2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Byrns]

Ruby Dhalla come on over!

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I'm not sure how Harper doesn't scare more people with his track record. I am scared for the status of our democracy if he gets a majority. It is disappointing that we don't seem to have many credible alternatives to pick from especially in Alberta. Politics here is depressing and frustrating.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I'm not sure how Harper doesn't scare more people with his track record. I am scared for the status of our democracy if he gets a majority. It is disappointing that we don't seem to have many credible alternatives to pick from especially in Alberta. Politics here is depressing and frustrating.

What's scary about him? Sounds like you are just buying into more Liberal rhetoric.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by The Goon

I wondered why the Globe and Mail was trending on Twitter, then I see that the editorial board has officially endorsed the Conservative Party:

Facing up to our challenges

If you enjoy true message board meltdowns, check out the comments section.

If this has already been mentioned before just ignore this, but apparently this isn't that much of a surprise to anyone who's followed the G&M for the last few elections. It was mentioned in the comments of a couple G&M articles at the beginning of the Election, but the trend for the Globe over the past few elections has been to constantly choose the Conservatives.

It's odd for a paper to have a heavy left slant of opinion and editorial articles and then go the complete opposite way for it's editorial endorsement. I wasn't surprised to see that this morning, but it is still a bit of a head scratcher.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by transplant99

At 308 in 2008, they projected

http://threehundredeight.blogspot.co...n-results.html

I'm looking at that site and they have the Bloc way, way out ahead of everyone else in Quebec.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What's scary about him? Sounds like you are just buying into more Liberal rhetoric.

It isn't just Liberal rhetoric, although I guess hardcore Conservatives might see it that way.

From Coyne's article, these are some of the worrying points:

"But the long train of offences against democratic and parliamentary principle—from proroguing Parliament, twice, to evade Parliament’s reach; to withholding documents essential to parliamentary oversight, even in defiance of Parliament’s explicit demands; to intimidating parliamentary officers and politicizing the bureaucracy; to such breaches of trust as the Emerson and Fortier appointments, the taxation of income trusts, and the evisceration of their own law on fixed election dates—are simply unforgivable."

Here'e one person's worry:

"The stats canada fiasco, contempt of parliament, scrapping of the salt panel, elements of G8 planning and implementation - all very problematic."

The suspension of civil liberties during the G-20 in Toronto is another.

There are a lot of people in Canada legitimately concerned that Harper doesn't respect democracy. It isn't merely rhetoric as you try to dismiss it. Do you defend the CPC's actions that have many people worried?

[Bertuzzied]

Please let this be the end of Harper! also iggy and layton.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

It isn't just Liberal rhetoric, although I guess hardcore Conservatives might see it that way.

From Coyne's article, these are some of the worrying points:

"But the long train of offences against democratic and parliamentary principle—from proroguing Parliament, twice, to evade Parliament’s reach; to withholding documents essential to parliamentary oversight, even in defiance of Parliament’s explicit demands; to intimidating parliamentary officers and politicizing the bureaucracy; to such breaches of trust as the Emerson and Fortier appointments, the taxation of income trusts, and the evisceration of their own law on fixed election dates—are simply unforgivable."

Here'e one person's worry:

"The stats canada fiasco, contempt of parliament, scrapping of the salt panel, elements of G8 planning and implementation - all very problematic."

The suspension of civil liberties during the G-20 in Toronto is another.

There are a lot of people in Canada legitimately concerned that Harper doesn't respect democracy. It isn't merely rhetoric as you try to dismiss it. Do you defend the CPC's actions that have many people worried?

When I was younger, I used to believe the underdog when he spoke against corruption and said he would clean up politics. I realize now that some degree of corruption (or at least what appears to be corruption) is inevitable. You'll never have a completely transparent government, nor will you manage to fill government entirely with honest representatives. Even if you do manage the impossible, the media and opposition will simply create scandal and controversy in its place. The Liberals were no better when they were in power than the Conservatives currently are, so I certainly don't look to them as a viable alternative if honest government is my main concern.

As for proroguing parliament, the CPC first did it to keep the Bloc from becoming the lynch pin of our government and it was the right thing to do at the time. I won't attempt to defend many of their controversial decisions, but that one has my support 100%.

At any rate, my true fear comes from what some of the alternatives to the CPC would do to our economy. That takes centre stage for me and quite frankly, it should for all Canadians as well. If any other party could put together a responsible budget then I would seriously consider giving them my vote. Instead, what we have is alternatives that feed us platitudes about honest government while they piece together economic plans that would cripple this country. If that's all a party has to offer, some hollow shell about being honest that will quickly be forgotten once they assume power, then I'll take the party with the best action plan for the economy every time.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What's scary about him? Sounds like you are just buying into more Liberal rhetoric.

Scary might not be the proper word, but there really are some concerning issues:

- Bruce Carson: 5 fraud convictions and that going unnoticed, lobbying for government funds illegally

- Prorogation of parliament not once but twice

- The Afghan detainee issue and muzzling of whistleblower Richard Colvin (which is why the second prorogation took place)

- Bev Oda and her insertion of the word "not" on an already signed document

- The G8/G20 funding questions

- The "In and Out" scandal (perhaps the most egregious of the all, but its so hard to rank them!)

- Using quotes attributed to the Liberals about a decade ago and claiming that they are regarding spending for the G8/G20 summit.

- The long-form census cancellation and surrounding issues

- The tapes that came out this week (IIRC) which tout Dmitri Soudas as the "Boss of Quebec" regarding the Montreal Port Authority

Let me just put the obligatory "The Liberals were bad" comment to save some of you from typing it. That being said though, there is a real question here. Some of these can possibly be explained away....I'm surely missing some from this list as well.

In some of these cases though you really do have to wonder about the ethics and accountability of this government. They came to power promising accountability and openess and instead this is a short list of their scandals...I'm not even going back to the first term! I'm not adding in things like the doctored photograph from this week. I can see how people would skim over one or two issues...but seriously there are some major issues on that list.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Slava

Scary might not be the proper word, but there really are some concerning issues:

- Bruce Carson: 5 fraud convictions and that going unnoticed, lobbying for government funds illegally

- Prorogation of parliament not once but twice

- The Afghan detainee issue and muzzling of whistleblower Richard Colvin (which is why the second prorogation took place)

- Bev Oda and her insertion of the word "not" on an already signed document

- The G8/G20 funding questions

- The "In and Out" scandal (perhaps the most egregious of the all, but its so hard to rank them!)

- Using quotes attributed to the Liberals about a decade ago and claiming that they are regarding spending for the G8/G20 summit.

- The long-form census cancellation and surrounding issues

- The tapes that came out this week (IIRC) which tout Dmitri Soudas as the "Boss of Quebec" regarding the Montreal Port Authority

Let me just put the obligatory "The Liberals were bad" comment to save some of you from typing it. That being said though, there is a real question here. Some of these can possibly be explained away....I'm surely missing some from this list as well.

In some of these cases though you really do have to wonder about the ethics and accountability of this government. They came to power promising accountability and openess and instead this is a short list of their scandals...I'm not even going back to the first term! I'm not adding in things like the doctored photograph from this week. I can see how people would skim over one or two issues...but seriously there are some major issues on that list.

What doctored photograph? does it make harper skinny or layton fatter?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by krynski

What doctored photograph? does it make harper skinny or layton fatter?

Its a photograph of "Ignatieff" during the Iraq war. You can see it here:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2.../18071406.html

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If that happens, will posters on this forum call them "sluts" and "whores"?

If they cross because they were promised cabinet posts? Yes.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

In some of these cases though you really do have to wonder about the ethics and accountability of this government. They came to power promising accountability and openess and instead this is a short list of their scandals...I'm not even going back to the first term! I'm not adding in things like the doctored photograph from this week. I can see how people would skim over one or two issues...but seriously there are some major issues on that list.

Doctored photo? The picture had poor resolution. How does that qualify as being doctored?

From the link that you originally provided:

Our preliminary analysis of the picture concluded that it was real and had not been tampered with, and a lot of the information contained in the report was very convincing, including a clip from a Pentagon press briefing in which an American colonel thanked Michael Ignatieff specifically for his work in preparation for the invasion, and this on the day before the U.S. launched the attack. As well, we had submitted the picture to Ignatieff and his spokesperson who never formally denied that it might be him.

This is what I am talking about when it comes to manufacturing controversy and scandal. Someone in the CPC campaign party did an online search, found some information that, if true, could be very embarrassing to the Liberal's campaign, so they turned it over to the media to verify the story's accuracy. The media dug a little deeper and found that the allegations in the story were untrue. We can theorize that they knew it wasn't Ignatieff from the start, but the reality is, even Ignatieff's own people couldn't answer if it was him or not. There was no doctoring of the photo, and at first glance, the info all seemed legit. Yet, here you are, making it sound like there is proof that the CPC not only intentionally fed the media false information, but that they also manufactured this false info as well. Based on what?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Scary might not be the proper word, but there really are some concerning issues:

- Bruce Carson: 5 fraud convictions and that going unnoticed, lobbying for government funds illegally

- Prorogation of parliament not once but twice

- The Afghan detainee issue and muzzling of whistleblower Richard Colvin (which is why the second prorogation took place)

- Bev Oda and her insertion of the word "not" on an already signed document

- The G8/G20 funding questions

- The "In and Out" scandal (perhaps the most egregious of the all, but its so hard to rank them!)

- Using quotes attributed to the Liberals about a decade ago and claiming that they are regarding spending for the G8/G20 summit.

- The long-form census cancellation and surrounding issues

- The tapes that came out this week (IIRC) which tout Dmitri Soudas as the "Boss of Quebec" regarding the Montreal Port Authority

Let me just put the obligatory "The Liberals were bad" comment to save some of you from typing it. That being said though, there is a real question here. Some of these can possibly be explained away....I'm surely missing some from this list as well.

In some of these cases though you really do have to wonder about the ethics and accountability of this government. They came to power promising accountability and openess and instead this is a short list of their scandals...I'm not even going back to the first term! I'm not adding in things like the doctored photograph from this week. I can see how people would skim over one or two issues...but seriously there are some major issues on that list.

And yet, the only real alternative was ethically worse by an order of magnitude last time they were in power.

I just can't by the argument the Liberals are more Ethical than the Conservatives, even if every point you raised was true.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its a photograph of "Ignatieff" during the Iraq war. You can see it here:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2.../18071406.html

Yeah....I agree with you in a lot of ways, but I also dissagree with you in a lot of ways. Whilst voting, i personally believe that the main contibution to my vote is party platform. I choose the one that is best for what i would like. Some stuff is trivial, and when you are under a lot of supervision and have a huge public audience, screw ups not only occur; they are amplified. Some screw-ups are significant, but are they significant to support a party platform i don't particularly like? not for me.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Doctored photo? The picture had poor resolution. How does that qualify as being doctored?

From the link that you originally provided:



This is what I am talking about when it comes to manufacturing controversy and scandal. Someone in the CPC campaign party did an online search, found some information that, if true, could be very embarrassing to the Liberal's campaign, so they turned it over to the media to verify the story's accuracy. The media dug a little deeper and found that the allegations in the story were untrue. We can theorize that they knew it wasn't Ignatieff from the start, but the reality is, even Ignatieff's own people couldn't answer if it was him or not. There was no doctoring of the photo, and at first glance, the info all seemed legit. Yet, here you are, making it sound like there is proof that the CPC not only intentionally fed the media false information, but that they also manufactured this false info as well. Based on what?

Right. The CPC strategist had this information which was definitely not the Liberal leader, and has since parted ways with the CPC based on this episode, but you still think that somehow the Liberals are the ones who dropped the ball here? Clearly this poor fellow was turfed from the CPC for no good reason then.

Maybe I shouldn't have said doctored, but my argument still stands.

I also have to say that the line you use there about "manufacturing controversy" is deadly accurate here. That is exactly what Muttart was trying to do!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

And yet, the only real alternative was ethically worse by an order of magnitude last time they were in power.

I just can't by the argument the Liberals are more Ethical than the Conservatives, even if every point you raised was true.

Thanks. I covered that off for you in my post....I already know that is what the CPC supporters are going to say. For some reason the CPC faithful are happy to vote in favour of these issues, but would be absolutely against the party commiting these acts if it were the Liberals.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

And yet, the only real alternative was ethically worse by an order of magnitude last time they were in power.

I just can't by the argument the Liberals are more Ethical than the Conservatives, even if every point you raised was true.

Does that mean that Harper should get a free pass for his scandals because previous governments were also bad? People need to be held accountable for their actions. Just because Chretien (and Mulroney before him, and Trudeau before him, etc.) also had scandals doesn't mean the current guys in power are off the hook.

Now, if you want to say that the economy is your #1 issue with everything else secondary, and you support the CPC because you believe they have the best platform in that area, I'm ok with that. Just don't sweep the indiscretions of The Harper Government(TM) under the table and pretend they don't matter because previous governments also had scandals.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What's scary about him? Sounds like you are just buying into more Liberal rhetoric.

He hasn't said a peep since Harper became the leader of the CPC. scary stuff folks!

[VladtheImpaler]

The whole "respect for democracy" argument is specious, especially from anyone that has ever voted Liberal. Politics is a sleazy business; some are sleazier than others (Chretien), but some amount of dirt is a given no matter who is in charge. I'm not a big fan of Harper (or the CPC) - I still hold a grudge for the income trust back-stab - but I am confident that Harper would be MUCH less harmful to the country and myself personally than any of the other alternatives. Very confident.