Could this be why Harper is suddenly rising in the polls?

[glarius]

Anyone besides me see a similarity between the barrage of "scandals" and "investigations" now being aimed at Paul Martin and the Liberals, and the "scandals and investigations" (which later proved to be mostly false), thrown at President Clinton?....If Clinton had been up for re-election when this was at it's peak, who knows if he would have been re-elected.....Just a thought, seeing as how David Frum is one of Harper's advisors....Not to mention the fact that Ralph Reed, who helped elect Bush, was in Canada recently (I saw him on CTS, the religious network), advising the Christian conservatives to follow the plan he would give them and they would get a Conservative government elected....Is my imagination running away with me?

[eve_was_framed]

1. I don't think your imagination is running off on you. This article and

others have been posted on the DU and they point out the reality of your thoughts. Seems to me also that I read somewhere that Tom Delay's "Family Network" was using it's money's to influence the politics of other country's like Mexico and Canada...my memory could be wrong but I recall this but can't find the links..I'll have to google that later, sorry.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20051201%2FELXNREED01%2FTPNational%2FCanada&ord=1136659269600&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

[AX10]

2. Who is favored to win at this point?

[eve_was_framed]

6. I heard last night that the Conservatives are :(

[Spazito]

3. Nope you are not imagining things!

The good news is the polls may actually be BAD news for the faux Cons. They didn't want to 'peak' this early, they wanted to stay behind until just before voting day. This 'peaking', if it is, indeed real, is in plenty of time for the Libs to hit back with the boatload of ammo they have against Harper and it divides the NDP's attention between both parties. Also, it will strengthen the numbers of strategic voters who will hold their noses and vote Liberal solely to keep the faux Cons out as happened in the last election, imo.

[AX10]

4. Now what are the chances of your scenario playing out?

Also, do you have any links that I could look at? Thanks. :hi:

[Spazito]

5. No link just opinion and news reports stating the faux Cons wanted

to peak just before voting day. Will try and find a link to that.

[glarius]

7. What I think is unbelievable is that Ralph Reed is openly interfering in

the Canadian election...I watched some of his "lecture" to the Christian group and he was brazenly telling them he would help them get the Conservatives elected if they followed his instructions....Why the heck aren't the Liberals speaking up about this????

[Spazito]

8. If the Libs are smart, and I think they are....

this will be part of their of their campaign in the next two weeks. They will use clips from Reed showing both his fundie stuff and then his support of Harper. I suspect they have been holding their powder until the upcoming weeks.

[eve_was_framed]

20. what about Harper's visit with Shrub? Unprecedented for a sitting

president to have a meeting with the opposition leader of a country.

[eve_was_framed]

19. if you read the book "On the Take" about the Mullrony years you find

that the Republicans have been influencing the Torry's for many years now.

[whosinpower]

9. Polling is still early and up here

Allot of people are undecided. Actually - this polling is bad news for the NDP.....those who would of voted NDP - may STRATEGICALLY switch to liberal just to make sure that the conservatives are not elected.

And it does give time for the liberals to get their act together......

I shudder to think of Harper as Prime Minister. Here is a guy who gave a speech that stated that Canada is the northern hemisphere's worst welfare state and equated the NDP as being proof that the devil does interfere with the affairs of men.

He would sell us out. He would fracture Canada by giving more power to the provinces. We may as well start singing the American anthem if Harper is elected because he would seriously undermine our sovereignty.

[Swede]

10. When has the RCMP ever been involved in an election.

Yet they are in it twice in this one.

[daleo]

11. I think police tend to be conservative by nature

But, I agree that the RCMP has injected itself into this election far too much. The G&M Report on Business has basically said there will be no charges from the alleged leak. Even if there was a leak (which I doubt), these matters are notoriously difficult to prosecute. So, the RCMP's actions seem to only have political motives to me.

[CHIMO]

12. RCMP probes are playing into hands of opposition

OTTAWA—Multiplying RCMP probes during this election campaign have turned the Mounties into a fourth political opponent for Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals.

Still others speculate that the national police force is sniffing the political winds, mindful of what Harper and his MPs have been alleging about the RCMP failing to go after the Liberals hard enough. Last November, when Justice John Gomery's report came out, Harper said the RCMP would have laid more charges in the sponsorship affair if Liberals hadn't been in power.

The RCMP dismisses such suggestions. It says the news of the probes came out as part of a normal course of affairs. In the income-trust case, the investigation came to light because the force confirmed it in a letter to NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Former RCMP commissioner Norman Inkster said the force mustn't allow itself to be distracted by political goings-on and should make decisions to investigate matters on the basis of whether they would do so if an election weren't happening.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1136589011703

[Spazito]

14. Yep, I can't disagree, somewhat, to this...

When the RCMP says they are investigation something when they also say, at the same time, they have no evidence or indication of wrongdoing, one has to ask why did they agree to the opposition's request at this particular time?

It could all be above board but one must remain skeptical, imo.

[democracy eh]

13. great line from Syriana

"In this town you are innocent, until you are investigated"

[Mother Jones]

15. Ugh! I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.....

I've been listening to the redneck-bigot-hicks, I mean, constituents in my riding. They don't care about all the good news re economy, jobs, etc... hell, they don't even care about the Cons platform, all they say is this:
CORRUPTION.

Also lots of "time for a change" comments...

I'm sorry, but I just don't get that. Change for the sake of change. These people seriously have ZERO idea on what a conservative platform means. They truly do not...I keep telling them that the U.S did that in 2000, and now look at them. No more peace, prosperity and surplus for them.

It's like the issues don't even matter out here anymore. They truly don't think about and/or CARE how bad Harpey's plans are....they think it's time for a change.

Personally, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world....everytime I hear the poll numbers. I know we need Martin & his goons out of my Liberal party, but a Mackay minority is just so much more palatable than Harpey.
I am seriously sick to my stomach daily about this....I can't even come into this forum nearly as much as I used to or want to.

Spazito, if you're reading this, your posts always give me such hope! They did for the last election, and they do now...although not even you are as hopeful for a liberal minority as you were last time.

I will continue writing letters to local papers...but honestly, these people don't care, they have their minds made up that it's time for a change. God help ANYONE who votes for Harpey and comes face to face with me. I don't support companies that fund Cons or Rethugs, and I will do the very same here in my municipality.

[glarius]

16. I keep waiting for someone....ANYONE...of the Liberals to bring up the

fact that Harper went on Fox TV in the States and apologized for Canada not joining them in the Iraq war!....I could be wrong, but I feel that perhaps more than anything, if the people of Canada knew this, it would turn them off him....He had no right to represent Canada in that way and if he were P.M. at the time we would be in the war and young Canadians would be coming home in body bags...I actually heard one of the Conservative spokespeople say today that it was Martin who wanted to go to war and Harper didn't!

[Spazito]

17. They also need to strongly point out that Ralph Reed, the creep

faux fundy involved in the money laundering schemes in the US, was in Canada promising to help the faux Cons into power! They need to hammer that one along with the content of Harper's speech to the US conservative group that showed his REAL feelings about Canada.

[eve_was_framed]

18. Martin tried to bring it up in the debate but he failed to name "Ralph

Reed" so I highly doubt the average Canadian put 2 and 2 together or even knew what he was referring to :(

[Spazito]

22. Yep, the Libs need to be VERY clear on this in their television

ads, imo. There isn't enough time during a debate to clearly draw the clear line from Reed to the faux Cons whereas in an ad, I think they can show the connection in a way most Canadians will 'get it'.

[SixStrings]

21. So anyone that disagrees with your view of this election is

a 'red neck bigot hick'?

[Mother Jones]

24. That's quite the assumption you're making

Seeing how I live here and you don't, I've spoken to these people and you haven't.


They don't know, nor can they articulate the tory platform. They have no idea when I tell them about it, and frankly, they don't care. So, no, most of them DON'T take the opposing viewpoint, as they don't have one.

[SixStrings]

27. I think we all know who is making the 'assumptions'... N/T

[Mother Jones]

28. Why don't you just move down south and END it?

I've been door to door canvassing talking to these people.


Me= sharing my experiences
You= assuming

[Spazito]

23. Hey, Mother Jones, I sure am reading this and...

you are correct, I am less sure about a Lib minority government than I was last time, the vote will be closer than before, imo. It all depends on the swing voters, of which there are many, who often, when seeing there is a REAL possibility of a faux Con government, switch their vote from NDP to Liberal OR from Liberal to NDP, whichever will help take a seat from the faux Cons.

I do remember during the last election the polls, then too, showed Harper tied or in a slight lead, and the swing vote kicked in and the Libs won. IF, and it is a big IF, the Libs get some hard hitting ads out there this week and next showing the faux Cons and Harper's TRUE colors, it could well make a difference again, I sure hope so!

The saving grace is, in the worst case scenario, if the faux Cons do get in, it will be another minority government and they would have to work with the NDP or the Bloc, both of which lean left, policy wise, and that means, imo, we will be back at the polls again within a year.

[Mother Jones]

25. I hope you're right.

And I also remember the last election when they were shown as being too close to call. I hope your right about the swing voters!

I was stunned to see the headline on the star this morning, saying Harpey is heading for a majority win...I thought, WTF? What debate were those people watching?!

[Spazito]

26. You have to remember the media did EXACTLY the same thing

during the 04 election. Here is proof:

Tories claim five-point lead
Majority is within reach for Harper, poll says

The Ottawa Citizen


Thursday, June 17, 2004

WINDSOR, Ont. - Stephen Harper's Conservatives have taken a sharp lead over the Liberal party as the Tory leader appealed to Canadians and "disenchanted Liberals" to give him a majority mandate so he can govern "for all Canadians."

A survey by the Liberal party's former pollster shows the Conservatives are heading for a strong minority government and may be within reach of a majority.

Party insiders say a poll by Michael Marzolini, chairman of Pollara, has the Tories at 36 per cent compared with 31 per cent for Paul Martin's Liberals.

The NDP is at 16 per cent and the Bloc Quebecois at 12.

http://www.canada.com/national/features/decisioncanada/story.html?id=1cf151eb-add6-45c9-9435-1c123e13de32

[MrPrax]

29. Why wouldn't he rise...?

Besides the 'idiot' voter factor, the corp media and the 'evil' Americans (all are givens in virtually any election anywhere)...specifically about this Canadian election...

The Tories are ahead simply because the Liberals are running a terrible terrible campaign. Period.

To many people, much has changed since the last election--but the Liberals haven't really changed their tune. The Tories look different--the others aren't appreciably different and the Liberals' tactic of tarring 'likely' Tory voters has backfired this time.

Martin is too old and too tainted...and after looking at the debate last night (round 2)...we can add 'tired' looking and 'pathetic' with no real sense as to why he is in politics other than graft and corruption (and jigging deals with the tax department)

Let's face it--you can't tank a Party (no matter how true) and expect to get the voters of that party, that you just 'disenfranchised', to swing that easily.

Take for instance, the shameless NDP pandering to impose 'mimimums' on sentencing? Huh? I mean, if that is what you WANT as a voter, you know the Tories will do it better...so why alienate the FEW people who vote for the NDP out of principle.

But then again, while were on the subject--why is the NDP's Judy "I abstained on the same sex vote coz it's against my religion" Wasylycia-Leis writing letters to the RCMP investing this.

Shouldn't the NDP's position have been to denounce the sleazy 'income trust' scam and pledge to tax it?

Oh right, they can't...their unions, Ontario Teachers Pension for one, benefit from this tax avoidance scheme and as such one can see the motivations behind the NDP of tossing this grenade into the Liberals lap.

In short, I think voters got a better idea of what the Tories WOULD do in power (bad and good), but NO real idea of what any of the other parties would do, other than the same thing, which is unacceptable at this present time.

[iverglas]

30. whoa!!

why is the NDP's Judy "I abstained on the same sex vote coz it's against my religion" Wasylycia-Leis writing letters to the RCMP investing this.

You seem to have Judy confused with a jerk!

That was Bev Desjarlais, my dear (and I don't know that she ever even articulated her position quite that clearly). She subsequently lost the NDP nomination in her riding.

http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=242

Hansard - Civil Marriage Act (C-38) debate - Judy Wasylycia-Leis (NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today to give my unequivocal support for the civil marriage act. I am glad to have the opportunity to say, without qualification, that I strongly support the bill and believe in the legislation to extend the legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes to same sex couples while respecting religious freedom.

... The second is that I come to this debate as a practising Christian, as a long-standing member and activist in my own church, the United Church of Canada, a church I have been a member of all my life, first in the village I grew up in, the Conestoga United Church, and now in Winnipeg at the Kildonan United Church. I say that because so often in this debate those of us who support same sex marriage are accused of being without principles, morals or religious underpinnings.

It is important to put on record just how much this is a part of all of us who are practising Christians or who are religious and have a faith, whatever denomination.

In my case, the United Church has been absolutely consistent over the years with its perspective and vigilance in the pursuit of justice and equality. The message of the United Church is the message I bring to the House today. The message of the Christian church at its best has always been a message of inclusive love, to love others as we love ourselves. The ministry of Jesus powerfully demonstrated that this inclusive love of God challenged cultural norms and questioned the limits of who was truly faithful. As my church has said, I believe a vote for same sex marriage would express what Christian love demands for our times.

Au contraire, mon ami. ;)

As for why Judy requested the investigation, I suspect that I don't know all the facts and details behind the request. I do think that there may well be good reason to investigate -- not specifically focused on Liberal corruption, but because the integrity of the Cdn taxation system does need to be vigilantly guarded.

Take for instance, the shameless NDP pandering to impose 'mimimums' on sentencing? Huh? I mean, if that is what you WANT as a voter, you know the Tories will do it better...so why alienate the FEW people who vote for the NDP out of principle.

On that, I'm with you. I called Jack unpleasant names last night, after speaking the one-word sentence "Pandering."

And hey, let me be the first to say it: man, did Jack suck.

But I watched the TVO panel discussion after the rerun, and the viewer poll had him as the winner of the debate by 37-31-30-1. Even I couldn't have said that with a straight face.

There may have been a bit of a strategy behind it that might not have been all bad, though: keep it simple, stupid. And he sure did.

I actually thought that Martin did a reasonable Ed Broadbent immitation. If I'd just walked in from Mars, I'd be voting for him. I think he might have benefited from Jack's strategy, though: he was saying complex things that smart and thoughtful and informed and progressive people like to hear ... but those are the people who won't actually vote for him no matter what he says. ;)

I almost wonder, though, whether, policy wonk that he is, he's decided to really get into this prime minister/politics stuff and get down and do the job. Didn't he really seem to really, really care about child poverty and all that jazz? I don't agree with you about him conveying "no real sense as to why he is in politics other than graft and corruption", really. I think he was articulate and conveyed commitment to ideals.

Slap me, I seem to be getting hysterical. No, I didn't actually believe him, and no, I'm not voting Liberal.

I sure do wish someone would give Duceppe some elocution lessons in English. If Jack isn't going to say the things that social democrats are supposed to be saying (there's a third option, vote for me, there's a better option, working families, working families, brawk, polly got a working family), at least it would be nice to understand when somebody else says them. Duceppe is wonderfully eloquent in French, and sounds like a mechanical jabberwock in English -- deMOcratic this, POliTIcal that; every single word with the wrong sylLAble emphasized. Okay, I'm done.

[MrPrax]

35. I am confused...

Are they wrong?

How They Vote

Member of Parliament: Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Gender: F
Birthdate: 1951-08-10
Website: Judy Wasylycia-Leis, MP
Province: Manitoba

Affiliations:
Period Affiliation Riding
38th Parliament NDP Winnipeg North
37th Parliament NDP Winnipeg North Centre


2005-06-28 C-38,Third Reading, C-38, Same-sex Marriage, A

2005-06-27 C-38,Concurrence Motion (Report Stage),C-38, Same-sex Marriage Y

(isn't THE concurrent motion the TORY motion to 'tradition' back into 'traditional marriage) and YES...looking over her rapsheet...she crossed the floor on C-293!!!)

Yes and I know, you thank me...as you will now run over there and look up the voting records of virtually EVERY politician you can think of for the next two hours!! (I did when I found it...!!!!) :freak:

Must have been her first reading song and dance...she didn't step up to the plate on that vital part of the struggle.

I thought it was both Winter-pig MPs and the NDP/CCF DO lean a little right on the Prairies on a few things.

Tommy Douglas himself gave a great speech (as only Tommy could!) saying quite categorically that 'homosexuality is a disease' and he recommended treating them in hospitals rather than in prison.

They also at odds over the gun control stuff as well...those issues and the NDPs focus firmly in Metro Toronto, killed them off in MB and SK...they're so-called roots.

BTW...that is strange. I thought Layton was unbearable by the end...he is VERY good at stringing fluff together. I was joking that you could have a beer drinking game based entirely on HOW many times, Jack would say, 'working families'.

Martin I suppose came across the same way Nixon must have come across on TV...sweaty, old, tired...but he, and old Gilles, probably made more 'interesting' points.

Harper must be on drugs or something? That strange little grin he has--I bet he thinks it looks like a charming smile--is unnerving.

Everybody is waiting for Harper to f*ck up and he is under strict quarantine--you almost see some chip in his head go off, when he looks like he is going to 'go Furher' and does something stupid. I think the attempt at 'warmness' is simply his way of covering the pain of electric shocks.

The really scary part about Harper is the Tories--they got bona fide whackjobs in that party.

In hindsight, the Tory strategy of letting Harper front for abuse, let's the other Klavern hoods off of closer scruntiny.

People like Day, Kenney, or Moore are people I don't want anywhere NEAR something resembling power in this country.

It's seems like a game of political chicken--I am afraid it will work against the NDP.

[iverglas]

38. I dunno ...

Damn you, I have overdue work to do.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/mpvotes.html

On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, the House of Commons voted 137 to 132 against the following Canadian Alliance motion:

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to reaffirm that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada."

This is how each member of Parliament voted:

... WASYLYCIA-LEIS, Judy No NDP

http://www.marriagevote.ca/freevote_v.html

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP yes

(whatever that was a vote on, the Conservatives all voted no)

You've lost me on the concurrence motion and C-293; didn't follow that closely, I guess. I really just don't know, and don't know how she'd have reconciled what she did with what she said, if she did something different.

Manitoba ... and we have Saskatchewan to thank for Alexa; those delegates just couldn't get their heads around Svend.

But a poster at babble does assert that Shreyer (a luke-warm supporter of same-sex marriage rights) is a bigot, and Manitobans should not be blamed for such things.

Tommy Douglas ... I'd say he was a hangover from the Victorian / early 20th century school of do-gooding ... but then I checked an authoritative source -- who said pretty much the same thing. ;)

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=25&t=001281
(post from skdadl, a moderator)

while I think what you've heard is confused gossip, there is a modicum of truth to two separate parts of that gossip. And then conflation occurred. That's my best guess.

First, like many progressives (and also regressives) of the 1910s-1940s, Tommy probably fell for the theories of the eugenics movement, social policies that were supposed to be benign advances on the ways we had treated mental illness earlier but that were also horrendously paternalistic and patriarchal.

As a footnote, it's worth remembering that prairie populism in the thirties and forties was tremendously volatile, and many of the major actors swung both right and left for a long time. I believe that Tommy's first campaign manager, eg, was the former leader of the KKK in Saskatchewan.

A quite separate fact is a public statement of Tommy's about homosexuality that dates from the sixties, I believe.

Again, in the context of the times, he probably believed that he was advancing the cause by arguing that homosexuality was an "illness" rather than a perversion, but that was undeniably the gist of the statement.

Now, followers of the eugenics movement were great enthusiasts for what they believed were enlightened mental institutions in the twenties, thirties, and forties. On the prairies, probably the most prominent enthusiast was Ernest Manning, who I believe consigned a daughter to such an institution. Certainly a number of the early western feminists -- Nellie McClung, eg -- shared that enthusiasm.

But I believe that linking Tommy's much later statement about homosexuality to any interest in eugenics is sheer conflation -- that is, some propagandist has an interest in confusing issues here, and no feeling of responsibility towards history at all.

Margaret Sanger, Nellie McClung ... most governments in the western world -- misguided, if not outright racist (in McClung's case, not Sanger's) and otherwise distasteful. And not engaged in present-day discourse.


Firearms -- yup, the western NDP engages in pure pandering on that one.


In hindsight, the Tory strategy of letting Harper front for abuse, let's the other Klavern hoods off of closer scruntiny.

My own co-vivant is persuaded they are all locked in a cave somewhere for the duration.

BTW...that is strange. I thought Layton was unbearable by the end...he is VERY good at stringing fluff together. I was joking that you could have a beer drinking game based entirely on HOW many times, Jack would say, 'working families'.

The co-vivant has also pointed out, and I've realized he's right, that there really isn't as much there there as one had initially thought. I don't think he's even actually good at stringing fluff together, but then maybe I just wasn't the target audience.

Martin I suppose came across the same way Nixon must have come across on TV...sweaty, old, tired...but he, and old Gilles, probably made more 'interesting' points.

No, cereally, I thought he looked engaged and serious. Truly.

Harper must be on drugs or something? That strange little grin he has--I bet he thinks it looks like a charming smile--is unnerving.

My own theory was that there is an electrode planted in his left cheek and someone (... Karl Rove???) pushes the button randomly, causing his lip to jerk upward.

I also quoted Leo's West Wing candidate groomer at him: "Stephen, you're smirking". He didn't pay any more attention than Jack did when I told him to stop pandering.

[Spazito]

31. Oh my...simply Oh my

Seeing as you have trashed the other two parties in this race, I think I am safe in assuming you are for one of the two left, the Bloc (doubtful) or the faux Cons (likely). How interesting! Can you explain Harper's speech to the US conservative group where he trashed Canada and everything about it? I am sure you would know more about that than I!

As to your supposition that "I think voters got a better idea of what the Tories WOULD do in power (bad and good)," I can do nothing but laugh uproariously. Seeing as the faux Cons have lied about what they would do if in power, anyone with ANY political sense can see the opposite will be true, moderates they are NOT, that is the only truth.

[AX10]

32. RIGHT ON!

:kick:

[iverglas]

33. a tad OTT?

That's "over the top", not the dreaded OTTawa.

Seeing as you have trashed the other two parties in this race

I think what he did was trash their campaigns, and I think there's a difference.

Can you explain Harper's speech to the US conservative group where he trashed Canada and everything about it? I am sure you would know more about that than I!

Since it didn't have anything to do with the current campaign strategies or the performances in the debate, which I think were his topics, why would he?

I didn't see any indication that *he* is impressed by the Conservatives' platform -- simply an opinion that they seem to have succeeded in conveying the idea that they have one, and an idea of what it is.

Seeing as the faux Cons have lied about what they would do if in power, anyone with ANY political sense can see the opposite will be true, moderates they are NOT, that is the only truth.

Uh ... and this distinguishes them from the Liberals ... how?

Paul Martin ... child poverty ... 1993 ...

The GST ...

At least we know that Liberals lie; the Conservatives haven't had a chance to demonstrate it recently.

[Spazito]

34. You might want to check the poster's previous positions

before becoming 'mother hen protecting her brood', just a suggestion. I did not base my supposition that he is more likely a supporter of the faux cons solely on this post but, rather on his whole 'portfolio'. ;)

Edited to add:

Thanks for the OTT explanation but it was not needed, I know exactly what OTT means having been on-line for a while.

[iverglas]

36. never been good at internet lingo

Someone once said "TTYL" to me in an email, and the only thing I could think of was "tongue to your lips" (well, it was somewhat relevant in the context). But then the first time I'd seen his email address -- let's call it johnmclean@hotmail -- I'd thought "hmm, John M. Clean, what an odd name".

I only know OTT from Brit TV, and I find that many people are not Coronation Street fans. Someone in the gun dungeon once congratulated me for coining the expression "gobsmacked". ;)


You might want to check the poster's previous positions ... I did not base my supposition that he is more likely a supporter of the faux cons solely on this post but, rather on his whole 'portfolio'.

Like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=190&topic_id=9848

MrPrax
4. Torys are startin'
to look too good, in direct proportion to how badly the Liberal campaign ...

Spazito
5. LOL, their poll numbers aren't moving at ALL
They are only 'looking good' to their choir, ...

MrPrax
6. Hope your right...
but Harper seems to be on Ritalin or something. ...

Maybe this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=190&topic_id=9657#9665

MrPrax
5. Crank...
(re: "What Stephen Harper really thinks about Canada")

Hardly surprising since he was head of the CTF and this is their usual nonsense...

I guess Harpy's vision of Canada is not a North European welfare state (oh yeah...the living would envy the dead), but one of those uber-productive Asian hellholes where there is no income tax, big armies and tough laws on crime like Singapore(or alleged crimes).

Boy, folks like Harper are sure visionary.

I didn't really have an axe to grind or a brood to protect, and I think you know I don't abide stealth apologists for the right much. (Anybody noticed the absence of a certain native tree hereabouts? No, don't thank me!) I just do hate an unnecessary misunderstanding.

[Spazito]

37. I could also select posts that would intimate the opposite of those

you chose but it would become a battle of the posts which would negate neither your initial post nor mine. LOL, so it was YOU and solely YOU who removed the 'tree' by it roots? Wow, it couldn't be there were more than ONE DUer pointing out concerns?

I, too, do not tolerate apologists much but, also, use alert very sparingly, only on very obvious trolls, as I count on DUers to do what they do so efficiently, and with rapid dispatch,which is to unmask the apologist/s.

[iverglas]

39. well, you may have beat me to that one

LOL, so it was YOU and solely YOU who removed the 'tree' by it roots? Wow, it couldn't be there were more than ONE DUer pointing out concerns?

I suspect I was indeed late to that party. The casting vote, perhaps ...

In any event, my initial post stands, in my view. I think the discussion was about the campaigns and the parties' performance therein, and no more.

[Spazito]

42. LOL, and to be brutally honest, I am just damn glad to be

debating the issues because, up until the last few days, it has been absolutely dead, in both the virtual and real world in terms of any discussion of the election. I love it when there are opposing view, it forces one to focus on why they do, believe as they do and also makes for some fun as well.

[MrPrax]

40. Your so dedicated...!!

We know that part about the Tories (yawn)...tell us something new.

That dog just won't hunt, and the Liberals just don't get it...their campaign is a mess. Martin is a problem.

Look at the debate...besides the generous number of camera shots with Martin, looking on, in thoughful reflection of his fellow collegues...he was suppose to come out swinging and he didn't.

The ducks are all lining up on both sides.

Three silver linings could happen...

1) Harper will do what he did the last time

He got momentum and then stalked the last two weeks of the campaign with all the modesty of a drunken Prairie university town football player, schreeching, 'we crushed them, man...we blew them away...yeah!<- in the manner of Colbert, doing a drunken Repuke college kid)

or, one of their drones out on the hustings will think have a fatal brainstorm of an idea.

2) The NDP will get wiped, as the Liberals go scorched earth on Tories and NDP.

The Liberals will start working the backrooms like they never have before, and target NDP ridings...we'll see if Martin has any goodwill left in his party.

They could probably pull it off...but it's a gamble and only a reality in a few ridings in the east, including the Maritimes, where NDP votes cut into Liberal numbers.

3) The NDP gambit might work...move centrist fast and hope that the real trend is a Liberal wipe out in the next two weeks...wouldn't be the first time in the West that a ruling party was beaten to death with pitchforks by the mobs...happened to the Tories and lots of times in the provinces.

But doubt it...NDP numbers are stalled...which is no good, comrade



But to repeat myself, I don't think there is a media perspective problem unless you are ONLY watching Global's National Broadcasts, which is bias but, very popular, especially in the west.

Way I see it...too many pissed off people with no compeling reason to vote for Martin...hell it wouldn't be the first time that a party

[Spazito]

41. LOL, yes, I am DEDICATED to keeping Canada a country I

am proud of and that means keeping the faux Cons out any way I can. Your point about the media as a whole is my view as well, I only have a problem with CanWest outlets whose bias is very clear. CBC is doing okay, by my take anyway, and the rest are all over the map.

My honest take, it is going to be closer than 04, harder to figure whether it will be a minority faux Con government or a minority Lib one. It will be interesting, if one stands aside for a bit, to see who Harper will have to work with seeing as it will either be the NDP or the Bloc, both of who's policies lean further left than the Libs and, how he will have to compromise the goals of his own party to just stay in power which will cause him nothing but problems with his base or his government won't last very long at all, not even a year. The 'process' part of me will watch with great fascination, lol.

[iverglas]

43. well ... CTV/Globe/Strategic Counsel?

What Strategic Counsel is strategic counsel to is the Conservative Party. At least, Decima Research was virtually indistinguishable from the old PC party, and there are names that remain the same.

Decima: Allen Gregg ... and there was another leading light whom I won't name because it gets a little close to my bedroom (yeah, close your eyes and think of England time; do not sleep with Tories, is my advice), with big family connections in the Tories, who was one of the supposed brains behind Joe Clark and who was good buds (I introduced them!!!) with old hippy turned rat bastard Norman Spector ... I seem to recall my yucky polisci prof Conrad Winn (of Compas, the National Post's tame pollster) being muddled up in there too, but they all tend to blur together ...

Hardly unbiased counsel to the nation. ;)

The Star sure went to town on potential NDP voters in its editorial on the weekend. Not a Liberal organ ... nooo. But then even if it is, that's not a problem, right? ;)

[Spazito]

44. LOL, I had no response to your post other than YEP, I agree, UNTIL

this:

"The Star sure went to town on potential NDP voters in its editorial on the weekend. Not a Liberal organ ... nooo. But then even if it is, that's not a problem, right?"

That is a whale of an assumption there! I want the media to report the news not take political positions for ANY party or policy of ANY party and I dare you to prove where I have said otherwise.

I have noticed media outlets like CanWest leaning right but haven't noticed any leaning left and defending the Liberals. I may have simply missed them but I don't think so. If I had seen any defending the Liberals, I would find their bias equally as contemptible.

[iverglas]

45. you missed something

It went like this:

"But then even if it is, that's not a problem, right? "

I've never got anybody to design the idiotface thingy I most need:

;^)

That's a tongue in that cheek there.

I suppose I could try TIC, but then people would just think I was Stephen Harper.

But c'mon, you haven't seen the Star "defending" the Liberals??? (I haven't noticed any at all "leaning left", which is of course an entirely different thing.)

Git yrself a copy of Saturday's edition. I don't have mine handy (and the editorials page on line only goes back two days). The Star told would-be NDP voters to vote Liberal. Point blank, full stop. Of course, maybe it was just putting country above party ...

TIC

[Spazito]

46. Actually, I always read smilies at the end of comments ,such as

the one I disagreed with, as 'softening the blow' as it were and, therefore, not actually genuine. You might have noticed I use smilies rarely so that could simply be my bias.

LOL, re the Star, I have to admit I haven't read the Star in a while, I must check it out. If it leans for the Liberals in other than it's opinion columns, that is no more acceptable than the National Post, in anything other than it's opinion columns, and it's right wing bias.

[iverglas]

47. heh heh

If it <the Star> leans for the Liberals in other than it's opinion columns, that is no more acceptable than the National Post, in anything other than it's opinion columns, and it's right wing bias.

It's right wing bias? Damn right it is! Propagandizing for the Liberals is, that is.

Har har. Gotta love grammar humour.