don't sweat the debate

Despite most journalist not understanding how to score debaters, people aren't likely to decide their vote on those.

There were many articles going on about how harper won simply because he didn't totally lose his shit during the debate last night and because he managed to squeeze some words out in response to critical questions. That he lied and lied, that he responded without actually answering the questions or giving any kind of supporting arguments seemed to mean nothing to most journalists.

Dan Gardner has an excellent piece, though.

Harper's preferred word was "bickering." That's how he described Parliamentary debate. It's all just bickering. (It wasn't only him, to be fair. Jack Layton used every clash between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff as a chance to smile wryly and pose as the only adult in the playground.)  But what exactly is Parliament, and more specifically the House of Commons? It's the place where people chosen in ridings across the country gather to talk about the nation's business. Our representatives often disagree. Is this bickering?

Gardner says that less than half of Canadians are so clueless about Canadian governance that they actually think the people elect the prime minister. Rather than sweep away that ignorance, Harper makes use of it. Indeed, he fosters it in order to advance his immediate political interests.

Those of us who do understand the dangers harper poses to our democracy as he not only undermines it but attempts to set false beliefs in people concerning it can't possibly educate 50% of the population in three weeks.  That will have to wait until we have a Prime Minister who favours education and doesn't refer to educated people as elitists or imply that intellectual is a bad word.

However, people do respond to day after scandal ridden day, seeing the party that rode in on outrage and promises of accountability and transparency lie to us, steal from us, hide information from us, line their friends pockets with our money, and show appalling insensitivity to voters.

These new stories came up in the last two hours:

Conservatives quit over Vaughan health-care money - Two Conservatives have quit their own riding association in Vaughan north of Toronto, accusing incumbent candidate Julian Fantino and the Conservative government of handing $10 million in public dollars to a private non-profit group involved in a major health-care development.

Conservative candidate asks for ‘ethnic costumes’ for Harper photo op
A Conservative candidate in the GTA is at the centre of a growing controversy after his office asked multicultural groups in the riding if they would like to wear “ethnic costumes” to a photo op with Stephen Harper.

G8 legacy fund: boon or boondoggle?

As controversy continues to swirl around a $50-million "G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund" that beautified a Conservative-held riding last year, the debate has centered on a key question: Was this spending typical of cases when Canada hosts international events, or was it a ploy to help Tory MP Tony Clement get re-elected?

Ignatieff has been taking some flack for spending too much time in the debate on the contempt issue and not enough on the Liberal platform.  I thought he did what was right , effective, and necessary.  The government was brought down over being in contempt.  We are in an election because the government was voted to be in contempt.  That is what this election should be about first of all.  Yes, each party must state what it will do with whatever power it gains, but let's not forget why harper and his party got the boot.  And they did get the boot.

Two thirds of Canadians through their elected reps fired him.  Said they don't trust him.  Said he has no respect for the very institutions established over many, many years of government to give a fair and accountable Parliament.  Accountable to us, the people.

Ignatieff drove that home over and over.  It's something that most Canadians could be made to understand even if it's on a simple level.  The two thirds of elected reps representing Canadians said they don't have confidence in harper and his party.  Ignatieff made this clear, and added the very good keeper lines:

“A majority? ... Majorities are things you earn when you earn the trust of Canadian people and you haven’t earned the trust of the Canadian people because you don’t trust the Canadian people.” 


Go to Far and Wide to see how people are shifting their support.  Steve V gives a terrific analysis of the recent polls, and while the shifts are rather cautious and a little slow, they are steady, show a definite trend, take place in areas of the country that make a difference in an election, and show that people are reacting to the repeated examples of contempt the harper government has been displaying daily.

Apology not accepted.

I realize that dumping a candidate this late during an election is something any leader would want to avoid, and I commend Ignatieff for having cut Andre Forbes over his racist comments, although a more rigid background check would have prevented his candidacy in the first place.  His words weren't a mistake.  They reflect his attitude and beliefs, an attitude and beliefs the Liberal party claims it condemns.

John Reilly, Liberal candidate for Wildrose also said some things that the Liberal party claims it condemns, but this time, Ignatieff forgives him and leaves him in place.  The man regrets it, Ignatieff tells us, and even tries to appeal to our sense of pity by saying that the former judge will have to live with the comments the rest of his life.

Oh?  And the consequences?  He still gets to run in the election.  I guess living with it won't be so bad after all.

Like Forbes' words, Reilly's reflect an attitude and beliefs.  In fact, even after apologizing, he said he made a political error but still believes not all sex offenders should be incarcerated.  He claims he used a clumsy example first time around.  OK, so what sexual offense crimes deserve a walk?

It doesn't matter if Reilly had a "long and distinguished career."  It doesn't matter if he made many good choices.  This one stance is not one a progressive party should give a pass on.  Sexual assault cannot be deemed anything else simply because the guy was young, or stupid, or helplessly turned on because the unconscious woman was naked.  That just gives would be rapists permission to abuse situations.

That's it. He's got my vote

I want a Prime Minister who writes really hot sex scenes.  Hockey books bore the fuck out of me. 

“She hungered for him. Her fingers dug into his back. ‘More,’ she whispered. More and more, until he was afraid.” 
h/t BCL

Don't get too excited

There is no way that harper will have a one-on-one debate with Ignatieff.  Unless, of course, he can frame it as the leader of the CPC against the leader of The Coalition™.  And only if he can control who ask questions and what those questions will be.  Maybe have Duffy pretend he's still a journalist of sorts.

This is a guy who only days into the campaign is even frustrating conservative activists by limiting reporter and controlling appearances to a paranoid degree.

steve does not do well when he is caught off guard or hasn't been able to rehearse and plan every word.  Even if his massive ego does not let him realize that he would be no match for Ignatieff in a one-on-one debate, he simply cannot handle situations where he does not control the agenda.

Also, look at steve's word-choice (emphasis mine):

"We're open to any number of possibilities. We could have a traditional debate of Parliamentary leaders, we could have a debate that includes Miss May in such a format, we could have a debate that includes every party that's on the ballot," Harper said.  "We could also have a debate between Mr. Ignatieff and myself, since, after all, the real choice in this election is a choice between a Conservative government or an Ignatieff-led government that all of these other parties will support." 

He's not saying he wants a debate with Ignatieff or that he will have one.   Unlike Ignatiegff's response, "any time, any place," steve is non-committal and vague, using the opportunity to wave the coalition myth around again.

People who think harper is oh so smart, oh so masterful a politician, and oh so trustworthy should ask themselves why he won't answer questions he hasn't approved, and why he needs to control all media events.  If he can't answer questions during an election, how can we possibly trust him to be open and truthful as PM?  Five years of harper has shown us that we can't.

CPC: Contempt of Parliament.  Harper: contempt for Canadians.

Reverend Meredith is having a little trouble turning the other cheek.

Even when the offense is an imagined one.

Don Meredith...slammed ...Ignatieff and (Jennings) for Ignatieff's use of the phrase "wait a cotton-pickin' minute."

In a statement, Meredith said the use of that phrase was "at the very least, insensitive, and certainly offensive to many people."  Meredith said it's a phrase that "hails back to a time when slavery was acceptable and an entire group of people were held to be lesser than others because of the colour of their skin."

Except it isn’t. 


Have yourself a nice cup of tea, Don.  A few deep breaths, a prayer for serenity...

(Marlene) Jennings, whose ancestors were, in fact, slaves in Alabama, laughed at Meredith's accusations.  "I am not offended when someone uses the phrase cotton-pickin'. It's part of the vernacular," Jennings said. "I think the Conservatives are desperate to change the channel."

I think Marlene is most likely right.

Harper: In it for himself

Can it be anymore obvious?

If you go to The Government of Canada site today,  you will see this announcement:

Harper Government to further strengthen protection for Canadian consumers of financial products and services       

8 March 2011
The Honourable Ted Menzies, Minister of State (Finance), and the Member of Parliament for Lévis–Bellechasse, Steven Blaney, today announced the Harper Government is taking decisive action to protect the interests of Canadian consumers of financial products and services...

No other Prime Minister has felt so entitled to consider himself The Government, to change what we call our government in order to give the illusion that all good things the entire elected Parliament and the Senate does comes from him personally.

Of course you will never read or hear steve and his serfs refer to the harper government when talking about problems or screw-ups.  Hell no!  That domain belongs to the faceless bureaucrats.

It’s laughable to still see CON ads pompously, self-righteously postulating that Ignatieff is in it for himself.

That steve doesn’t see how obvious his endless campaign on our tax dollar to constantly place himself in front of every good thing Canadian displays a person who considers himself above all others and above all accountability shows him up for what he is: a malignant narcissist.

And those personality types are always and only in it for themselves.  Always.

Meet Steve-no-fucking-class-harper

There's a word for people who act this way.

"I wish my country were a little better."

So do I.  So does any Canadian who sees: the growing divide between rich and poor; the undermining of what once were independent oversight agencies put in place to protect public interests; the biggest deficit our country has ever had; decline in education; aboriginal rights still sorely trounced; growing reports of police brutality; access to information increasingly denied; failure to address poverty; a Parliament that ignores policy for politics; a Parliament that engages in vicious, personal attacks rather than intelligent debate; a country being fed the propaganda of fear more and more; a paranoid government that constantly seeks ways to invade our privacy and limit our right to protest...

It's a good thing for a leader to point out his or her country could use some improvement, and quite another to bash it as harper did for the entertainment of American businessmen, stating as fact that "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it," and that "(i)n terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance." 

The title of this blog is a quote by Ignatieff, inserted into harper's latest attack ads in which stevie is trying to say that Ignatieff does not support his country.

The latest harper attack ads (but remember, these can't possibly be election ads because stevie says he's not in election mode) are nothing more than a worn out ensemble of the same old garbage harper has been saying for the past two years.

But lying sociopath that harper and his idiot servants are, they really missfire with this latest batch of immature nose-thumbing.

I want a leader who aspires to making our country better than it is.  I want a Prime Minister who can publicly acknowledge that not all is perfect and that change is needed, sometimes unpopular measures as well.

Most reasonalbe Canadians know that tax money is needed to provide services, security, government, education health care, and most know that if you cut taxes, some of those things will have to be cut.  Honestly addressing the reality of taxes despite how unpopular that topic may be is showing respect for voters.

The harper attacks ads tell us more about harper than about Ignatieff, Layton, or Duceppe.  Not only do they show stevie to be unimaginative and prone to adolescent taunts, they show he has little grasp of what a leader should be by attacking some of those very qualities in other leaders.

Something else I think really fails the CPC in these ads: the graphics.  Ignatieff actually looks pretty good - warm, friendly, human.  And the very bizarre choice of background, the hazy images heavily toned in red...I can only specualte as to why stevie approved that - supposed to represent hell-fire?  It sure isn't Liberal red, but maybe that's what they were aiming for.  It's more of a burgundy which is pleasant to the eye.

And predictably, not a thing from harper in any of the ads on what he will do to make Canada better.

That should win over some of the male vote

“The cleavages are becoming sharper and more and more clear,” said Mr. Ignatieff.

Ignatieff may finally be listening to Liberal supporters who have been threatening to pull their support.   -

Liberal Party will oppose the Conservative government’s budget, Michael Ignatieff says, greatly increasing the likelihood of an election call in February or March.

The Liberal party also spoke with a lot more conviction yesterday in the House.  Maybe they are finally realizing that propping up the harperites to stall off an election because they are down in the polls is part of what is keeping them down in the polls.  That, and one other thing -

“I have low expectations that there will be anything in the budget” that his party can support, the Liberal Leader declared on Thursday in a year-end interview with The Globe and Mail, “because I think the differences in political philosophy are very clear.”

A lot of us have not been seeing clear differences, which has also caused many of us to turn away.  Words are fine, Ignatieff, and you have been telling us about some of the policies you would implement, but it's your actions we will watch.

This sudden energy just before Christmas may work well for the Liberals.  Canadians seem tired of the same-old.  Year end articles emphasizing harper's do nothing party and did-nothing rule feed that itch for change as well.

It will take a lot more than words to get past supporters to trust the Libs, me included.  I'd rather see a coalition NDP/Lib to get harper out and to keep the Libs focused on social policies, human rights, fair treatment for all Canadians.  A Lib minority would likely give us another dysfunctional House unless they and the NDP come to an informal agreement to put policy before politics and actually get something done.

Hearing Goodale in the House talk about stopping tax cuts for corporations was encouraging.  The overall focus yesterday the Libs placed on social issue was good.

Hard to see how they can back down from those clear policies and prop harper up this spring.  It has happened before, though, but the Liberals will lose whatever goodwill they gained this week if they do that.

Just vote the bastarcons out.  Then be ready to work on behalf of all of us - whether it's a coalition or Lib minority - because we'll be very vocal.

Well that’s better.

Responding to a leaked American cable outlining a 2008 conversation with CSIS director Jim Judd and Eliot Cohen, a senior State Department official, Michael Ignatieff said his party stands behind the court-ordered restrictions.

“I’ll just say this: I’m proud of our Charter, I’m proud of our courts. I’m proud of the fact that there are limits on what agencies and our government can do,” Ignatieff said. “That’s always been our position. We’re a country of freedom. We’re a country of democracy.”

A clear statement, a good statement.  Shows respect for the Courts and for Canadians.

But Michael, they’re just words if you don’t back them up with actions.

We're watching.

See, that's a mistake

One of the things I like about Dion is that he has vision, foresight.  Too bad too few Liberals share that vision.

Seems they are out of touch with voters, as well.

Once leader, Dion toyed with the notion of parting ways with the government on the Afghan file but was persuaded that he could not win the anti-war argument in the rest of Canada in the face of former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley's recommendation for another mission extension.

The Libs assumed voters would simply buy Manley's recommendations, which few of us have, and as though insulting our intelligence and drastically underestimating our concern for our troops by assuming we would not take the Afghan issue seriously enough to examine the report were not enough, they shut their ears to the many, many polls that show the majority of Canadians want the soldiers home.  They ignored our posts, our letters, our calls.

The latest sequel in the Afghan debate finds Rae and Ignatieff at cross-purposes with a section of their own caucus on a foreign policy issue for the second time this year.

Well, try listening to us and at the very least, engage the CONs in open, in-depth debate on any extension, allow a vote, and don't head into it with your minds already made up.  Dion knew Canada's involvement with Afghanistan had to be re-examined because circumstances change.  And when lives are at risk, all of you who are elected and paid to represent Canadians better damn well study those changes and act accordingly.

About "minimal risks" and training missions

Let's look at some of those “minimal risks” Harper says our soldiers will face under his latest support the troops extension of the Afghan mission.  Let’s not include rebuilding and development efforts, just the training mission (emphasis mine throughout) -

We are very focussed on our operational objectives: training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army in Uruzghan Province. We've made clear recently about the latest information that is available in terms of the time we believe it will take to complete our training mission in the province, some two to four years, and indicated that it's likely to see the Australian commitment after that period transition to a support role.

But having said that, ladies and gentlemen, I make the point as I have made on so many occasions, it is a difficult and dangerous mission. The reason we are here in Darwin today to attend the funeral of an Australian soldier, and the news we are speaking about today of the death of another Australian soldier in Afghanistan, I think does indicate to you the risks that are involved in our mission.- Australian Defence Minister Faulkner, July 2010.

Wow.  Truth-telling on the risks of training exercises.

In this case, what Harper calls “minimal risks” -

Scott Palmer

The Germans discovered something about minimal risk training missions -

The attack shows just how dangerous it can be to train the Afghan army, which the German government in recent months has declared to be the main aim of the German mission in Afghanistan. "Anyone who thought that training the Afghans was a safe walk in the park ahead of pulling out of Afghanistan, has now seen the reality," commented one German army officer. "At the end of the day, training Afghan soldiers in Afghanistan means fighting side by side with the Afghans."
              
France is aware of the minimal risks of training missions -

The French soldier killed in Afghanistan on Monday belonged to a highly skilled team training Afghan soldiers. The French specialists focus on helping the local army operate independently, often under extremely difficult circumstances.

The Americans have had their share of minimal risks as well -

U.S. defense officials in Washington described the slain soldiers as Special Operations troops attached to the U.S. training mission for Pakistan's Frontier Corps, responsible for security in areas near the Afghan border seen as part of a global militant hub. (Three US soldiers dead, two injured)

Just a couple of reasons why Canada should re-think the whole minimal risks thing::

 
Cpl. Darren James Fitzpatrick, 21 years old

Fitzpatrick, a member of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, was on his first tour of Afghanistan since joining the Canadian Forces in 2006. Since October, he had served with the Operational Mentor Liaison Team, which helps train members of the Afghan National Army.


Cpl. Matthew McCully

A Canadian soldier marching into battle alongside the Afghan troops he helped to train and mentor died today when he stepped on a jerry-rigged anti-tank mine during the opening stages of Canada’s largest anti-Taliban offensive in nearly two months.  The soldier, identified as Cpl. Matthew McCully, was a member of Canada’s Operational Mentor and Liaison Team helping to shape their Afghan counterparts into cohesive, organized fighting units.

Harper stated  “We are proud of Corporal McCully’s contribution to our mission in Afghanistan,” considering this particular minimal risk a “contribution” we should be proud of.

Put names, faces, families to the minimal risks before you decide to force others to face them without consulting with Canadians, without even holding a serious debate, you poppy-wearing politicians.  Tell us about the ones who are killed or maimed while on routing patrol during such training missions, during reconstruction and development missions.  Tell us and those you send about the real state of unrest in Afghanistan, the real reason soldiers are being placed in harm’s way, the real reason they are being asked not only to give their lives but take lives as well, something they will have to carry home with them.

And quit wearing our soldiers deaths and injuries like they are some sort of your own personal badge of honour.  You're not the ones taking those "minimal risks."

Ignatieff's sell-out of human rights and environmental protection

I really miss Mentarch’s thoughtful posts on how our governments’ actions affect us not only nationally, but globally as well.  He would probably have a lot to say about Bill C-300 (An Act Respecting Corporate Accountability for Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries), how two (or three, if you want to point fingers and include the four NDP who didn’t vote) parties contributed to its demise, and what impact this will have nationally and globally.

We have come to expect the Harper government to place corporate interests above the environment, human rights, developing nations, and people near or below the poverty line.  They believe governments should not regulate industry and they continue to perpetuate the ridiculous myth that corporations, given the freedom to do as they please, will display a social conscience.

To watch the Liberals defeat their own private member’s Bill by abstaining in numbers large enough to make sure it dies is frightening.  That means that the only two parties that currently have enough support to win even a minority are not seriously concerned about regulating greed-driven organizations that abuse human rights, have no regard for the environmental damage they cause unless bad publicity affects their profits, and let as little money as possible filter down to taxpayers.

In this case, it was more than failure to show concern on the part of the Libs and CONs.  Both made sure the Bill would not pass, telling us beyond any doubt that both parties would rather please the money-men who already control so much they are far from vulnerable than protect not only those who cannot protect themselves, but average people as well.

Both parties distorted the truth about this Bill and what it means to industry, showing us that they are both willing and able to lie for their masters – the large corporations.

What does that do to the value of our individual vote, then?  If our elected representatives will lie to their constituents to help line the pockets of the very organizations that use and abuse voters, then that system is a corrupt, secretive, seriously off-balanced and unfair one wearing a cheap mask that sort of looks like democracy.  Who then speaks for the people who can’t spend millions lobbying for their own interests?  Who votes on their behalf?  And the longer such sell-out parties, parties that lie to those they are supposed to work for, the more power shifts to corporations as they get richer, more powerful, more dug in, and more arrogant in the knowledge that they will never seriously be held accountable.

So what do the CONs and Libs think will happen as populations keep rising on a planet where resources are dwindling and corporations, unchecked, devastate yet more land?  What do they think will happen as the people whose rights are tromped on see the abusers getting wealthier at their expense?  We’ve seen this over and over in history.  Governments and corporations may consider those they deceive, suppress, and ignore as mindless masses, but every individual in those masses has a stomach and gets hungry.  Each one needs a safe place to live.  Each one has a dream of some sort of future for themselves and their family.  And each one has some sense of what they view as fair and just.

Their numbers grow along with population growth and wealth goes into fewer hands.  Pressure builds, and most of us realize what happens when pressure increases in a closed system.

Rather than a smooth transition into systems suited to denser populations with fewer resources where we have no choice but to be careful of what we put into our soil, air, and water, we will have a series of bloody outbursts.  Some groups will not know who to attack or may be unable to target the ones who are causing their misery, and in frustration, desperation, and anger will lash out at their neighbouring countries or districts, or set their sights on sub-groups within their own communities.

Corporations and governments will encourage this mis-direction of hostilities because they want the masses to focus on something other than the real causes of their suffering.  To such governments, losing a few hundred thousand people here and there in lands that cannot sustain them will not be viewed as a big negative.

After that...possibly an alliance between a very few super powers who hold economic control, dividing the planet between them, economically, at least.  Whether or not this happens, the smaller outbursts will be followed by global ones and everyone, even the swinishly wealthy corporations lose.

Then, a slow re-building over the bodies of the dead until we start the whole cycle over again because we don’t seem to learn from our past mistakes.  Or rather, some of us learn, but the greedy, power hungry few grab opportunities at the expense of those who strive for fairness and equality.

Short sighted, selfish politics practiced by people like Harper and Ignatieff cause long lasting devastation not only to our country, but to the way our species handles situation.  Rather than being guided through thoughtful long-term planning that would enhance the lives of all people as equally as possible, those we have given power to through our democratic process are building terrible pressure in a closed system. 

These politicians aren’t all heartless.  Some actually mean well but reason their way through bad policies by saying to themselves and their members, “just for now, until we get power.  Then we’ll do the right thing for all.”  But it doesn’t work because the corporations they cater to will still be there when they get that power, and the lobbying will be just as intense.  The new opposition will work against positive change, because they will apply the same faulty reasoning of “just for now.”

Meanwhile, every compromise, every sell-out, every bit of justice stepped on to appease the powerful and the rich builds that deadly pressure.

As Gwynne Dyer says in “Climate Wars,” starving people aren’t reasonable.

Stand up and fight, damn it!

Seriously. 



If you can't stand up for one of your own party's private Bills against a lying sack of shit who misrepresents it, then you're not fit to lead the opposition, let alone the government, Michael.

But it seems the Master Strategist is fronting a brilliant attack:


“Ignatieff MP John McKay has introduced legislation that unfairly targets successful Canadian mining, oil and gas companies – a key pillar of our economy,” Conservative strategists said in a memo to MPs and supporters Tuesday. “If the Coalition has it way, many Canadian jobs will be lost in an industry that contributed $40 billion to Canada’s economy in 2008 and which employs 351,000 workers.”
Wait...it's a good idea to see what McKay's Bill actually involves -

This consternation and controversy is over Scarborough MP John McKay’s bill, C-300, that aims to clamp down on Canadian mining activities in foreign countries. The legislation, which went through committee without any amendments, would allow the government to deny funding of Canadian mining companies found guilty – through investigations initiated by Ottawa – of human rights or environmental violations.


And rightly so.  We shouldn't be funding companies that violate human rights or environmental concerns.  So why, why, why don't you Liberals just shove the damn thing right back at the CONs showing how they place the dollar before human rights...once again.

Apparently, there are some problems with the bar for complaints being set too low, and there are no penalties to deter false complaints.  So, amend the Bill.  Is it really that difficult?  I doubt that's the problem at all -

"While the principles are noble, the mechanism for administration is flawed with multiple inadequacies that are not workable," the analysts said. "We believe that if passed, Bill C-300 will have damaging effects to all stakeholders in the resources industry and Canadians as a whole. The impacts will be primarily financial but reputational risk is also high."

That's the heart of the resistance to this Bill. Money and reputation for slack laws must not be sacrificed for a bunch of poor people and their land.  Fuck our human rights reputation.  It's not like we're currently held in high esteem anyway.  In fact, Harper yet again sidelines those who are interested in human rights by trivializing them as “international special interest groups.”   You see, mining companies aren't a special interest group because a bunch of rich people own them.  They are simply special due to the intrinsic nature of wealth.  I'm sure god and the troops are tied in somehow, and law and order, of course.  You know, those things that are so sacrosanct that to merely begin a vague questioning thought is treason.

Bill C-300 is a good Bill, Liberals.  Amend it, but back it.  Show you stand for something, or just step aside so some new party that isn't afraid to stand up for the rights of all can fill in the void.

You listening, Michael?  Don't make me dedicate the Backing up song to you.

Just don’t wait too long, Michael

"We wait and see and watch what the government does," Mr. Ignatieff told The Canadian Press, when asked about the prospect of an election. "If they're prepared to work with other parties in the House then, you know, that's fine. If not, then we'll have to take our responsibilities."

Seriously, Ignatieff.  Do you really think some pivotal event will turn this around for the Liberals, offering them a better time to call an election?

Hey, ignore me if you want to, I’m just a voter.  What do I know?  I’m sure you and your advisers know what I want better than I do, right?

Just consider a few things, though:

While the Liberals have been waiting and seeing, they propped up Harper & Co. so many times that more and more people have lost hope that the party stands for anything concrete.

While the Liberals have been waiting and seeing, Harper has been using taxpayer money to fund a 4 ½ year election campaign.

While the Liberals have been waiting and seeing, Harper has been replacing key personnel in those very agencies meant to hold the elected government accountable so that he is more able to hide the truth of the damage he has been doing to this country.

While the Liberals have been waiting and seeing, Harper has been undermining the non-partisan nature of the public service so that more and more it is becoming an extension of his power which he can use to help him win the next election.

While the Liberals have been waiting and seeing, Harper has been closing access to information, making it more difficult to fight him with the truth next election.

While the Liberals have been waiting and seeing, Harper has been using his lap dogs to set up a media agency that will serve up his propaganda during the next election.

And while the Liberals wait and see, Harper will make sure that his pet media people get whatever they need to fund and push Steve’s propaganda onto the nation. 

I’ve said it before: these actions by the CONs aren’t political activities, they are attacks on our democracy in order to bludgeon it into compliancy.   To all opposition parties: quit giving Harper’s undemocratic actions legitimacy by waiting for that perfect time and reason to toss his destructive, selfish, sorry ass into political limbo forever.

He has given Canada and Canadians more than enough reason as he has lied to us; withheld vital information from us; sent our troops to die so that he could feed off their glory only to cast them into the gutter when they return in pain; repeatedly snubbed Parliament as he prorogued; ignored committees and deadlines; seriously damaged the public service through his relentless attacks on public servants; enabled torture; struck several blows against women’s rights; undermined  minorities' advances; set back aboriginals and homosexuals; stepped up the level of intolerance in Canada; fostered fear in Canadians; was fiscally irresponsible and off the mark repeatedly; changed our international reputation from one of compassion to one which is tight fisted, mean, backwards; clearly set a line between law enforcement personnel and the Canadians they are sworn to protect by the attitude that we are all really no more than potential criminals who need to be kept in our designated place;  removed tools necessary for social and economic equality...

There are just a few reasons Canadians should go to the polls again.  Some of us already know this.  Now, Ignatieff, convince the rest.

Another week, another poll

and a musical tribute to the four leaders in light of the latest Harris Decima.  With some unsolicited advice.  Because I’m not paid for this.  

Stevie Harper



Quit. Lose the hairpiece. CPC: dump fatso if he won’t quit, ban him from the party. Make Diane Ablonczy leader; get rid of everyone else except Michael Chong; have all candidates take a PCL-R test - remember, high scores are bad! And make sure they read more than the Bible.

Michael Ignatieff



Quit for “personal reasons” and hand the mantle over to Bob Rae. He clearly has the support of the party. Liberals: leave the small, scandal stuff alone and focus on the big problems: accountability, access to information, torture, and environmental issues; ship Scott Brison off to Columbia to do time as a union rep and if he survives a couple of years, he may be ok; get rid of deadwood like Volpe; quit sucking up to poll results and take a strong stance on the big issues.

Jack Layton



Quit. NDP: take Broadbent on as advisor; pick a leader who has been consistent in her or his views and who won’t suck up to the ruling party for a few extra seats. Drop the kitchen table talk and remember that even rich, Canadian assholes need to be addressed, but not catered to.


Gilles Duceppe



Continue come tu le fait. If the other three were anywhere near the leader and politician you are, they be a shoe-in for a majority.

Susan Riley has a question about Bob Rae

The more we see of Bob Rae -- and we seem to be seeing the Toronto MP a lot lately -- the larger the question looms: Why isn't he the Liberal leader?

No kidding.

I am not happy with Ignatieff, never wanted him as Liberal party leader, and care for him even less for his waffeling and soft stance on human rights issues.  Words are ok, but we need action.  Watching Rae over the past few weeks has given me some hope, though.

By contrast, Rae is funny, self-deprecating, knowledgeable and spontaneous. His criticisms of the Harper government tend not to be shrill, predictable or personal. But they can be heartfelt -- as when he recently denounced those infamous Conservative flyers that imply the Liberals are, at least, sanguine about anti-Semitism. Rae, whose wife and adult children are Jewish, called them "a new kind of gutter politics."

...Rae is also a better performer than Ignatieff in scrums and informal encounters -- more fluent, manifestly more at ease with a range of issues, sure of where he stands, able to acknowledge complexity without looking wishy-washy.

It isn't simply that I think Rae has greater voter appeal but rather that he embodies what a decent politician should be.  Smart, compassionate, honest, and courageous enough to question his own party and its actions.

The Liberal party doesn't tolerate one-person rule, not to the extend the Harper party does, at the very least.  What is often seen as in-fighting (and yes, true in-fighting does occur among the Grits), is sometimes healthy - if somewhat too-public debate.  This is why I find it very encouraging not only to see that the Liberal party has such people within it as Rae, but that he is being given such a high profile lately.  Must be a little scary for Ignatieff.

It is, however, good for the party and will likely draw back people who have been so turned off by the lack of honesty displayed by top politicians and their failure to connect with voters because they simply do not grasp that what most of us want is simply honest, transparent government where the concerns of those politicians are elected to represent are the real driving force behind shaping legislation.

We need to see more of this in practice.  MPs such as Rae and Kennedy not only speaking on behalf of the party, but clear assurances that the Liberal party is not a one man show and is truly made up of the many voices constituents elect.  Voices that are not muzzled, votes that are not forced.

Place these (and there are other good ones in the Liberal party as well) against Harper's usual suspects:

 - 'nuff said!

  - intelligent speaker, unflapable, ouzes integrity.






- intelligent, passionate, lots of integrity, too clean to be a target, calm

- still needs experience, especially in word-crafting to avoid statements that can easily be twisted, but he offers a fresh face representing renewal; intelligent, decent enough speaker, lots of appeal, plenty of well directed passion, oozes integrity


Intelligence opposing CON smirking, taunting, and childish diversions

Integrity opposing CON foot-in-mouth disease

Honesty opposing CON lies and channel changing

And let's not forget the cute factor: