debate, but he really did bring some of the best lines of the night! (as well as comic relief)


I thought both he and Jack did a good job exposing many of Martin's positions as being 'pro-corporate or to-the-right'. But I have to disagree about Jack...I thought he did ok, but not up to par with what I expected. I also think Martin did a better job than I expected. (I was floored when he brought up Harpey's speech to the U.S Cons! That was gold Jerry, pure gold!)

[iverglas]

7. comic relief

Wot a bunch of stick-asses they were. For pity's sake, people *like* it when somebody laughs, especially at themselves, especially among us Canadians, as there were many opportunities for them all to do.

I did a debate once at which the audience, a large number of people involved in the arts at quite a formal and well-organized event, was expecting an A team of candidates. They all turned out to be otherwise engaged, so instead, they got me, a Liberal nobody candidate from a nearby riding (who later became a cabinet minister ...), and a Tory party organizer who wasn't even a candidate anywhere and happened to be in town on business. !!

So I, having drawn the long straw, just started off by saying I knew they'd been expecting the A team but they'd got the B team and there we were. And they all laughed and liked me. When the Tory didn't know his party's policy on a particular point, I said "I do! It's right here in my policy briefing sheets" and I explained it for him. The Liberal's turn was next, and he turned to me and said "iverglas, do you have mine there too?" Okay, so I gave a stick-ass Liberal a chance to look human ...

But really. Looking human is generally an advantage, and those guys did a crap job of it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

19. Why don't the liberals deserve your vote?

If you say "corruption" you're going to get an earful!