SELECTIVE MESSAGING...

Steady Eddie and blustery Brad weigh in for the home team:


“If it isn’t, then I do think we need a time of stability. I think the government that wins the most seats needs to be able to bring down a budget and get the country moving forward,” said Wall.

These blue tories didn't even listen apparently to the Mansbridge interview before stepping into the cowfield -- perhaps they were using the 'selectively edited' CON talking points edition? They also don't like Westminster parliamentary rules, coalition governments (boo Britain, Australia and Finland!) or Canadian history.
Of course, their blinding support of Stephen Harper's Power At All Costs Tour kind of steps around Harper's own dalliance with 'fewer seats, more power' and Jack and Gilles in 2004.

What's good for the goose is not ducky with the hens, apparently.

DEAD HORSE, MEET STUNNED PARROT...

The Harper CONbots are up in arms twisting in circles and trying to create a controversy over Michael Ignatieff's response to Peter Mansbridge's question on what happens if a minority government is elected on May 2nd.
This is what Ignatieff said...

“[I'd] talk to Mr. Layton, or Mr. Duceppe, or even Mr. Harper, and say, ‘We have an issue, and here’s the plan that I want to put before Parliament, this is the budget I would bring in,’ and then we take it from there.”

... and this is different from this in what way?

If ignorance is what Canadians are when it comes to their own governance, then Stephen Harper has provided the perfect platform. However, it is also obvious that there is someone on the hustings who is only in it for himself, and that person is Stephen Harper.

Which leads us to something completely different...

SOMETHING TO SAY...

Of all the things that I wish had been brought up during last night's english language debate, one specific theme should have had its 2-minutes of talk: Honesty and integrity.
But how would that be massaged into a four-circle bickering match, while making a salient point about the choices Canadians are facing? Well, let's imagine...

IGNATIEFF - Mr. Harper, you continue to talk about the necessity of having a steady hand helping guide the Canadian economy, protecting jobs and creating opportunities.
All these things are part of the Liberal Party platform, and have been accomplished by past Liberal governments.
But when it comes to leadership, I think what you've delivered falls far short of what Canadians deserve. Just yesterday, one of your senior members had to humbly apologize for your government's deliberate choice to take words the auditor general applied to a report on fiscal management -- a report she wrote in 2004 -- and pasted it onto the preliminary discussion on the G-8 summit.
As someone who spoke fervently at one time about accountability, you continue to relegate responsibility to others when you've been found with your fingers in the cookie jar.
So I ask you, sir, will you apologize for this secretive, undemocratic and trust-breaking act you have done?

HARPER: Mr. Ignatieff, the auditor general's report on the G-8 summit remains unreleased, the documents being leaked to the press, as she has suggested, are not representative of her final report ...

IGNATIEFF: I'm sorry sir but you're misleading the Canadian people here. I'm not talking about the auditor general's final report, of which members in your own caucus continue to suggest are known to you.
I'm talking about the report, tabled to a Commons committee, in the final week of Parliament. You stole quotes from Ms. Fraser and made a mockery of integrity, sir. You sent out Stockwell Day to apologize for it, when Mr. Day had nothing to do with it. I can understand, how you -- having been caught already for plagarizing a speech, and avoiding responsibility on that -- would prefer to sweep this under the rug and avoid talking about it. However, you are talking to the Canadian people, or are you just talking to that camera? Here is your chance to show some leadership Mr. Harper, to say what all Canadians understand to be true -- that plagarizing and misleading people about what someone else has said, are wrong? Will you do that?

HARPER: Again, our government has directed its efforts on guiding the economy during tough times and mistakes have been made, when Mr. Ignatieff distracts Canadians with expensive problems, an unnecessary election...

IGNATIEFF: I'm sorry sir, but that doesn't sound like accountability, Mr. Harper, it sounds like denial, that you having something to hide. Great leaders, and Canada has had many, have taken responsibility for their mistakes. They've not a stable of ministers and assistants take the blame for them, like you have. If you refuse to take accountibility for this one act, which sends a seriously wrong message to young and old alike, how can Canadians trust you with the keys to their economy? I must compliment you on your game-playing skills, Mr. Harper. If we were playing a game, I would admire it, however we are talking about leading a country. The Canadian people are not part of a game who you can mislead and misapropriate from, Mr. Harper.

... and I'm sure it would translate into french...

READ BETWEEN THE LINES...

Stephen Harper has been known to say one thing and do another.
He's also tried to dance like Toller Cranston around the intentions of his actions and words of the past.
While I think Canadians are eager to have a new debate on how their health care system has to adapt to meet the changing demands and rising costs, Harper is happy to skirt the issue and just pledge what the other guys are pledging (not to let the other leaders off on a technicality, however they are in opposition and not the current government).

Just in case you've forgotten, here is what so-called leader Stephen Harper has said about Canada's health care system in the past:


"We also support the exploration of alternative ways to deliver health care. Moving toward alternatives, including those provided by the private sector, is a natural development of our health care system."

- Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, October 2002.



"It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."

- Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997.



"What we clearly need is experimentation with market reforms and private delivery options [in health care]."

- Stephen Harper, then President of the NCC, 2001.



"I know this is a dangerous subject. My advisors say don't talk about it, but the fact is sometimes provinces have allowed in the past few years, they've brought in private services covered by public health insurance... Why do I care and why do we care as a federal government how they're managed? What we care about is whether people can access them. This is just an ideological agenda."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper at the leadership debate, June 15th 2004, conceding that he shouldn't talk about his positive view of privatization of health care.

CHAPTER 421 IN HARPOCRISY...

... The Chicken is trying to turn the page after he turned the other cheek and ran.
He laughingly tries to blame the per-vote subsidy in putting parliament on a regular election cycle.
That downplays the role of his own party, under Stephen Harper's own watch, that began with regular stunt bluster in calling everything a confidence motion, then launched into out-of-election advertising ad nauseum, which has resulted in the lead he holds today. Yep, no argument here, advertising when done slickly and abundantly, does work. At CON central tho, truth plays no factor.
He says parties are bankrolled for an election almost immediately following an election due to the Chretien implemented per-vote subsidy. As someone who's involved with local riding politics, I know for a fact that the rebates for the per-vote subsidy typically take two years to arrive. Another Harper lie.
That being said, I do agree that the per-vote subsidy should be tinkered with, even democratized.
If each ballot had another check box, this time at the bottom -- requesting the voter if they wished a $2 subsidy to go to the party of their choice -- it would enable those who don't like the subsidy to have their way. Also, there should be a proportional element that rewards parties that run more candidates; one-province parties should not receive the same amount of subsidy per-vote as a party that runs candidates (and meets the 5% threshhold) in 250+ ridings. Ring up the subsidy in 1/4s - 1/4 if you run candidates in 78 ridings or less; 1/2 of the amount if you run candidates in 156 ridings or under, etc.