Re: Explanation. Nothing against 18 year old single welfare moms... they could use the money with a better job done than this dork.

Ah, here we go again - the NDP fishing for Green Party votes.

I might consider voting NDP if they put Svend Robinson in a giant hamster wheel that drives an electric generator, then dangle a diamond ring just out of reach of his fingertips. This would be about as close to a perpetual motion machine as the laws of physics will permit. Some extra power could be obtained by giving Svend a microphone with a miniature built-in super-high-velocity wind turbine generator.

Demographics are on the side of the Green Party. Self-employed people and small businesses form a key part of the Green's support. Self-employed workers are a fast-growing sector of the economy. The NDP's key support is with the United Brotherhood of Featherbedders, Clockwatchers, Luddites and Wide-Eyed-Mouth-Breathers (U.B.F.B.C.L.W.E.M.B.). This is a rapidly shrinking demographic.

Just before the 2001 BC provincial election, I had a long chat with a self-employed woman who ran a small, part-time business from her home so she could earn a living while simultaneously raising her own kids. She didn't want to dump her kids in a daycare centre and head-off to an office job.

Her husband was one of the most powerful union leaders in B.C. He must have been really pissed off that his wife was putting their kids first instead of structuring her employment in such a way as to generate maximum profits for the B.C. Featherbederation of Labour by dumping her kids off in a unionized daycare centre and commuting 4 hours per day in a unionized bus to a unionized downtown office job.

Actually living downtown where the office jobs are would be out of the question. Under the NDP vision, heavily taxpayer/worker-subsidized prime downtown residential real estate within easy walking distance of the jobs is reserved for unemployable people.

Those who actually work downtown must commute 4 hours per day to reach their jobs. This is bad for the environment and it leaves parents with little time to raise their kids. But hey, all that damage is well worth it as long as it creates lots of union jobs for bus drivers and daycare workers. And geez, if you built subsidized housing for unemployable people out in the leafy, spacious suburbs - they just might escape their addictions. That would put lots of unionized social workers out of a job.

The Brain,

Whoa! I think that you are being way too harsh here. Do you get the Vancouver Sun? Or The Province? While you may not agree with Dobbin, you must compare him to the other “professionals” in the field. I don’t really want to name people and slag them, but I was getting The National Post for free for a long time, and eventually had to cancel because too much of the writing was terrible and reactionary.

Really, are you trying to convince me that the corporations and the wealthy are the ones that are disadvantaged in this country? Hmmmm, the Canucks sell out every night, property in Whistler has rapidly gained in value. I don’t see where the pain and suffering of these groups is evident. Oh sure, maybe the über wealthy will have to golf at public courses at times. Or maybe they won’t have enough money to maintain their places in the Okanagan and Hawaii.

And as for debt load…. do you prefer to follow the American model?

And for corporations, letsee here… ah Telus, the company that can repeatly run fuzzy animal advertisements on Global again and again and again. If I hear zombies humming that #$%@$%* hippopotamus song two months from now, I will switch to SHAW. At least SHAW makes it clear they are turning us into couch potatoes and homebodies.

And Nortel, Canada’s darling? How will it ever recover from its accounting fraud with the high taxes in the county? Now I will declare that I am a shareholder in Nortel (bought long after the crash), but I am not going to feel that sorry for a company that destroyed the portfolios of thousands of Canadians and well as the financial situation of many of its loyal employees.

Find someone else to give your sympathy to. And don’t get me wrong; I am not a strong NDP supporter. I actually long for Chrétien after I compare his wasteful ways to that of Mulroney, and the power grabbing of Martin.

Mr. Brain, I usually enjoy your posts, but your criticism of this author is irrational and unnecessarily venomous.

There is a significant number of ridings, all over Canada, which together the NDP + Liberals could capture if they put their heads together.

This failed in the last election, because all the motion was one-way: NDP voters trying to help Liberals defeat Tories, without any Liberals helping NDPers in return. This seems to be because, in the absence of any clear indication to the contrary, voters figure that since there are more ridings with Liberal-Tory races than with NDP-Tory races, they most likely live in one of the former rather than one of the latter.

If the two parties would just issue a joint statement listing a number of ridings (say, West Vancouver-SC-STSC) as Liberal targets, an a number of others (say, Vancouver Island North) as NDP targets, voters would have clear guidance and might act accordingly. In genuine three-way races where both parties had hope and it is possible (NW-Coquitlam) or probable (V-Kingsway) that they are going to beat the Tory anyway, the parties could be silent.

As an NDP member, would I be thrilled that we had just helped to elect another Liberal? Not really. But I'd be thrilled that we had elected Catherine Bell in Vancouver Island North. And I'd be very happy that we had defeated two Conservatives.

Agreed, such a thing would easier to contemplate if the Liberal Party of Canada had a cuddlier image right now.

It sounds like a bit of a fantasy but such things can and do happen in other countries.

Life is simple
A vote for the Liberals is a vote in support of corruption. The basic idea of a democracy is to ensure that no one party spends to much time in power, because it will corrupt them. The Liberals need to be booted out. It’s like tough love, the Liberals are addicted to power like a junkie and need to be detoxed. We need to remove them from power, so the decent folks in the party can clean house.

In my riding strategic voting is an absolute necessity. The liberal candidate, blair wilson, only lost to the conservative devil by a small margin last time(westvan-sunshine coast)
There are way too many rich, selfish, greedy, corrupt, cynical, blind a$$holes in this riding to elect the NDP so I have strongly suggested that NDPers MUST vote liberal.
Anything to keep that buck-toothed, mysoginist, robotic, right-wing goof out of the pm's office.

i always find it amusing that some nitwit has the gall to tell others how to vote. i'll vote for whoever in hell i want to and at least i'll have the common decency not to tell others how to vote.

i may have my head up my arse, but i think most people here don't need any advice on who to vote for and are quite capable of making their own decisions.

Great! By 'putting their heads together' we can finally see them as the corrupt twins that they are!

That bit where "some nitwits" tell you how they think you should vote is called "the campaign". While perhaps not quite as vital as "the vote", it is still considered to be a fairly important part of a democratic election system.

To understand what's likely in store for Canada, and therefore the gravity of this matter, one need only look south at the absolute INSANITY that prevails in the US.
The conservatives idolize the republican party!!!! If I'm not mistaken john "perzuzu" reynolds attended the 2004 republican national convention. The same republicans who are embroiled in massive systemic corruption, illegal aggressive war, unprecented deficits, attacks on working people and the poor for the sake of the wealthy, torture, suspension of civil rights, religous zealotry and ignorance, institutionalized mysoginy and cynical, self-serving, profit-motivated attacks on all regulatory bodies and the institutions that oversee them.
If you think I'm exaggerating just pick a f'n newspaper or look at the mess left behind by a$$holes mulroney and harris.

To Moat: :-o
I go article by article. I've commented in other places how bad journalism has gotten. I agree with you.

Corporations and rich people aren't disadvantaged any longer in Canada... but they were 10 -15 years ago when debt ballooned and the NDP cried to spend money instead of cut.

If you think I'm a supporter of corporations and the wealthy, well... I'm a supporter of a system that will help you get there clean, without leaving leaving the rest too far behind. Are you trying to tell me that I believe the system is perfect or something with eg's of Whistler and the Canucks? As long as we have a system that allows clean Cinderella's to flourish without the marriage to wealth, I'm good with it...

American model? Are you kidding me? Any nation looks good in comparison to that crumbling empire.

Nortel? Might have been a good stock at .50 cents a share. Again, you won't get an arguement out of me with what you said, but the relevance?

And it sounds you just don't like Paul Martin which explains alot. Nevertheless, I'm likely not the only person who feels that this article standing alone (along with Murrays own self created fishbowl of links), just plain sucks. And no, I don't feel like I've gone overboard. A grade 8'er really could do better than this guy (at least with his post here, and others nationally. Am I supposed to tone down with this article because we are currently swimming in a cess pool of poor journalism nation wide?). No. Really. I've seen Gr. 8'ers do better. He's got two in a row like it now, at the Tyee. So fair?

Julian West: As much as I like certain parties, its time to vote for the individual, like you have partially suggested. Chuck Cadman is the best example I can think of. Started with the NDP, crossed over and sat as an independent, ran as an independent, elected as an independent. You won't find a better example of democracy. And the only reason why I can't endorse getting rid of parties, is the teamwork needed to get solid platforms together to support. For now (But this isn't an impossible hurdle either, when you think about it). We need more individuals like Chuck Cadman. As much as I like team play sometimes, party play is so often, a detriment to true democracies.

When was the last time any independent was chosen to run a cabinet position? A senate post? You won't find it. That's our democracy. But at least, and especially so, with minority governments, independents sometimes hold the balance of power, even with the independently minded Belinda's of the world. And do political junkies crave more of this? I know I do.

ohhhhhh....now i understand. preston manning is the reason we have low voter turnout. thanks for clearing that up murray. i'll have to read you more often.

To Colin: I'd rather live in a dirty house than to live on the ground in the back yard.

Jesterjogger: You tell it straight.

Billy Pilgrim: Its all about accurate information. Fewer and fewer journalists are doing this now. Its sad.

Murdock: Make room for a third.

Elliot: ;-D

No surprise here with Murray Dobbin's advice, of course. And to be expected.

Other than that, and welllll, maybe a tad bit of advice to the NDP, I'll simply leave folks here alone to figure out what makes sense to them-, in this social environment and political situation.

With that "wee bit" of advice to the NDP being, if you want to stand out, especially if you are after the progressive and left-wing vote at all, which I suspect the NDP has only "some" temporary and passing electoral interest in, then you better make yourselves stand out-, head and shoulders above the Liberals and the Greens.

You know what the problem is as well as I do, I'm damned sure. That being, you have tried so hard to stand apart from Labour, and to not be smeared by association with the Left, and to be perceived more as "liberal", that you have finally succeeded at it. (Save for the mindless ravings of the Rabid Right, such as Ron Erwin here.)

Only now of course, especially out of the last parliament, you are seen also as "Liberal", or much indistinguishable for them. Only you are perceived as the Liberals who don't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning still.(Better the Devil you know, than the one you don't.)

Except for one time when I was a young fellow in the military, and submitted to the pressure from that mileau to vote Progressive Conservative, I have otherwise always voted NDP, even when I was a Communist. Now, shit, I'd as quickly vote Liberal or Green as NDP, depending on the "strategic" situation. Or, all things being strategically equal there, I simply wouldn't vote at all.

It started in the changeover from the old CCF, of course, but the NDP is finally a victim of its own intentions-, to be accepted in a conjugal huddle around the political centre, like every other political party within current capitalism. The degrees of separation between y'all, save maybe for the more Rabid Right Conservatives, so miniscule you could barely slide an electoral flyer between y'all.

If you thought of this possible outcome, you were damned fools for ignoring it.

Get out there with some believable passion and defend the working class statas and their trade unions, a more radicalized and deeply meaningful democracy throughout our economy and political institutions, our wildlands and resources from corporate rip, rape and run-, fearlessly and unapologetically. AND defend and advocate for the nations and State of Canada; its sovereignty up against an increasing threatening US Imperialism. Stop being so damned "true middle class" conventional and timid.

All those friggin' starched collars, suits and ties!

Mustn't rock the boat, must we? :-) Then you feign surprise when even folks who would like to support you strategically vote Liberal or Green, to keep the thinly veiled Rabid Right Conservatives from controlling the State. Guffffawww!

Brain
More like you will be living in a crack house, in which case I would prefer to be outdoors myself.

Jester
Well we must be neighbours, I live in Don Bell’s riding. Never been to impressed with Don Bell and since the Liberals & NDP want to ban my hobby and blame me and my friends for their failures, there is no way I am voting for them.

If you are looking for good coffee La Zuppa café on Lonsdale near 15th St is very good. The food and the Flamenco at night are also excellent.

Flamenco dancing I was meaning to say

Coyote, I don't think it's very considerate of you to always be writing all my ideas down, and explaining them way better than I could. (Just kidding)

I have the one consolation, though, that I think I may have turned you a bit on the possibility of strategic voting a few weeks ago.

I checked out the politics in my riding, and I'm definitely voting Liberal to block the Conservatives, even though I have no affection for the Liberal candidate. (To say it mildly)

At least Dobbin was astute enough to realize that every vote is a strategic vote anyway.

ah yes, the campaign. forget everything these guys have done and concentrate on the campaign! i would suggest we look more closely at their track record than the campaign.

So the EGO, who thinks a former Conservative bagman parading about in ill-fitting greenjeans is good for the environment, doesn't like reading things that might suggest he is really just another coupon clipper pissed off he didn't get more tax breaks.

Good article Dobbin. Just ignore the rather childrish rants from our new resident flamer who, it is increasingly obvious has not yet removed that now tarnished silver spoon from his production end.

Frankly Brain, you come across like a grade 8 brat who ought to be sent to the cloakroom for a little self reflection.

To Collin: So its the crack house we've all been living in and headed for with another liberal minority? Maybe you ought to count the crack houses down south and ask why it comes here in the first place, and what the PC's want to do concerning the future of this nation. Last I checked, they were concerned about Northern borders where no one goes, instead of the southern ones that leak guns and drugs through. I'm a nature lover, don't get me wrong, but even the natives lived in teepee's. I liked your past posts, but lets not get dumb with tit for tats, or we'll end up becoming mainstream politicians ourselves. Truce?

Coyote: ;-)

It is my intention, as a thoughtful citizen, to vote Green this time around. In my riding (Saanich & Gulf Islands), we have a real chance at making a difference: in the last election, Andrew Lewis received over 10,000 votes, (16.7% 0f the riding), the highest in Canada.

Imagine the impact of having even just one Green MP in Oattawa with a minority government in place. The kind of influence that the late Chuck Cadman had over government policy would now be held by the Greens. Now that is powerful motivation for being an 'intentional citizen'.

To Clear thinking: True that. It'll likely take more than one MP for a Green Party leader to speak in Federal debates, however. And the rhetoric involving Jim Harris as being a conservative... the Green Platform and candidates are anthing but. The only thing going against them is that Jim Harris was a former Conservative... 20 years ago. That's a hell of a lot better than being a leader who was a western separatist... 10 years ago. Leaders come and go, but the platform and environmental candidates running for the Greens are very likely here to stay.

Jesterjogger - Your description of "the Empire to the South" is so accurate are you sure you have not lived here?

We are despondent. Just read the Harper "Justice Platform" which the Toronto Star has predominately displayed on their front page. Spying overseas for CSIS, minimum time in prison, death of gun registry and on and on. Again, right out of the Republican Natinonal Platform. We have been "at the gate" waiting in the queue for approval to immigrate for two years. Bush was not the only reason. Jesterjogger's astute observations have been true for a while regarding the USA. Bush just permanentized the ideas and completed the corporatist/facist state. New poll has Cons at 36% and Libs at 30% with significant improved support from Quebec and Ontario. Stockwell Day as Foreign Minister! He makes Bolton at the UN look like Stephen Lewis. Poll says young people at not paying attention or interested in voting. We are "Survivors of the American Dream" and still hope to arrival in a Canada that does vote on fear. One person in the Star's "Voices" space said he hopes the Cons are in there to at least 2010. Is the whole universe gone mad! Think I need to read some Leonard Cohen and Henry Miller.

Big sigh of relief from my corner. All along, I've known what Buzz Hargrove meant. Cripes, what's the big deal there, anyway? Murray thinks voters don't all understand everything about voting? Ha. Just watch us. It's been tiresome, waiting for people like Murray Dobbin to begin admitting that Buzz was making a strong point, too.

But the relief -- oh, the relief! -- comes from hearing that Other Shoe drop, as that pompous ass Brain (sorry, getting the bodily organs cross-referenced) treats us to his newest revelations. It's been like having a bigger, louder, smoother Little Ronnie on board. And having to skip over his proselytizing more and more times. I've grown tired of waiting for him to exude everything he knows, in every form, shape, and odour. I especially love his judgment calls. Brain approves!! Brain disapproves!!!

Today, that other shoe dropped. Plopped. Splat. Now, as Intentional Citizens can we get on with what we were saying?

Here's one from another blogger:
The Bush administration’s incessant determination to influence Canadian government policy, both domestic and foreign, underscores its general contempt for our democracy.

I can’t help but wonder if the timing of the recent announcement of an investigation into Mr. Goodale’s department has its basis in the cozy relationship between RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli and former ambassador Cellucci.

Robert MacKay
Merritt BC

To BC Mary: Sorry you feel that way.

You aren't Clear Thinking if you buy the load about Chuck Cadman having a lot of influence and then projecting that power onto the back of an as of yet never elected Green candidate.

It's called wishful thinking, isn't it?

I'm not trying to knock Cadman. He certainly stood up for what he believed in and he managed to stop a Conservative launched effort to oust the sitting Liberal government.

He also worked hard on behalf of his constituents, the obvious mark of a good MP, but he didn't really have much impact over government policy and is only being played up here by increasingly panic-filled federal Liberals who hope Cadman's memory will continue to hurt the Conservatives.

Frankly, it should ensure Penny Priddy wins his seat as a New Democrat and given that Cadman's widow has endorsed Priddy, it's likely Cadman would too.

I'd bet if Cadman were around yet he would be taking healthy swings at the Conservative Party as well as your conservative Green Party leader.

And I'll bet he would also be poking a few things at corporate Canada's Paul Martin, who is again promising billions for Canada's native peoples and for child care, two of the bedrock promises the Liberals trot out every race only to run from them once in office.

BTW, should Priddy get the seat you still win because you then get another green politician in Parliament.

Here are the magic formulas so you can all vote in the best manner possible:

Biped + Money + Power = Corruption.

Harper or Layton + assumption the above does not apply to them = Delusion.

To BC Mary: The other shoe hasn't dropped. Not yet. If you want that running kick, you can take it now. As quickly as I appeared, I can leave, it won't bother me. I'll leave it to you alone, but remember. My opinions (and that's what most of it is), are often useful (in my opinion). It's your call.

I will admit that you did have an influence there, Truman. :-) And some of the Greens, oddly enough.

It's all been working on me for awhile, as my disgust with the NDP grew.

And then, that all said, strategically, I'm going to have to turn around and vote NDP in my riding this election. (Sitting Conservative with the NDP having the best chance of unseating him, I think.) The irony of it all. :-)

Brain, forgive me. I like you, and all, but BC Mary was pretty hilarious. I can't stop laughing. I'm getting a sore gut.

Truman: I think this goes back to advice I tried to give her when I felt that she was hurting with something she said in the article, "The War on Christmas." I offered it to her, with best intentions, even though it centered on Christian beliefs, but the article itself, centered around such themes. It was, in hindsight, a mistake. People, especially strong minded individuals don't like being told what to do under any circumstances. Through my own observations, I've seen it work and fail, depending on the circumstances of what is being offered. I offered something I had learned personally to her because its worked quite well for me in this world, concerning those who are left in the cold. Anyway's, she's been cold to me since and its too bad, because I respect her.

Mary doesn't come from a camp of Rons (who I really don't getting compared to) or Allans who use four letter words either directed to, or used to describe females be they public figures or commentators without apology. Her arguements are valid concerning my own extreme's and sometimes abrasive, often very wordy nature.

But very often, (in my so called smooth opinion) my extremes are pointed at extremes, themselves. Journalists and commentators who write crap (or masterpieces) need thick skins. I've been very verbose with an indirect goal of thickening my own skin, as more words take more heat, especially opinionated ones. It's just the way it is. But the Brain has a weakness. Something that can't be shielded from the direction of its holder.

I appreciate your views, Truman and I'm going to miss you, cause I'm betting that she will take me up on my offer, an offer made out of respect, with a much deeper lesson being taught over a much longer timeline for us both, as I have two more goodbyes left in me here.

As it is, I've accomplished everything I needed to accomplish here personally and it wouldn't hurt me to move on and focus my time elsewhere. Anyways, in the short time I've known you, we've had fun... didn't we? I've learned from you, Nightbloom, Coyote, Skepticool, Bobb999, Clubofrome, jesterjogger, colin, clearthinking, and so many more.

You know how it is. Take the best, and scrap the rest, unless its time to bloom is yet to come. Take care, buddy.

Conservative candidates are touting the publics right to know but I still haven't seen anything on Stockwell Days appearance on Israeli National Radio telling - quote: "If Stephen Harper is voted into power in the upcoming election, Canada will finally become a staunch ally of Israel" he goes on to express his deep affection for Israel and the direction his party will take should the Conservatives win the vote this coming January. unquote.

Now don't you think the Canadian public has the right to know that a potential PM has this intention to commit our country to - especially now with the event of Sharon's stroke and uncertain leadership. If Benjamin Netanyahu gets in God help us. There will never be peace in the world with him. I wonder if Stephens son Benjamin is named after Netanyhahu. hmmmm

Anyway this radio interview happened over a month ago and not a peep from the Canwest monolpoy - which goes to show what kind of reporting we can expect on anything Harper does.

Am I worrying overtime about this foreign policy stuff or I'd like some opinions on it. We are not hearing anything from the Conservatives exce[t that Harper wants a huge military equipped to go long distances and transport troops and huge military equipment, etc.

Ego or Brain or whatever you think you are today, could you please produce those four lettter words I have directed at or used to describe females of whatever persuasion.

In the meantime, I'll simply call you what you are, a spoiled LIAR, who obviously got far too much attention as a child by wailing as loud as you could.

As an adult child you show no letup in your means of moving ahead life, which seems to boil down to I want, I am and everyone else is wrong unless they grovel appreciation for your long winded spewing of nothing in particular but everything in general.

A hero in his own mind is how I would sum you up chump.

Before you sneak off, kindly produce those quotes of mine or do the right thing for once, admit you lied and apologize.

Good call BC Mary. This guy really is a pompous ass.

To Allen: It was in "A War on Christmas" and I've pretty much lost all respect for you since. Honest people are perfectly capable of fallacies. I'm no liar. If you're suddenly concerned, look it up for yourself.

Don't take my words seriously, Brain. I'm probably the biggest, "know it all," on the blog.

To Truman: Ahhh! But I do take you seriously, Truman. You have a good heart, you don't back down easily, your vision is good and strong, and you do know quite a bit. I'll take a humble man's words over a proud man's, any day, especially the words of one who isn't honest enough to admit his own mistakes.

I like your commentaries for the most part. You look at both sides of it. I look back on my own commentaries sometimes, regretting having had name attached to it because I didn't, or formed an opinion based on something that just wasn't true, but there is a true man in you.

Who's perfect? It's rumored that one such person of perfection existed a couple of milleniums ago, but history hasn't repeated itself since. I like you back, and at the risk of sounding faggy, (nothing against them personally, just don't agree with their hygene practices and family planning) I even luv yah, buddy. You can take these words seriously, and I'm probably known for being the biggest "know it all" here, now... (I should be known as the most verbose) but there are those who easily supercede me in the thinking department. Coyote and Nightbloom are two such individuals that come to mind quickly. Wise well beyond their years... and they aren't young.

Pilgrim

Why do you love the gun registry? I have personal experience with it. It took them 2 years to register the .22cal rifle I have had for 25 years, after 2 years they sent me a letter explaining they could not complete the file due to missing information, guess what the missing information was? My mailing address, I asked them how they were able to mail me a letter, and they still didn’t get it. I know I am not alone in my dealings with “Disneyland” Also they used to issue a plastic card with a strip on it, now all you get is a piece of paper. Also to save money they won’t reissue a new licence, but will send you a sticky to place on your old one.
Remember how the Liberals say that the registry receives 4.6million queries? That’s because every time a cop enters the CPIC database system , even for a traffic ticket it sends a signal to the gun registry, in actually fact police chiefs discourage police from checking because it is to inaccurate to be relied upon. So far the Liberals have not been able to show one case where the gun registry has been the main cause in saving one life.

Gee, 2 billion dollars just doesn’t buy much these days. Remember when they promised it would only cost 200 million? Now they promise to cap it at 85 million a year. This is the real reason they want a gun ban, because they can’t afford their white elephant and therefore must get the gun seized before it becomes totally unmanageable.

Governments don’t have unlimited resources that 2 billion dollars came out of other less sexy programs, like fuels for coast guard ships and travel/overtime for fisheries habitat biologists, etc.

To Colin: Excellent points. But it sounds like some of the cost overruns with gun registries have come from the RCMP. By the way, is that 2 billion a year, or 2 billion since its creation? You and I are probably on the same page with long guns... why bother? But as for the rest, they were always designed for killing people. Statistics have also shown drops in gun suicides and gun homicides since registration legislation took effect. It can't be proven conclusively, but stats do speak for themselves. With gun suicides, its been dramatic. Banning handguns and short gun semis and assalt rifles might not be sexy, but its seems quite necessary.

You sure as hell are not worrying about it too much, brother.Though it is important to keep it, yourself and reality all in perspective at the same time. :-D And a bit of a sense of humour helps, eh?

I wish I had time to get into it at greater length, but your fear that the Conservatives, "The US Party in Canada", would, especially in a majority situation, involve itself and Canada more openly and aggressively in world, but especially Middle East affairs, on the side of their Master's Voice, The Empire, is a legitimate fear. All the signs and statements coming out of this loser crew, as in traitorous, point in that direction, from the statements of Harper in the US, reported here recently, to this religious nutter Stockwell Day in Israel.

Quotes and comments from an online U.S. reporter of Harpers foreign policy for Canada:

I noted that there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein operates programs to produce weapons of mass destruction. Experience confirms this. British, Canadian and American intelligence leaves no doubt on the matter.

Buoyed by the soundness of his past insight, Harper was moved to divine the future so that all present might benefit from his prescience.

In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade.

This is wrong. It is not fitting with the greatness of our history or with our standing as a nation. We need to be standing through tough times and taking tough decisions."

These are the people who WANT to be The Empire's bootlick ally wherever it rampages for Empire, be it Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine, or Latin America. These are the people who want to and will, if given the chance, complete the sellout of the country to their Master's Voice, which the Liberals have carried out no less to here, but are showing signs of being hesitant to complete. (They may even hope that the Conservatives will do it for them, and take any backlash, if it is to come.)

Fear about the evolving "neoconservative/ quasi-fascist future, on all fronts, only indicates, to me at least :-), for whatever that amounts to, that you know and understand what is going on. It's the idiots who are in denial still, brother.

Hang in there, Rebel. We can only hope, at this time, that a sufficiently fragmented government, meaning any current party out there being denied an absolute majority, can make it sufficiently problematic for them to act, and actually succeed at carrying it out, whatever their wishes might be.

Until there is sufficient numbers of feet in the street, aroused by the state of the nation and its common people, and the threat posed by the neoconservative advocates of "deep-throat integration" to the very continued existence and sovereignty of Canada, along with a new more radicalized politics being abroad in the land, with a similarly more aware and radicalized electorate, we can only hope and engage in this kind of minor "strategic maneuvering" on the fringes of events. Sad, but true.

Keeping ever in the back of one's mind however, that it ain't over 'til it's over.

To Colin -

I did not itemize out the Canadian gun registry for specific support. I was just trying to draw attention to the Harper Justice Platform announced today and listed just the first few items on his agenda.

[U]Other Issue [/U] I am concerned with as mentioned in my note is Stockwell Day as discussed at length in notes above. Here in The Empire to the South we closely followed his and Harper's rhetoric during the days after 9/11 and before Iraq War. In full support of all points made above about Day/Harper creating "CanaUSA" offer the following info on what they did and said as we collected up. In Harper's maiden speech to the House as leader of the Opposition on May 28th, 2002, Harper made the case for an Alliance motion that charged the Liberal government with failure in its management of relations with the USA. Harper accused Chretien of "open meddling in US domestice politics rior to the 2000 persindeital election when the PM stated his preference to Clinton." Harper went on to broaden his attack on the Liberal government to the softwood issue and beyond and said "Downright hostility to the US, anti-Americanism, has come to characterize other dimensions of Candian policy" including this gem "In 1996-1997 Canada agressively pushed forward with the treaty to ban land mines without giving due consideration to US concerns about the potential implication for its secuirty forces in South Korea. What did we end up with? We ended up with a ban on land mines that few major land mine producers or users have signed." Harper failed to consider that most of the rest of the world signed this treaty and Canada, lead the way and has been lauded worldwide ever since for their efforts. I could list comments on refugees, trade, horrific gems on the Iraq War. On Day, to those of us opposed to the Iraq War, Day, as the Alliance Leader in Canada, literally operated as a fifth column in Ottawa, a virtual US lobby in the House of Commons for this illegitimate war. If he was the Foreign Minister at the time - Canadians would be in the same category with the world as Americans now are because of the policies of Bush. If the Cons are elected, even as a minority government, Canada may not recover internationally for a long time. The pundits in the USA, same as the pundits in Canada, pushed the idea of change and "Gee How much damage could George Bush do in 4 years? Well he opened the gates of hell and is responsible for the thousands and thousands of deaths of Iraqis and all others in his War on Terror and for the complete alientation, as should be, of America and Americans in the world. Day and Harper can take Canada through those same gates in one session of the Commons. I am a Vietnam Vet, been to Hell, never, ever thought that the population of the USA would ever allow this to happen again. Will our wonderful neighbor to the north - the "Peaceable Kingdom" join in this destruction via the election of Harper for day care credits, and bus credits, and tax breaks, and GST breaks, and leaky condo issues? I hope Coyote is right - It ain't over till it's over.

This article called "The Man behind Stephen Harper" (Professor Tom Flanagan of the Calgary School)is worth reading in regard to Dobbin's reference to the relentless neo-con assault on the democratic idea of governance. It is very clear from this article that Stephen Harper is being moved into position to accomplish this very task (the decimation of governance) on a national scale in Canada. Think abandoned New Orleans...think the future of Canada. It is chilling to read:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/09/2119243

jesterjogger: You're right on...His Royal Puffery, John Reynolds, did attend the Republican Convention and he is now co-chairing Harper's campaign. In combination with Flanagan's influence, all the red flags should be waving madly.

I think I must live in your riding, I was going to vote NDP, though not terribly impressed by the candidate running in this riding, I must admit...but I am seriously considering voting Liberal just because of Harper's recent momentum.

Ever since the Powell River- Sunshine Coast riding has been lumped in with West Vancouver, the NDP have had a real uphill battle federally. With two Wilsons on the ballot (neither one related to the Tyabji-Wilsons), one running for the Liberals and one running for the NDP.... it even becomes more precarious.

Some of the best insights into Harper, Reynolds, and Mackay can be found on David Orchard's site.

Mr Brian said:
"our debt load has given us no choice."

Who is it that racked up all this debt? Judging by the parties who have had leaders elected prime minister, it would be Conservatives and Liberals!

Suprise, maybe you should think about voting NDP more and think about writing ridiculously long posts on this website less!

Seems to me the brain is at most a young 20 something who thinks he has beaten the system by growing weed or trading porn on the internet and therefore loves capitalism and thinks he understands how the world works. Or, at least he wishes he has.

Otherwise I fail to see how has enough time in a day to compose such lengthy diatribe that frequently crosses the line into self worship.

Do us all a favour and go get your daddy, Ron Erwin. We appreciated that jackalope a helluva lot more than we tolerate you.

Be an "intentional citizen". I think I will and I will intentionally vote for the Conservatives. Why you ask, the Liberals are corrupt and must be held accoutable for their criminal behaviour and the NDP has no chance of forming the next government and even if they did they wouldn't get my vote.
So I think I'll vote for change like the majority of Canadians will and see if the change is positive or negative.

Dobbin's article is a good one. The KneeJerkers from the Liberals and rabid right just can't stand or abide open and honest debate. (For some reason it is just to scary.) Just what is the difference between a minority liberal or minority conservative government anyway? All you doomsters spewing your rhetoric explain why the NDP, Bloc and Greens would let the conservatives 'sell' us off to the US of A. (Or send soldiers to Iraq)(Who then is sending our soldiers to Afganistan anyway?) Not going to happen folks. Wasn't Cadman a conservative before he was back stabbed by his party?

Brain
The 'head' of the RCMP is appointed and owes his position to the Prime Minister. Mulroney saw to that. Made it a political position to control investigations directed at the PMO and Parliament.

The above quote being one of, if not my favourite, then most revealing and chilling selections from this link provided by Lynn.

Which is the most scary element of this article, of course. By and large, with some reservations, I welcome the immigration of US citizens to this country. But that this Mr. Flanagan, originating from one of the most neoconservative backgrounds and intellectual/academic circles in the United States, is Mr. Harpers key Machiavellian, behind the scenes adviser, I must concede, is deeply disturbing.

It only confirms what we already know about this reactionary crew, of course, but still, I would feel better if I could feel even a tiny bit that there was still some room for doubt and hope about it. That he was just another gufffawing Diefenbaker, Progressive Conservative of old, for example, but still, essentially, a loyal Canadian.

Which these people and Harper are not. And about which we need to be absolutely clear.

These are the most dangerous, anti-Canadian people on this country's current political landscape, in my view. They are religious nutters, with an ideology and view of realpolitik, particularly vis a vis the US, which puts them in the position of being effective agents of a foreign power: The wolves in sheeps clothing amongst us. Again, my view.

No wonder Harper just about swallowed his tongue and was unable to answer when he was asked if he loved Canada, in that TV interview of a day or two ago. He never did answer it, but instead, attacked Martin's loyalty-, how e're legitimate a question that is too.

You're right Lynn. Scary stuff, what's taking shape in this country. And scary times.

It's the very continued existence and sovereignty of the Canadian nation that is the too often unspoken issue in the background here.

In contradiction to his earlier statements, Harper now says, in an election, that he won't send Canadian troops into Iraq to fight alongside US forces. Maybe not, now that he's been flushed out into the open on that one. But how much does one want to trust him? (Besides Canada is already much hypocritically and deceitfully committed running interference for, and freeing up US forces for Iraq, with our placement of ground forces in Afghanistan and naval forces in the Gulf.)

We need those troops, those in Afghanistan and more, right here at home. There are greater risks we face here, closer to home, than we do in those far off places of the US Empire, where we are wasting treasure and manpower.

And if they win in those places like Iraq and Afghanistan, are we really going to be any safer over here, in Latin America and the other vulnerable resource rich parts of the world?

No!

Hopefully, if we are being smart about it, they will be bogged down there for as long as possible. I'm sure the citizens of Latin America, like Bolivia, Cuba, Brazil and Venezuala will all feel safer to see the Yanqui get his ass kicked over there. Again, if we're smart, we'll come to realize that too.

The other side of my view of this. ;-)

A good read from large numbers of folks here. At least we are not totally alone. 8-D

Too many rants but most show that most politicians have little respect for the wishes of the voters in Canada. The last federal government was a minority. That is what the people chose! The only leader who tried to make parliament work was Layton. He reached one deal with Martin's Liberals but the next time he tried, Martin refused to compromise. The people DID NOT vote in a majority, it was a minority government that we elected. The Federal Liberals and Conservatives ( who only voiced their own narrow view ) did not respect our vote so do not deserve to be re-elected. The only party that tried to make parliament work was the NDP, the rest were too involved with their own petty agendas and didn't think of us.

The outcome isn't written until the final vote is cast.

Not just in this election, but in every subsequent one.

Vote with your heart. Vote for who you feel.

Continually changing your vote for short term goals has a significant role on the long term.

Stockwell Day, Tom Flannigan, John Reynolds, Preston, Chuck Cadman, Chuck Strahl, David Frum, Jason Kenny, Peter McKay, Peter Lougheed, Mike Harris, Anybody than Buzz, etc. are not evil people. We are only trying to protect Canada from Canadians who are so misguided that they will weaken us to the point of submission.
We don't have to be pussies who don't even have the sense to seek protection.
We can be a useful partner in the Western global effort to protect ourselves from the twisted forces that see us as an easy target to defeat.
We cannot let them defeat us.

Ron - you may be trying to protect Canadians with that crew of high-fiving white guys - but the core question is - who the heck is going to protect Canadians from the likes of you? Harper and company are about as protective as those $6 billion anti-ballistic missiles we just narrowly saved ourselves from strapping on. The problem with the conservatives is that they don't even know that the very policy paradigm that they stand for is something most with a basic level of consciousness (which harper apparently never reaches) would see as a negative campaign because it is simply - negative. I think the NDP blew the balance of power which they enjoyed up until now by calling this election in such a hurry. The Liberals were going into apology mode and would have been in a cooperative mood. Now, most can see a definite shift to the right - those who did vote NDP before are likely panicking at the thought of a conservative head (last time that happened we ended up with that awful NAFTA and we are slowly selling all our resources to the highest bidder) and may vote Liberal. Those right of centre Liberals may be temporarily insane and thinking of going conservative and some who don't know better think the Greens are actually envromentalists (but are really just cheap conservatives with a salesman as a leader). At least Tucker Carleson will be happy....

Avicenna
This crew of high fiving white guys is going to save your ass.
But not if you are going to through yourself in front of an Israela earth mover and expect not to die.
Ballistic , Nuclear, missiles.
Do you really think we shouldn't chip on for gas when we can ?
I do agree with you though, the Liberals have gone really right.
But you fail to mention that the Conservatives have gone really left
" Stuck in the middle with you. "

To those nasty and abrasive Green fellows who opened this thread I have to say: What is it that your Capitalist Leader is going to do differently than the greedy bstrds that are already controlling the show? My opinion is that your party is only a created "spoiler party" A waste of space. Bogus, and bought.

Mary I love your Steam! I am surprised that you did not remind The Brain (Mr.Ego) that Chuck Cadman never ran for the NDP but was elected for the first time as a Reform candidate. So much for brains, so much for ego.

Ron - You and your ilk are the twisted force - you think everybody is a preditor. Tell me when has Canada ever needed protection from an agressor power! Not since we fought the Americans as Loyalists of the Monarchy in a bloody war because WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE REPUBLICANS - get it? We have welcomed immigrants from many cultures and we are all trying to get along except people like you who can't seem to get over your naval gazing paranoid self love and disdain for others so please cut the inclusive "we" and "them" because as much as you keep trying to convince Canadians we are included in your "we" we are not at war with "them" you are so go and fight your own battles and quit trying to drag Canada into your demented and ruthless behavior.

Okay, I admit it, Ron, you lost me somewhere going through Israela. I suspect you may be enjoying some Liberal pot. Of course I think we should leave the gas where it is before all of us go up in smoke and invest in sustainable energy. LOL! Last time I checked my ass - it didn't need saving and the high fiving white guys would be as protective as Tamiflu against the deadly (but nonexistant) pandemic of the human malady - a flu that attacks birds. One would think that Rumsfeld is really happy with his choice of stocks - last time he brought the game home was on the other lie - the WMD thing in Iraq. Now Tamiflu. I think his investment should be a red herring of a bogus product. But that's the conservative way. All's fair in stock and war. (everyone has a right to bear arms as long as the arms are not bear....*roll eyes heavenward*)

Stockwell Day, Tom Flannigan, John Reynolds, Preston, Chuck Cadman, Chuck Strahl, David Frum, Jason Kenny, Peter McKay, Peter Lougheed, Mike Harris, Anybody than Buzz, etc. are not evil people. We are only trying to protect Canada from Canadians who are so misguided that they will weaken us to the point of submission.

Ron, this is delusional.

With the exception of Chuck Cadman, and a few others I'm not that familar with, the people listed are predatory liars. Their policies are sociopathic and they have nothing but contempt for Canada and Canadians.

lol Avicenna!

Also Chuck Cadman as an Independent left his sickbed to vote with the Liberals against the Conservatives as his last official act.

Boy I had a patriotic tear in my eye and a lump in my throat as big as a golf ball tonight when all those wonderful young Canadian men on the Junior Hockey team collected their gold medals then sang OH CANADA at the top of their lungs with the Maple Leaf flag waving proudly over their heads. It was wonderful to see!

To think of that traitorous Harper ruling over them almost makes me ill.

Anyway Happy New Year everybody and Peace on Earth (some day I hope)

Dar, I hate it when I get to a good political thread and it has already gone from talking about the article or issues, into a weed out the boogey man, bad mouth each other approach, with a little sucking up to posters. Social bonding? Bulletin board bullying? High school all over again... ah.. I'm sure I'm guilty of it too. "I love you too Brain! No I'm talking to myself!"

Anyways, we vote in a plurality, it stinks, so while we work to change it, yes we have to vote strategically but as well we have to vote according to our own principals.

My guide to voting:

A) Look at all the candidates, read up on them, try to attend a debate.

B) Strike out the candidates you fundamentally disagree with on a personal ideological or trust level. I mean, if you have a Tory running who isn't a theocon nutcase, they may survive this step. The key point is, regardless of their flag, this person is to be your representative. Although, the party will often say a lot about the candidate, and you must ask whether these people would or have stood up against their party for your best interests. This point of this, is don't vote for strategically for a lesser evil, if the lesser evil is still in you personal beliefs too evil.

c) Look at who is left (as in remains), and what their relative chances are. Do any of the remainders have a chance of beating someone you definately don't want in. If only one really does, then vote for them. If more than one does, then vote for who you believe will best represent you. If after step B, none of the remianders have a chance, vote purely on principal. Who gets you $1.75? If none of them remain, reject your ballot.

Chuck Dickens: Former reform. So that's why he left. Thanks for the insight.

Tbarnston: Well, In running me down, you just managed to run down a permanently disabled writer who is majorly against marajuana and internet porn. And its no secret that I've been a loud supporter of voting for individuals over parties, since the get go. If all of this is too 20's for you, I highly suggest you look at what the consequences are (like scandals) in voting for people you've never heard of, but I'm sure that since you're into insulting people you don't know with insults unfounded, that you and anyone who believes your yarn will do exactly that.

As for Murray Dobbin, he's a political NDP activist all the way. He doesn't see issues. He sees color and to be truthful, this article is one that won't get that much attention, from those who are in the know. If you want true facts, watch C-Pac and watch their coverage for a while. Maybe then, you'll realize that those that run for federal politics are human beings, and they have everything that humans have within them, good or bad, the very reason why we have to vote for the individual over parties.

Dangrice has given the receipe for it (and I'm to those who practice self love, to be true). It's not that hard to follow.

It irritates me a whole lot that the NDP and the Greens could not get along and appoint only one candidate in ridings so that they can beat the Libs or Conservatives. The reaction of my NDP MP on my Green sympathy: "a bunch of right wing nuts" or something close to that.

I do not react well to being blackmailed by the NDP that if I vote Green, I spoil the vote. I wish on my ballot there was an option saying "Green/NDP". If the parties don't have enough of a backbone to do this (it is about collaboration afterall), perhaps the citizens need to decide who shall get that "Green/NDP" vote. How many feel like this?

Pilgrim
You mentioned the “death of the gun registry” early in your post, so I assumed that it was important issue for you and wondered if you have had actually experience with it. Most people who have not dealt directly with it have a inflated idea of it’s value. A program that consumed 2 billion dollars and can’t deliver should be axed or severely overhauled.

The US had a valid concern regarding the removal of the minefields in Korea. These are not the problem. The problem has been the laying of mine by countries that don’t bother to map or mark their fields. In fact Canada was a big producer of anti-personal mines and made a nasty little one out of plastic. The majority of mines in the world right now are made or from the former Eastern bloc. Even if the US had signed on. It would have had little impact on the areas of concern. The US actually has far more restrictions on the sale of military hardware than any of the other major producers.

In actually what has turned out to be a fun thread and good read coming from many folks, except the same pathetic crew led by Ronnie You Know Who, I think I got one of my best laughs from Avicenna. I like your junkyard dog style when you get rollin' darlin'. Smart, articulate, and spot on Rotten Ronnie's jugular.

We may disagree about guy and gal things Avicenaa, but you get my respect. And you know how to be funny too. A bonus. :-)

Now, a busy day. Catch ya's again in a day or two.

If true, and I don't know for sure that it is, (Someone may want to look it up on the internet.) it would be as much a result of US Imperialism's empire building role in the world: There are just too many risks, and great a likelihood that their conquering army will find themselves being shot at from those arms they sell. So they have to be cautious. (All governments contemplating selling arms to another power have to look carefully at whom they might find themselves up against one day. And big errors, certainly by the US in Vietnam, were made in that department. )

Then, of course, there is the reality that the old AK 47 and other less "sophisticated" weaponry from the old Soviet Union is much more reliable, stands up better to less than ideal conditions, and though "clunky" often, is easier to maintain in the field for insurgent armies constantly in motion-, the real underlying reason for their preference by just such forces. (The problem with highly "sophisticated" weaponry, with lots of electronics etc, such as US forces are more inclined to favour, in my view, is that they are more prone to "problems and breakdown" in field conditions, and require large numbers of backup/specialized technical personnel to be tagging along, constantly repairing them, and keeping them up and running.

Which is one of the reasons, mano a mano, that US forces require a much higher troop ratio (which was estimated to be 13 to 1 to defeat the Iraqi insurgents, if I remember exactly correctly). In large part it is a question of the insurgents being more highly motivated than US forces, fighting for home and hearth of course, and "attitude" is never a small matter, but also a consequence of US emphasis and dependence on military "gadgetry", or toys.

hey cycling commuter, jeez you remind me of ronnie, people are commuting long distances so developers can maximise profits, buying cheap farm land etc and getting the local taxpayers to foot the bill for services like water sewage roads loss of quality of life!

The more people moving to the area the more development the higher the taxes less service more traffic more lineups etc, you should see what the Pat Bay Highway is like now, bumper to bumper, Ferry traffic or not!

I like many I know are starting to look for somewhere else to live, why pay the high taxes and sit in traffic from red light to red light!

Coyote
The reason the “insurgents” attack the Iraqi police/military and civilians, is that attacks on US military targets generally end up as failures. The US light infantry is quite stunningly deadly and those “toys” work incredibly well.

Any brief study of uprisings/insurgencies or similar have always required a large number of troops to contain a small number of insurgents. That is because the insurgents get to pick their time and place of attacks, where as the government side will have to defend multiple targets. I just finishing Chin Peng book on the Malaysian emergency, he was the leader of the Communist guerrillas. I recommend it highly.

Ursus, I drive the Pat Bay Highway. If fact I have driven it 15000 times.
It's not as bad as you portray it, but I must point out that the problems this highway has is because of the antidevelopment attitude of the local politicians.
They didn't want to provide any proper exits into Central Saanich because they feared development.
So again, your type has caused more problems than you have solved.

The problem with those who urge us to vote strategically is that everyone has their own reasons for voting. Personally, I have always preferred in voting "for" something, even if it "wastes" my vote, rather than holding my nose and voting for the lesser of bad choices. Strategic voting means we'd never have any political change.

I've voted Tory and Liberal in the past, and my vote swings between these choices. I'd sooner eat dirt than vote NDP, so no NDP'er should bother urging me to vote strategically to beat the Tory, because the NDP is always my last choice.

ronnie you are still here eh that is sad you don't deserve it after calling a woman a slut, the Pat Bay is bad because of volume a direct result of development which creates more commuters and more growth more traffic etc, I suspect the government of the day chose not to put in overpasses to save money when they expanded the Pat Bay!

Martin,

Which means you're already voting strategically, assshole. Dohhhh!

Colin,

And while none , nada of your comments directly above actually respond to my original observations on insurgent versus standing professional army warfare, but rather sidesteps dealing with them, you're wrong in even what you do say.

The reality is, insurgencies against a foreign occupation always have to consider two fronts, at least. One against the occupier, typically superior equipped in poor and/or developing country situations, where the methodology is typically the guerrilla tactic of hit and run, and "where my enemy is not, I am, and where he is, I am not." (At least until the enemy is sufficiently isolated and demoralized.)

The other key part of that same strategy of course, is to outlast the enemy whilst harrassing him to distraction and demoralization, wearing him down at home and on the invasion front. And make him spend his treasure. Lots and lots of it. And deny him profit or treasure, say oil, if you can.

The other front which cannot be ignored, of course, a part of that isolating your enemy necessity, again of which you should be aware, as an expert in insurgent warfare, is those amongst you who would serve and ingratiate themselves with the foreign invader, for their own opportunist/self-serving reasons.

(And all currently and historically known societies have fracture lines, where there are those who would, in the right circumstances, cooperate with an invading enemy. It is the root of the continuing conflict between Serbs and Bosnians for example, going back to the Turkish Empire. You Neocons are ours, for further example, vis a vis the US Empire.)

These persons must be dealt with particularly harshly. in order to dissuade them from thinking they have a private or group (religious/political/business) gain to make by being traitors to the nation.

The object being, of course, rather than to so much throw yourself up in wholesale slaughter against an invader equipped with all manner of means of mass destruction, such as the US Empire largely attempts to monopolize, at least until such time as adequate materiale, experience with the enemy, and numbers and training of your own forces are assembled and to the level of the task. The flip side of this, as I have indicated, is to overall endure and outlast the enemy over an extended period of conflict time, in order to allow for the above, and to drain the morale and treasure of your invader enemy.

And I have no doubt that the average US soldier is as brave and capable as any in the world, in a conflict which he truly believes is just, and is not merely serving Big Oil, for example, but say in an actual, clear and present invasion of his own homeland. It is a constant problem for imperialist armies, and why, in the end even though it may take many years, they always lose. They are invariably up against a more highly motivated insurgent enemy defending HIS homeland.

You have more reading you need to do yet, and more life experience you need to gather. You have to see into the heart and mind of even your enemy, honestly and without illusion, giving credit where credit is due even. And then you still have to be either fanatically, or I would say, preferably rationally convinced of the rightness of your cause. That it really is worth dying for, or there is no other choice. Probably more this latter.

Well then Cayote you don't even understand what strategic voting is. Arrogant twit.

Martin tells how the NDP is always his last vote then tells us how he doesn't vote strategically.

How is this possible?

Coyote
Actually this is one the better post I have seen from you and I actually agree with the comments regarding the political, moral as well as tactical warfare.

Suicide attacks well effective as a terror weapon can also backfire. Ever attack creates survivors who are willing to cooperate with the government/US forces. Also the US can cover the funding for Iraq to tide them over the time it takes to repair the lines.

The terrorist/insurgents want to create a atmosphere for a civil war, the sure loser of this would be the Sunni’s as they have no real resources and no real backers. Another problem with running a suicide bombing campaign directed at civilian targets is that you have no way of reaching moral high ground, which you require if you intend to lead and take over the country. Unless of course you don’t want to take over, which is AQ and associates aim.

The main problem the US forces face is a lack of human intelligence gathering ability. This will be resolved by the increasing Iraqi police and military presence. Ever wondered how the Israelis are able to hit the various Palestinian leaders and terrorists it is because they have penetrated most of the organizations or have contacts that will sell the information to them. 3 years is early for a insurgent style war and most take a decade at least to resolve one way or the other. The US/Iraqis can also take greater steps to control the population, using food rationings or controlled villages. The US can guarantee that they have at least 4 more years in country, after that it depends who is in office. A pull-out to soon would be a dismal mistake and likely you will see a step down as more Iraqis troops come on line. Remember it takes at least 18months to train a soldier, it takes longer to train leaders.

The US is playing a delicate balancing game and actually the suicide attacks in Iraq help them on the international front, if you read any of the arab/muslim websites you will notice that most of the support for the insurgent is dying, as the average Muslim does not support suicide attacks against civilians. Also the AQ attacks in Saudi has caused the regime to crack down on the groups supporting and funding the terrorist/insurgents in Iraq. Not a bright strategy to interfere with your funding pools.

The terrorist/insurgents will win at times but if they can’t keep up the pressure and can’t maintain control of the conflict then they will lose. The loss of an intermediate leader is a serious blow for them, as they can not be easily replaced.

dangrice.com has some thoughts above regarding voting for an individual candidate vs. voting for a party.

I have done both in the past and might be able to make arguments for either. Forced to choose between advocating one or the other in such times and in Canada, however, I would definitely choose to vote for the individual. Since the Canadian parties at hand are grouped so near the center bar of the political spectrum and since the three federally influential parties regularly steal each other's ideas (especially at election time), such times call for forceful thinkers whose ideas you respect and who can sway a room - whether that room be full of mortal voters or policy-making executives. We have seen the elected cross the floor on many occasions, sometimes drawn by the smell of power but sometimes by the sway of ideas. The riding I live in has an NDP MLA who might, federally, be Conservative, Liberal, and maybe even NDP. But he listens to his constituents - and those constituents (the active ones) voted NDP. He consults us whenever possible and takes our feedback to heart. We may make a leftist of him yet.

It doesn't end at the polling station, this democracy thing.

Brain (ego), what a weasel method of trying to crawl under the rails in your response.

I have been away from a computer for an entire day and that's all you can come up with?

My comments about you in my post of yesterday stands, fellow. I know that without looking anything up, something you obviously didn't do in your ego manic struggle to prove some sense of superiority.

I'd recommend you stick to fiction if you want to impress anyone.

Where is your proof? Where is your apology?

But then again... When I suggest that voting for the individual is the way to go, I would never vote for anyone who ran for a mongrel party like Mr. Harper's. No up-front conviction there. And not a hell of a lot in the field of Liberals either. So I guess I'd vote for the principles, the history, the tradition.... the NDP.

Unless you gave me Mr. Trudeau or some such visionary back.

"Strategic voting" or conviction? Which is it?

Maybe a bit of both?

Maybe a bit of both?

I'm now filling in the application form for the Tyee's Award for inspiring the briefest and most qualified quote of the year from Coyote. "Maybe" a bit of both... with a question mark at the end. (Not that I mind the longer quotes, Coyote.)

I have answered the question myself over pizza with my daughters, and it is a bit of both - but I begin with the party and the party's tradition and vision (if any party can be said to have one in such times). The whole process begins long before the X on the ballot though. You have to enlist the voices and the individuals, get them involved (even if it means involving yourself or even running yourself), send them out into the world ("groom them" in political terms) to meet with people, get them elected at the local level as your candidate, and then get them elected as your MLA or MP.

Shit. I was hoping for a simple answer.

While I spent my time on the provincial campaign last year, a bunch of others found their federal candidates and put them forward. Now I have to vote for one of them. So I'll go with the party. Which will lose. Which means I'm not very strategic I guess. Not this time.

As if democracy could be a simple matter like deciding where to put your X anyway, eh?

Which brings me back to the original point of the article: did Buzz Hargrove do the right thing to suggest we vote strategically Liberal in order to keep the Conservatives out? Only if voters are fully informed, if the riding might swing, if.... a lot of things.

No. Vote for the people you want to run the country if you don't know the candidates. Vote for the candidate if s/he's closest to your side of the field. And don't just vote. Do something AFTER that.

Not preaching here.... Just convincing myself. Buzz was wrong on this one I think.

Even without electing an NDP candidate in your riding, the number of votes for that candidate will send a message to all three (or four) major parties - and the winning candidate.

This wasn't the first time Buzz did this, he also did a similar thing in the 1999 ontario election which killed the provincial NDP. I really see issues when he uses his position as head of the Auto Workers Union to tell people to vote strategically rather that to work with all parties to get the best deal for those he is supposed to represent. Thats one of the big problems I have with unions today, is that they are often used more as a venue for partisanship, rather than a professional representation.

Why did he make this comment at the beginning of the election before he heard their policy announcements? Is he trying to defeat the conservatives because they are bad for autoworkers? While he has every right to get involved as a private citizen, using his paid position for a blanket endorsement of strategic voting is really detrimental.

And one of mine too, having belonged to a variety of unions. Currently, I belong to the BCTF which introduced the debate surrounding endorsement of candidates at the provincial level, took it back to the local level, and then left it up to locals to decide whether to endorse local candidates or not. All but one local decided not to endorse a candidate. Our membership is too diverse - and, I think, we have a great respect for that diversity.

So what's up with Buzz and the CAW structure? Did they vote at any level before he made his pronouncement? And if so, what level was it? I don't know enough about that structure to judge perhaps. But if the membership didn't give him a mandate to make such a statement, I would imagine the membership is rather pissed for good reason.

I have a lot of respect for unions when they reflect the democratic structures on which they were founded. Otherwise, they're the Liberals all over again.

No sense blaming Buzz though, really. If the memberships don't make him do what they want (or don't want), then I guess they should read the memos more often. And maybe attend the next union meeting to speak up, whether they're comfortable with that idea or not. If they don't, the political animals among us take over control.

The political animals among us always take control, the rest are happy as long as they get beer and popcorn once in awhile :-)

I have a feeling that most members in the union are probably uncomfortable (or more so, just accept it as inevitable like the rest of the government and don't care) but they probably don't have too many options. I mean the political animals in the unions are generally social activists and often marxists. Its not that union members are generally left wing, but that left wings political junkies can get jobs as shop stewarts and other positions and that the unions are their vehicle.

The political animals on the right, often go with legal, or financial jobs that are pretty much union free and earn their stripes through networking and sucking up to those with the power. Or serve as "consultants", and get hand outs from their political buddies who use them to do the dirty work. (Although many of the right wingers workplaces are pretty politics free. Most non-union work places enforce political bans at works.)

So thus, workers rarely have two options to choose from within their representation.

In the states, it is much different. Unions in the states rarely have the political influence they have here. Or at least more so because of the sheer scale of their political organizations, the political equivalent of the NDP in the states can't survive, and because of their seperation of powers, you have much more of a move from local to state to federal government. How many premiers have become PM versus how many governors have become president.

And the key words there would be "social activists". You phrase this like it's a problem. I see it as the solution.

Ron Er and other social inverts or social outcasts or just not social above, for example, will never change anything. It will be us... the activists. Hope prevails.

It's the people that read books, go to meetings, make the options instead of sitting around moaning about the lack of options and such (Marxist or not) - you know, the ones with some ideas, as opposed to consumers of ideas - that get things done.

What is so hard to believe in the postings over the past few years is the ignorance of some of the folks commenting herein. Canada has had nuclear weapons stationed inside our country and positioned with our armed forces in Germany sanctioned by the Liberal governments of the day - period. Canadian Forces have had the delivery mechanism with artilary rockets. Under agreement with NATO/US the weapons WERE stationed with/on Candian Military bases. (Can you say Comox?)So just who is the scary folks in the US/Military/Canadian Industrial complex, not Harper but Martin. CAN YOU SAY LIBERALS? So why is Harper any scarier than Martin? A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES. Sheesh! So many of you folks are just blowing hot air and know not of what you are spewing re Harper et al. I'm not a Harper supporter.

For Coyote. On our farm varmints are dealt with with traps or a .22.

I am so happy I'm not as confused and all over the board like most of the above writers.
I am a conservative person.
There are four political parties running to represent you.
To me, as a conservative, I will vote for The Conservative Party of Canada, no matter who is the local person running.
Because when any votes come down in Parliament I want my MP voting with the C., and why not ?
This is the way it's done.
Why fight it ?
You might be aware that the C. want more free votes, but I doubt that on anything that's important they would be any different than the Lib's.
My only alternatives are the Lib's, who I just don't trust, the NDP, who are not conservative and Greens, who are too new to understand.
I'm sorry everyone else seems so confused.

Ron says, "I will vote for the Conservative Party of Canada, no matter who is the local person running."

I disagree with his choice, but this is a perfectly legitimate way to vote. Why not?

I happen to think that Harper basically wants to hand the country over to the Americans and so I'd vote for anybody I thought could block him from winning. Perfectly legitimate, I think.

It's a personal choice. That's why it's a secret ballot. It's probably alright to vote for the person with the same kinda car as you, if that what floats your boat, eh.

"no matter who is the local person running" :

I would have to totally disagree with you. Why even bother having parliament or elected riding representatives. This just perpetuates the problem with us having an elected dictatorship.

But an STV style would be much better, because you could have the option to vote for your party no matter what, but have the ability to use your ranked voted to eliminate the more unqualified or worthless candidates on their slate by ranking them lower,

We must get rid of this arcaic "first past the post" election model. We need proportional representation.
With proportional representation there will no longer be a need for stratiegic voting. We can vote our concience. Governments will be coalitions. Large parties such as the Conservatives will no longer need to be uneasy alliances of smaller parties.
There will no longer be the fear of the power in the PM's office.
There will no longer be a single party which as the official opposition with the sole purpose of blocking and ridiculing the attempts of the governing party to run the country. Only in Canada can we have a party which has the purpose of breaking up the country as its platform become "Her Majesties Loyal Opposition.
Every vote will count and you will see the return of young voters as they will realize their vote counts.

Just to clarify Burgess' claims re. nukes.
Canada did have them on our soil till 1971.
Trudeau removed them.

Then we had them on the Voodoos till 1984. Trudeau removed them.

Burgess kinda craps on the Liberals for this but it might be a bit hard resisting the Americans during a cold war, eh.

Dangrice, it's still going to come down to a matter of opinion. And that's why we have a parliament and elected riding representatives; so everyone gets to express their opinion about what's best for the country, without being told how to vote.

If I may continue in my usual overbearing fashion--I have a sneaking suspicion that just about everyone who's advising AGAINST strategic voting wants to help the NDP.

Why? Because that's THEIR strategy.

Re Truman:
or the Bloc or the Greens

Tucker Carlson born with two silver spoons, one in his mouth the other sticking out of his Arse Hole Mother: Patricia Caroline Swanson (stepmother, heir to the Swanson frozen-food fortune)

May I make an observation on the word 'strategic'?

Whose strategies are we talking about? There were persistent rumours after the second Liberal victory in BC that they, while under investigation for money laundering and drug connections at the very least, had made hefty financial contributions to the Green Party's advertising fund.

The Green vote then might have been responsible for the defeat of up to five NDP candidates.

There are whole parties whose only real reason for being is to wreck the chances of somebody else. Against something, but in favour of nothing in particular.

If you find yourself tempted to vote for somebody your heart tells you could be just a spoiler, somebody you are not really passionate for, please stop a moment and reconsider.

Then vote your the way heart tells you to.

Another Liberal scandal, Option Canada received $4.8 million grant, see where it went and why, click on this link to find out.

out.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC

Sorry, try this address, other address not coming up, hopefully this one will work.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060107/ELXNOPTION07/TPNational/Canada

woody
Another interesting fact, the source of information for much of the Liberals platform on firearms comes from the “Coalition for gun Control” Which is now being investigated by the RCMP for improper use of $400,000 of our tax dollars. Not to mention it also involves Kim Doren a lobbyist and the high ranking member of the Liberal party that may have given over $100,000 to the Liberals. Funny how it does not make the news in a big way.

It will be interesting if the CPC and the NDP started to work together regarding the proportional voting system. I certain if Jack could hold his nose while working with the Lib’s (talk about a short honeymoon) he would do the same with the CPC, he loves the taste of power.

Colin, is Kim Doren one of the persons who was a major driveing force in the implementation of the flawed and costly gun registry?

I believe so, I think this site has a link to it (note the site owner is a friend of mine, so yes I am shamelessly plugging it.)

http://www.handgunban.org/

Hey Woody:
The party Quebequois spent 25 million on the same campaign. Do you know where that money went?

Bailey:

The Greens are in favor of nothing in particular, at everyone elses expense? Is that your message? If you want people to vote for your NDP, you're going to have to do just a little bit better than that.

The brain which is it you are referring to, Option Canada or the gun registry? Regardless enlighten me. Where the Quebequois spent $25 million.

Well, Brain, what are they in favour of? Exactly what do they have in mind for us, other than preventing some people from continuing to act badly?

I mean, good on them for that, some people clearly need to be kept on a much tighter leash and all, but then what? How will they replace that lost revenue? How will they provide for increased population? How will they provide and pay for family supporting jobs by the tens of thousands? How pay for services for seniors? Children and families? The poor? The damaged?

Sorry brain, I just don't see it. But supposing I'm wrong, did they take contributions from Liberal sources?

It would be a yes or a no.

Brain, you have yet to apologise for lying at least twice in posts above.

You initially accused me of using four-letter words to describe female candidates on a Tyee thread.

That was an out and out lie and I have asked you to retract it.

Your response was that my comments about the women were on a thread called "The War On Christmas," but that too is a lie, a fact that I brought to your attention this past Friday.

You have chosen to pretend you were not caught lying, (twice), which seems quite slitherly of you, given the puff-chested chortling you have engaged in since your untimely arrival here at Tyee.

Come to think of it, I suspect a good Tyee would simply spit your kind out.

Brain? No, more like barn worm.

Allen: It was the war on Christmas, it was directed against Nightbloom (who I've recently found out to be a man, your half right) and Lynn, I think... and I've looked for it myself to clip it back to you, but its in Tyee archives. Otherwise, its your word against mine, and I know what I read, something that was very offensive (it was a 7 letter word starting with an F to be exact, and likely removed for good reason) and enough is enough. If you can't remember, its not my problem, and I don't appreciate being called a liar over this.

To woody: Option Canada was deemed illegal funding from the get go due to Quebecs provincial election laws. The feds stepped in, with varied support from mainly libs and a few Cons, to provide advertising for Federation. This was less than a fifth of what the separatists had spent in the referendum to separate, so its like... the province of Quebec puts in a law to limit Fed spending and outside influence to zero, to muzzle advertizing rebuttals against them. Its really a form of censorship directed against any support for federalism, put forth by separatists.

To Murray Dobbin: I'm going to have to rethink what I think of you for now (not that my opinion matters that much, specially on old threads). The article of yours with the Harper clips was a home run in my book. Looking better.

Well Brain, it would seem that until you come up with this "seven" letter word,it is my word against yours and I am adamant you lied.

I don't appreciate having someone lie about my writing.

It's not up to me to find something you allege I hurled at someone. That's entirely your responsibility.

Perhaps, you thought I said something or you felt like calling me something or you read something that wasn't there. If one of those is
the case then simply 'fess up and we can move on.

But there are some inconsistancies this time around again. Initially you accused me of using four letter words,, now it's a seven-letter word starting with F.

Interesting is how I would describe your process of recall. Perhaps it's time to trade that old Brain handle in for something more suitable like Sieve, Colander, or something just as porous.

\

There's nothing to fess up to. You ran others down with foul language, didn't give them an apology, I called you on it, and now your calling me a liar on every single article and post. there's only one word that comes to mind in describing you. Stunned. Good luck with your smears.