BS: Canada Election

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Crowhugger
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 10:51 PM

Guest, 999 I too think Canadians would understand that. But we aren't politicians appealing to the lowest uncommon denominator.

Yes, people everywhere pitch in to things like ice storms (that big one was '98 I think), floods or whatever. Everyday people get that we all need a hand sometimes--why do politicians always seem to screw up the message about what's important?

Dream, baby, dream!!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 11:08 PM

The reason yer politicians screw up the message is simple. They are lookin' to divide and conquer. The same is true whever you have them political parties. Divide and conquer is the name of the game.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Mooh
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 07:48 AM

Ed...Ignatief referring to himself as an American, whatever the reasons, sounds pro-American to me. My concerns about Ignatief started when he supported the US invasion of Iraq, and was, in my view, slow to modify his opinion on its justification, and he took years to change his mind. That appears to me like he was a Bush toady, and apologist, though it may have been simple political posturing, neither of which endears him to me as a leader today. He has continued in this vein, walking out on a vote regarding conscientious objectors, and supporting the continuation of Canada's role in Afganistan, neither of which were unanimously supported by the party.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 10:45 AM

Mooh, I do not know the context in which you claim "Ignatief referring to himself as an American". Can you provide the direct source, (I have only seen it used in Conservative attack ads). I recall saying myself that compared to many world peoples, Canadians are much like Americans. I suspect people could take that out of context, if there was a reason to do so.

Here is some historic perspective, that I am aware of:
After refusing to participate in the second USA invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister Jean Chretien's Liberal government announced on October 7, 2001, that Canada would contribute forces to the international force being formed to conduct a campaign against terrorism. Ignatief'did not enter Canadian politics until the 2006 election, four years after Canada's involvement.

"After debate the members of the United Nations through the General Assembly and the Security Council agreed that the United States and the other nations involved were entitled to take action under the United Nations Charter, Chapter 7, Article 51. Action taken was directed against the Taliban, an invading army of students and the de facto government of a part of Afghanistan, and the international terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda that had declared war on the USA and had been nurtured by the Taliban in a symbiotic relationship since 1996.

Before this action the Taliban had been in breach of a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions and United Nations sanctions were in place against them. The government of Afghanistan, recognised by the United Nations and all but three nations, had long sought United Nations assistance to repel the Taliban invaders and the action taken was to provide military assistance to this government while the United Nations Security Council took action to form a new fully representative, multi-ethnic and broad-based Afghan government."

Following a report conducted by former Liberal, John Manly, in March 2008, the Harper Conservative government's motion to extend the military mission into 2011 was approved in a parliamentary vote with the support of the Liberal party. Canada announced that it will withdraw the bulk of its fighting troops from Afghanistan in 2011. In November 2008, Ignatieff was formally declared the interm federal liberal party leader.

The basis of Ignatief's position:
In Ignatief's 2000 book Virtual War he argued for the decisive use of military force against states which massacre its own citizens. This was after he witnessed, first hand, ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Serbia that was halted when NATO warplanes bombed Slobodan Milosevic's Serbian troops without a United Nations Security Council resolution authorization.

in 2001, Ignatieff was made a member of the Canadian-sponsored International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty which published "The Responsibility to Protect". It argued that the international community has a moral imperative to intervene militarily to resolve
humanitarian crises in failed and failing states such as the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo. It also argued that if the United Nations Security Council fails to act, then regional coalitions like NATO, ad hoc coalitions or individual states ought to in its absence. "The Responsibility to Protect", was endorsed by the United Nations and is central to Canada's International Policy Statement put forward by the Liberal government in 2005.

After seeing first hand the killing of the Kurds in Iraq, he initially indicated his personal support for the second Iraq invasion (USA), as many did at the time. He later indicated that the invasion was unwise. BTW, he had no political role at that time.

As to calling Ignatieff "a Bush Toady", (though you have a right to your opinion) it seems, to me, as historically illogical and unfair, as some of the political attack ads are. It seems just as reasonable to align his viewpoints with the Obama administration, (but, I suspect that has less negative impact).

As to his views on conscientious objectors (though I do not know what they are), I suspect if Canadian troops were seeking to avoid service through other countries, one may have a different viewpoint?

I don't know if Ignatieff would be a good Prime Minister, or even has a shot at it. But, I see no good reason to misrepresent him or his views (which seem to be humanitarian in nature)as the cause of everything bad in Canada since 2001.




UN and Afganistan

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Crowhugger
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 12:40 PM

I'm one of those voters who usually looks at elections as choosing the least of evils.

For the future of the country, Harpo worries me more than Ig because he opted for attack ads that state or imply that Ig's worldly experience is somehow a bad thing. This is definitely about divide and conquer in more ways than one: Yes it's about trying to make voters feel like Ig is not to be trusted, in essence drawing a line between voters and Ig. Even worse, it's about making us feel that foreign=untrustable. That is shameful behaviour in this day and age and especially in this country which is founded on diversity of both ethnicity and religion.

That said, it remains to be seen which candidates will offer the least negative and the most positive over all, and then whether he wins his riding. After election day we'll eventually find out whether the chosen ones will stick to what they said they stood for. When I first started voting one could be reasonably sure that most candidates would do 180 degree on campaign promises but these days some of 'em actually say what they mean. Makes it somthing of a crap shoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 01:09 PM

Good perspectives, Crowhugger.

Though some fall for 'em, IMO, attack ads, that focuses on slick personal innuendo rather than actual perspectives on issues, are an insult to the voters intelligence. And, they have been going on for a few years, even when there was no election call. Does anyone expect that approach to promote cooperation? Eliz. May deserves praise for her anti-attack ad messages.

More gets done through cooperation,versus a conquer, divide and dominiate approach. IMO, some of Canada's best social programs were initiated when Trudeau and Douglas cooperated to make a minority government work.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Mooh
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 01:43 PM

Ed...I've been searching for the references, which I thought I had in a folder (on my laptop) but damned if I can find them. However, one source, if I remember correctly, was c-span.org. I don't know how one can take "It's your country [America] just as much as it is mine." out of context. I don't think it's a misrepresentation of him to suggest that this is indicative of an unworthiness as a Canadian leader. Sure, it's just my opinion.

Thanks for the historical perspective on his war stance, I will read up on it further. I'll try not to judge him too harshly on rushing to support the invasion on Iraq, no matter how wrong it was (imho). It's indicative of a kind of judgement I find worrisome in a leader, that is, supporting something I saw as a red herring from the start.

Not sure where this is coming from, "I don't know if Ignatieff would be a good Prime Minister, or even has a shot at it. But, I see no good reason to misrepresent him or his views (which seem to be humanitarian in nature)as the cause of everything bad in Canada since 2001" (Ed T). No one (including me) said or implied this. I'd choose him over Harper if there weren't other choices.

I love elections, almost as much as I love hockey.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 02:12 PM

"Not sure where this is coming from,"

Mostly in reference to the unfair attack ads, that have been going since Iggy was elected as Liberal leader,and those who have been swayed by them (you seem to have indicated you are not).

Does anyone believe the election campaign only began last week? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 02:38 PM

Mooh,

On your other point, a search of the internet shows over and over a quote, (mostly from political sources): "You have to decide what kind of America you want. It's your country just as much as it is mine." (CSPAN, 2004)

A question. Why would only a short quote be taken out of a longer interview rather than showing the complete interview or at least the part related to the quote? I am suspicious.

Anyway, I believe in giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, looking at a broader slice of a life and perspectives rather than puting everything on something such as that.

I would not be surprised if the attack ad folks will be asking to see Iggy's Canadian birth certificate, to match the USA conservative right attack approaches (it seems to have worked with some down there).

I recall during the election campaign that political operatives challenged Stéphane Dion's Canadian patriotism, because his mother was born in France (giving him dual citizenship, as many loyal Canadians have).

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: bobad
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 02:52 PM

You do know, don't you, that all that kind of crap is designed to distract the voting public from the government's record and to keep the important issues off the table. From some of the posts here it seems to be accomplishing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 03:06 PM

''As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand," said the 19th-century humorist Josh Billings. At least, a lot of quotation collectors hope he did say it.""

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 04:55 PM

bobad... spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:26 PM

Given the fact that I don't watch TV, negative attack ads have no effect on me...and I don't get bugged by them either.

Be that as it may, I wouldn't vote for Harper's party under any conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 08:01 AM

The first real goal in the campaign was scored by the Bloc when Duceppe waved that paper with Harper's signature on it wanting to set up a coalition making Harper PM.
We find a Prime Minister defeated for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth for Contempt of Parliament caught in a bare faced lie. This says so much about the morals of our leaders!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 01:49 PM

"Given the fact that I don't watch TV, negative attack ads have no effect on me...and I don't get bugged by them either.

Be that as it may, I wouldn't vote for Harper's party under any conditions."


Ditto.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Crowhugger
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 02:14 PM

That's what everyone said publicly about Mike Harris--won't vote for him, didn't vote for him. But the destructive idiot won a sweeping majority. Twice!

Which leads me to wonder who the heck IS voting for Harpo's party? (I mention the party to be clear for US readers who may not remember that we don't directly elect our PM; a party leader becomes PM by default when that party wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons.)

The streeters I've heard on radio or seen on TV so far indicate that the Canadian public has almost entirely missed the issue of contempt of parliament. How is that possible? Or do they really believe it's not as important as "the economy"?

These people are my neighbours and they seem so normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 02:25 PM

One tory candidate

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 02:43 PM

I too have wondered about an electorate that would vote for Mike Harris! He and Harper are cut from the same cloth and that gives me concern. Britain elected Thatcher and the USA Reagan and Bush W ( at least democratically the second time) so it does raise concern with me.
Hopefully we can learn from history and not repeat the same mistakes!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 02:46 PM

Ethics?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 02:56 PM

Crowhugger... hahahahaa.

I think a lot of people paid little attention after they knew we were headed for an election anyway after the Liberals, Bloc and NDP said they were going to bring down the government on the budget. The motion of no confidence for contempt just three days later ensured an election, nixed any implemetaion under the budget (yeah, but we all know they start(ed?) spending anyway), avoided the main estimates being... nevermind all that... they wanted to "score the first goal" as Sandy said. Too bad so many people seemed to have missed the point that a offense punishable under law by fine and or jail time was committed.

I think thay all just wanted extended vacations and getting to travel and live it up.

999... you should contact your MP and offer to play some gigs at her parties/rallies.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 03:04 PM

In the local paper, they ask a daily question. The current one asked
the outcome of the election. The "Conservative majority" option was
the most popular answer, despite a previous question asking who they
would vote for (Liberals were most popular).
I don't always trust pre-election polls. In the by-election, the CHP lead a poll over the Tories by twenty points, and they only got one or two percent of the actual votes. I liked their policy on hunting and
fishing. Jim Hnatiuk has a hunting and fishing supplies company, therefore he has a policy that includes protecting hunting and fishing rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 03:06 PM

I suspect there is some of that Gnu. But, I also suspect there is citizen fatigue when it comes to ethics, politicans and the political system. People have come to expect "dirty dealing" as the norm with politics, and are not as concerned when it comes to light.

I remember a few years ago a local provincial polition was caught and fined for cheating on his travel claims. He remained just as popular after in the local commuinty, and was voted in a mayor many times after. One citizen on TV said, "we know that all politicians are dishonest, so we want one of the most dishonest representing us, so our area will get more benefits from the system"

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 09:08 PM

Ed, no doubt you speaketh of Billy Joe (no relation) who is still mayor of Port Hawkesbury.
Billy Joe

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Beer
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 09:29 PM

Who you are all voting for aside,
I am disgusted with all parties in Parliament sittings. I find it shameful how "OUR" representatives toss shit back and forth. The mudslinging is a waste of valuable time and just seems to get worst. And in my opinion all parties are at fault.
ad

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 09:45 PM

Adrien, there is irony in the fact that those empowered to improve the system are the perpetrators.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: ollaimh
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 11:07 PM

i find it unbelievable that people swaallow the idea of conservatives calling ignatieff too american. or too educated for that matter.

ignatieff has uk citizenship and us green card i believe. he also has international acedemic credentials, at harvard oxford etc--the very best, and people buy that thats a negative. what palnet am i living on? he's not a businessman. he did university teaching, hosted on bbc, made documentaries and wrote for a living. he was head of harvards human rights centre--an internationally respected leader in human rights. how are these negatives?

not to mention harpers toadying to the american conservatives--who launched his carreer by funding the "national citizens coalition".

and the harper government had increased spending by thirty per cent and dropped taxes--that's why we are in deficit not the recession. this irresponsible spending and tax cutting atarted right from the beginning in the first two years when the ecenony was still good. his finance minister o'flarrety has never even come close with any economic forecast. they have all been political documents bot budgets. unfortunately our media have resigned from the watchdog job they used to do. no governent would be free from constant criticism with that record in the past, now they have few critiques for the incompetence and smear and spin of the harper government.harper is taking us down the mulroney road of deficit afgter drficit of record proportions. mulroney almost doubled out national debt in nine years--harper could do it in five to seven if not reigned in. unreported by our corporate dominated media.

by the way ignattief has ruled out a carbon tax.

i just hopw we cam stop the cons from getting a majority! and i am sick of the demonization of the bloc, conservatives all over the english speaking world do this. they think that some people can't be allowed to vote or some parties shouldn't be allowed or recognized--too bad they don't believe in democracy. bloc mps are the same as any and fsilure to respect them is demonizing francophones--one more ignorant conservative bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 11:21 PM

Frankly, the Conservatives can kiss my ass. I have NO respect for the Conservatives because of their smear tactics. As for the newspapers, reporting has meant nothing for decades. When advertisers control editorials, when television spins opinion, it's time to say to hell with them and let them know why you don't read their crap or watch their programs. imo

If Claude needs an English singer to help win her re-election, I'd be only too happy to do that. Diss the block? Fuck you, Harper. You spend more time on your hair than you do on your policies. Get stuffed. And I mean that in the nicest possible way!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Beer
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 11:44 PM

ollaimh,
By your last paragraph you are saying that you support separatism. Am I correct?
All parties believe in Democracy. But all believe in keeping Canada together except the Bloc. Gilles Duceppe I really like as a politician but i will never vote for him because i believe in Canada. Does that make me against Democracy?
Bruce, you say your going to vote Bloc because Louise is a straight forward and honest representative. I couldn't agree with you more. Except for one thing. Louise represents a party that is based on separation. If that is O.K. with you than so be it.
Language Policy really pisses me off to, but voting for the Bloc is more than
language. It is about tearing our country apart.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Beer
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 11:57 PM

I want to also say that Louise is a great great lady who represents her area very well. In fact she comes to our coffee house evenings as much as her time permits. I would be first in line to vote for her except she represents dividing Canada. Now maybe that is O.K because more and more the idea of Canada being as one is being questioned. But in my life time which may be 20 years at tops. I will fight the cock suckers.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 12:14 AM

Fight 'em with what? Vote for whom? I have written to her and told her I hate the Bloc's language policies, and if separation should occur, I'll die with a gun in my hand, and you can count on that. You are not the only one here who loves this country. Tell me a party that's worth voting for instead! Three sentences, and if they make sense, you'll have two votes: one I don't give to the Bloc and another I give to someone else. Which party will you sing for, Ad?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 12:22 AM

I remain puzzled by the Bloc/PQ claim that Canada can be divided but Quebec can not. Like sucking and blowing at the same time. I remember years ago a TV interview with a federal civil servant who worked every day in Ottawa but lived in Hull (or whatever it's called now). When asked if he was concerned about his job he felt that Canada would still employ him even if he would be living in a foreign country.
I don't believe that Quebec has any real desire to go on its own but feels that the squeaky wheel will be greased first, and they are making the best of the situation. I believe that the greater danger lies with those who would sell out the whole country for the economic benefit of the rich. If Harper believes otherwise he has not shown it. If it looks like shit and smells like shit it probably is shit and I have no desire to taste it for confirmation!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Beer
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 12:23 AM

I'm from the old school. I don't publicly tell who I vote for. I wait for who will bring the bottle of rum or the box of chocolates and the ride to the poling station. That is not true of course, but that was what my Dad did. And when my Mum found out she was furious.
Bruce , in all honesty, I won't tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 12:34 AM

I don't really want to know, Adrien. The Bloc will take it here anyway, regardless who either of us vote for.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Crowhugger
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 01:47 AM

If I lived in la belle province I wouldn't vote for the Bloc on the same grounds as Adrien. But I'd sure love to see a mainstream national party adopt some of their social programs. Language excepted of course, I'm talking more about child and health care etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 04:56 AM

Harper's Plan for a family tax cut... (from the Conservative website)

To ensure that the federal income tax system respects and supports the choices that families make, a re-elected Conservative Government will end the unfairness against single-income families with children, and two-income families with children where one spouse earns more than the other. This will also ease the burden on double-income families, by allowing them to keep more of what they earn and to benefit from having a second income.

A Stephen Harper Government will, as soon as the budget is balanced, establish the Family Tax Cut — income sharing for couples with dependent children under 18 years of age. This will give spouses the choice to share up to $50,000 of their household income for federal income-tax purposes.

By extending the principle of income sharing to families with children — a benefit our Government granted pensioners in 2007 — we will lower taxes on Canadian families. The result will be significant tax relief for nearly 1.8 million Canadian families — each of them saving, on average, $1,300 per year.

This measure is projected to cost $ 2.5 billion per year.
********************************************************************

"as soon as the budget is balanced"

Yeah, right.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Mooh
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 08:36 AM

Interesting informal unscientific person on the street poll on CTV this morning. Most of the respondents shown in the news story couldn't identify the 4 party leader pictures they were shown. Most interviewees confessed to not following politics. Okay, I get that, but not even recognizing the PM, never mind the others, isn't good for the country.

I wish voting was a duty.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Mooh
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 08:37 AM

Well, I used to wish voting was a duty, but should the ignorant vote?

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Beer
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 08:47 AM

Good point Mooh.
This is an old story but when folks in countries get killed for wanting to vote than I think anyone here in Canada should be fined if they don't vote. Just as it is mandatory to wear a seat belt, why not apply it to voting.
ad.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 09:11 AM

As to identifying Canadian political leaders: a few years back, when my son was in high school,the Prime Minister was Paul Martin, with harper as opposition leader. The teacher asked a student who the Prime Minister was. The student look puzzled and said Steve Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: 3refs
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 09:53 AM

"Well, I used to wish voting was a duty, but should the ignorant vote?"
They're learning not to. In 1988 75% of them turned out, and now it's down to 58%.
The B.Q. would win by the biggest landslide in Canadian history if they only said "We are here to protect the traditions and culture of Quebec and also the traditions and cultures of the rest of the Provinces and Territories. We are all unique in our own ways and our ways need to be protected at the national level".

From coast to coast to coast to the line on the map!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: bobad
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 09:56 AM

Harper takes no prisoners

By Andrew Cohen, Citizen Special March 29, 2011 6:28 AM

There is a story of a meeting between Stephen Harper and a visiting head of government. During the conversation, which took place in the Prime Minister's Office, the two leaders eventually discussed the parliamentary opposition in their respective countries.

What struck the visitor was Harper's antipathy toward the opposition, particularly the Liberals. "I don't like my opponents," the visitor allowed afterwards, "but I don't hate them. He hates his opposition!"

Hatred is a strong word. Whenever we spat "I hate you!" in the schoolyard, teachers told us to watch our tongues; you disliked the bully who washed your face with snow, but, really, you didn't hate him.

You have to wonder about how little personal regard Stephen Harper has for his opponents and how it affects how he runs a government and fights an election. More than any other politician in this country, this is a man with animus.

It takes a healthy disdain toward the Leader of the Opposition for the Conservatives to run months of expensive attack ads against him. This kind of character assassination worked so well on Stéphane Dion that they have used it on Michael Ignatieff, with some success.

While attack advertising in Canada isn't as bad as the "Swift Boat" campaign against Senator John Kerry in the 2004 American presidential race, give it time. Suggesting that Ignatieff's father, George, was privileged when he and his family arrived here in 1928 is meant to cast Ignatieff as a patrician and make Harper the populist in the eyes of Canada's accountants of envy.

(Interestingly, George Ignatieff says in his memoir that his family lived on just $100 a month. His mother found a bedbug-ridden apartment in Montreal and walked five miles a day to find fresh produce. At 15, George left home one summer to clear brush in British Columbia.)

Was that Stephen Harper's experience growing up as the son of an accountant in hardscrabble, suburban Toronto?

Let's accept that the Conservatives aren't the only ones to use attack ads. Let's accept, too, that politics is a blood sport and all parties play tough and say silly things. Nice guys need not apply.

More than any other party, Stephen Harper's Conservatives have embraced adversarial politics. The modus operandi is to make no concessions, take no prisoners and use the truth economically.

It really doesn't matter what the falsehood, as long as you say it loudly and frequently. If you want to raise money saying that the Liberals will "gut our military" and "raise" taxes, you do, knowing that Paul Martin's Liberals began rebuilding the military (after both the Conservatives and Liberals neglected it in the 1980s and 1990s) and Ignatieff has repeatedly ruled out higher taxes.

Or you dismiss the vote of contempt of Parliament as political "manoeuvring." Or you expel a member of your caucus, perhaps destroying her political career, and never explain why. Or you prorogue Parliament to silence your critics, twice.

All this suggests a strange, pathological antipathy. It has been said that the prime minister wants to "destroy" the Liberal party as he establishes a new Conservative ascendancy. If so, his is a new ambition in our politics: denying the opposition institutional legitimacy.

No wonder the prime minister has been raising fears of an opposition "coalition" early in the campaign. In a speech on Sunday, for example, he mentioned the "coalition" in Parliament which defeated his government on a vote of nonconfidence some 20 times. It is the new bogeyman.

There was a time, in the Cold War, that the dreaded "c word" was communism; it is now, to Harper, "the reckless, unprincipled coalition." Today's Red Menace is the danger that the Liberals will unseat the Conservatives, which he says would destroy Canada's recovery and threaten its stability. Après moi, le deluge!

That this kind of talk is cheap, empty and hypocritical doesn't seem to matter. That we have had coalition government before, that states such as Germany, Finland and Britain have it now, that Harper himself considered a coalition in 2004, despite his denials -none of that matters today.

Harper has so skilfully framed this issue that he made Ignatieff declare he wouldn't consider a coalition were he to place second. Ignatieff was so cowed that he could barely speak (though his written Shermanesque renunciation still might leave room for some other informal arrangement.)

But that kind of subtle conversation finds no oxygen in our political hothouse. In the absence of defining issues, fearmongering over a coalition is seen as the way to win a majority. If the Conservatives didn't think it's a winner, they wouldn't raise it.

This is the politics of smash, slash and smear. It seems to be working in 2011.

Andrew Cohen is a professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University. E-mail: [e-mail]
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 10:01 AM

'"Well, I used to wish voting was a duty, but should the ignorant vote?"
They're learning not to. In 1988 75% of them turned out, and now it's down to 58%.
The B.Q. would win by the biggest landslide in Canadian history if they only said "We are here to protect the traditions and culture of Quebec and also the traditions and cultures of the rest of the Provinces and Territories. We are all unique in our own ways and our ways need to be protected at the national level".

From coast to coast to coast to the line on the map!'




Do you have any objection to me sending that to the Bloc, 3refs?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 10:11 AM

Questions:
If the minority government fell because of a lack of confidence vote, secrecy and contempt for the other parties and parlimentary process, does it seem likely that respect would increase under a majority government?

Who called the last election and why (remember the fixed date concept)?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 11:28 AM

"Who called the last election and why (remember the fixed date concept)? Who called the last election and why (remember the fixed date concept)?"

Indeed. Harper enacted a law and then ignored it, for political tactics.

BTW, I still get a laugh when I think of Stockwell Day's referendum farce and how 22 Minutes made him a laughing stock over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 02:43 PM

When I think of Stockwell Day, I have visions of him on the seadoo. He is also quoted as saying that the rate of unreported crime had risen, just l;ast August (check out the MontyPython style video) :))


Unreported crime stats rise:)

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: bobad
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 03:46 PM

Stockwell Day never was the sharpest knife in the drawer -- he won't be missed.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 03:55 PM

"sharpest knife in the drawer"

Well, after watching that video, he couldn't even challenge a plastic spoon. That was, at best, appalling. He should be immediately removed. Stunned as me arse that lad.

Seriously, that makes me very angry.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: 3refs
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 04:09 PM

Stockwell Duh!!!
I just did that vote test on the CBC website. I think it's rigged!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 06:07 PM

Most politicians grind my gears?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 07:45 PM

I don't understand Ed?