Upcoming Canadian Election

[JLP]

Not to defend Harper, and he's without a doubt responsible for whaever ideas that come out of his mouth - and therefore the ideas of his party - however that some of the actual phrasing was plagiarized from the other speeches by his writer has very little to do with him or even his own integrity.

If Tom Hanks uses a line that is historically inaccurate in a movie, are you going to blame Tom Hanks or the writer?

That's why people have writers in the first place, so that they don't have to worry about things like this. Harper gave his writer general directives, he liked to result (he had other things to do review everything to make sure it's new), and used the speech.

If people don't want to vote for Harper, I'm sure they can find better reasons... unfortunately people are dumb, and this could actual make a difference for some...

As a writer I disagree. The words were put into Harper's mouth, yes questionable provenance is excusable for lines delivered by an actor like Tom Hanks -- but I'd set the bar higher for a man who wants to lead my country.

[Zowpeb]

To be honest, I thought Layton was awful...he comes across like a bad salesman...and being in sales management I've seen a few come and go. I thought it was laughable that he was calling Harper cold, mean, uncaring, and the rest when he spent most of his time talking down others with back-handed jabs, false jabs and just generally mouthing off. Just brutal. I know that there are NDP supporters and Conservative haters who probably loved to see it but he was highly hypocritical in his "attacks". His policies are an absolute nightmare too...from the corporate tax INCREASES to the new baby bonuses. His attacks on Dion were, at times, overly harsh since he clearly believes that by belittling his opponent with nothing factual that it will help him get the title of Opposition Leader.

Elizabeth May was not much better by my estimation. I will give her full credit on her research of non-environment topics which was key for her to move the party forward nationally...however, she's just as mouthy as Layton. Both May and Layton were overtly opinionated, constantly interrupted and came across as giant windbags. I think that all those people who decry Harper as being inflexible and undemocratic would be very sorry indeed to see one of these two in power. Change would be made based on what THEY see as being "right" in their fight to protect their union friends, the environment, poverty, etc...regardless of how it affects the majority of people.

I didn't think Dion was as bad as he's been made out since the debate. He stumbled at times which was a language issue. He really should have spent the past couple years becoming much more proficient in English. Some francophones may not like to hear that but the reality is he needs to effectively communicate with the majority of Canadians to win. I thought he did an okay job, was far more professional then Layton or May. He stood up for himself and his policy which I thought was positive for him even though I disagree with them. This debate allowed me to believe that Dion is sincere and believes he's doing the right thing not just for votes but because he believes it's what Canada needs. I don't get that from Layton or May...only Dion and Harper came across with sincerity. Did anyone also notice that every time Dion faced up to the camera it would slowly zoom in on him? This ONLY happened with Dion and it creates the impression that he's someone you need to listen closely to...which I think is the media trying to help their loyal Liberal allies...he had better lighting, better camera angles and the like. This also irritated me all night.

Harper started out a poorly but I thought he did well defending a lot of the misinformation being directed at him...primarily from Layton. The camera angle changed at one point and the host was busy trying to intercede so a lot of people missed what I thought was Harper about to lose it...Harper was asking Layton if he was actually trying to be serious with some of his ridiculous claims...and Layton was smirking at him hoping to goad more. Bad coverage of the moment. Thought that Harper did well to explain that he was cutting programs that were ineffective not because of what they represented...something people forget in the rhetoric. I didn't have a problem with the parties attacking him...he is the incumbent after all, and with no real 2nd party stepping up the attacks were very focused on him. However, I thought the interruptions were WAY over the top and the host dropped the ball BIG TIME. Each leader should have been given their time to speak UNINTERRUPTED. Given that Harper spent most of the "show" (it wasn't a debate folks) defending his policies AND PLATFORM I thought he did well. I've seen coverage outlining the basics of the Conservative platform in all the major papers...just because he has published a "Green Vision" or some other BS doesn't mean he hasn't stated what his promises are...Layton and May are just as bad as anyone for the typical political BS that they claim to hate.

Duceppe was actually quite impressive but he had almost no pressure in the english debate. If he wasn't a dirty separatist and was leading the Liberals with Dion as a key team member I might have been tempted to swing over to the Liberals. That's how well I thought he did. Though his interrupting Harper by repeating his question 18 times in a row was annoying. I agree that he deserves to be in the debate given the number of seats they represent but it's hard to come to terms with a guy who knows he can never win and just simply spends the debate asking for ONE PROVINCE to get stuff...all they do is ask for more and more and drive the rest of Canada to believe Quebec always has their hand in the cookie jar. Seems kind of asinine IMHO. Of course, with so little riding on this debate he could afford to look relaxed so it's probably unfair to single him out as being a good leader...but by all accounts he is said to be one.

[Zowpeb]

As a writer I disagree. The words were put into Harper's mouth, yes questionable provenance is excusable for lines delivered by an actor like Tom Hanks -- but I'd set the bar higher for a man who wants to lead my country.

Then you should NEVER vote for anyone. How in the world can any leader spend the time trying to ensure that they cross check against every speech made by world leaders to ensure nothing is plagerised?

Or perhaps you'd want them to write their speeches? Rather then spending time on actually working on things...like, oh, running the entire country. I guess we should never expect our PM to actually depend on staff?

I suppose you also think that PM's typically also hand pick which programs are going to be cut...

Every leader gives an outline to a speech writer and lets them fill it with the inspriational background. As Harper and Howard had the same goals at the time the speech was within Harpers outline. Since it should be fairly obvious that Harper never heard Howards speech how could he know?

As for excuses and apologies...that would just come across as BS too...politicians would be apologizing, for the mistakes of their advisors, 24/7. Given the ridiculousness of the stuff your political opponents always bring up it would never end. People just generally need to realise that politicians are often acting on behalf of information given to them by sub-committees and bureaucrats. Inevitably, since we can only hold the politicians accountable, we are hard on them and before they can make changes to those committees and bureaucrats we vote them out as incompetents.

[JLP]

Then you should NEVER vote for anyone. . .

Hey Zowpeb,

Last person I voted for was myself, when I ran a spirited campaign for Toronto Alderman. But that's another story.

One thing -- Harper gets a majority then I might as well move back to the USA, which I would never do -- too stubbornly proud of Canada.

[Colin]

Then you should NEVER vote for anyone. How in the world can any leader spend the time trying to ensure that they cross check against every speech made by world leaders to ensure nothing is plagerised?

Or perhaps you'd want them to write their speeches? Rather then spending time on actually working on things...like, oh, running the entire country. I guess we should never expect our PM to actually depend on staff?

I suppose you also think that PM's typically also hand pick which programs are going to be cut...

Every leader gives an outline to a speech writer and lets them fill it with the inspriational background. As Harper and Howard had the same goals at the time the speech was within Harpers outline. Since it should be fairly obvious that Harper never heard Howards speech how could he know?

As for excuses and apologies...that would just come across as BS too...politicians would be apologizing, for the mistakes of their advisors, 24/7. Given the ridiculousness of the stuff your political opponents always bring up it would never end. People just generally need to realise that politicians are often acting on behalf of information given to them by sub-committees and bureaucrats. Inevitably, since we can only hold the politicians accountable, we are hard on them and before they can make changes to those committees and bureaucrats we vote them out as incompetents.

Then you have to question Harper's judgement of character. If he surrounds himself with liars and cheats, how is that any good?

[JoeLassister]

Then you have to question Harper's judgement of character. If he surrounds himself with liars and cheats, how is that any good?

HA HA are you that surprised. He already surrounded himself with Gerry Ritz and Lee Richardson... One less, one more... who cares ?

[Mont Royale]

Then you have to question Harper's judgement of character. If he surrounds himself with liars and cheats, how is that any good?

I guess if you're inclined to vote against Harper, you're going to interpret everything in the most negative way possible. I'm undecided (and leaning Liberal at the moment), but I don't put very much stock in this particular issue. I don't know if you've ever hired staff, but one thing you can never accurately test for is character. You never know what somebody is going to do if they're under deadline and have to get something done. And it's unlikely this guy was hired by Harper himself in any case.

I don't think this is the worst crime that's ever happened. There are many associated with the Liberals who basically stole government money in the sponsorship scandal; that's a bit worse, don't you think?

[Zowpeb]

Then you have to question Harper's judgement of character. If he surrounds himself with liars and cheats, how is that any good?

This is quite an all encompassing statement...it's awfully difficult, in my mind, to create such a broad link. You can question the character of this gentleman but to immediately use that to draw a direct line to Harper's character is fairly ridiculous. Let's use SOME common sense when looking at how these things happen...even further, who the hell cares? This issue is nothing compared to the crap that virtually every party has pulled in government...if this is all the opposition has they are dead in the water IMHO.

[Quebecois]

I just voted Liberal....not because I want to see Dion as a PM, but because I'd like to see Harper keep just a minority government.

[Mont Royale]

I just voted Liberal....not because I want to see Dion as a PM, but because I'd like to see Harper keep just a minority government.

That's the way I'm leaning, for the exact same reason. I'm somewhat more aligned with the Conservatives' policies, but I don't trust them enough to give them a majority.

[Colin]

This is quite an all encompassing statement...it's awfully difficult, in my mind, to create such a broad link. You can question the character of this gentleman but to immediately use that to draw a direct line to Harper's character is fairly ridiculous. Let's use SOME common sense when looking at how these things happen...even further, who the hell cares? This issue is nothing compared to the crap that virtually every party has pulled in government...if this is all the opposition has they are dead in the water IMHO.

I never questioned Harper's character. I questioned his judgment of character.

And my humblest apologies for not using SOME common sense. I am particularly stupid, you know. I'm not sure why people like me have the right to vote seeing as how I'm unedoocated. In fact, I think, just for you, I won't vote. That'll save you worrying about me not using any common sense. And thank you for flogging me for voicing my opinion. It's pleasing to know that politics is still able to divide so completely. I think you're absolutely right, we shouldn't consider questioning his character judgment at all because it has nothing to do with him leading. Especially not with a speech writer, because that job means nothing in the grand scheme. Who the hell cares.

And I've found a new definition for "gentleman." Apparently attack ads makes you a gentleman. All politicians are gentleman. Yes, that feels good on my tongue.

[Zowpeb]

I never questioned Harper's character. I questioned his judgment of character.

And my humblest apologies for not using SOME common sense. I am particularly stupid, you know. I'm not sure why people like me have the right to vote seeing as how I'm unedoocated. In fact, I think, just for you, I won't vote. That'll save you worrying about me not using any common sense. And thank you for flogging me for voicing my opinion. It's pleasing to know that politics is still able to divide so completely. I think you're absolutely right, we shouldn't consider questioning his character judgment at all because it has nothing to do with him leading. Especially not with a speech writer, because that job means nothing in the grand scheme. Who the hell cares.

And I've found a new definition for "gentleman." Apparently attack ads makes you a gentleman. All politicians are gentleman. Yes, that feels good on my tongue.

Over-reaction to my post? Just a bit...if you want to read into that I said you were stupid that's on you.

Attack ads are a part of the process that is incredibly annoying BUT they are all equally bad at it...Layton, and most opposition parties, spent loads of time saying Harper is mean spirited but the reality is they were all just as bad during the debate and in their own political ads.

Leadership always shoulders responsibility for the people that report to, or through, them. However, I also think it's fair to say that it's impossible for any one person to review everything that comes there way. Harper is in a position where the entire government reports to him...much like every Prime Minister there are a lot of questionable characters that report directly and indirectly to them. It's imperative that every leader, whether PM or middle manager, sets the standard for their people, however, to simply say: "it's your fault as leader" is far to simplistic a response. I agree with you that how it's handled is important, as is the standards moving forward. Having said that, a good parent could have a 16 year old do something stupid (drugs, shoplifting, whatever) despite being raised in a good environment and taught the difference between right and wrong...would you say that it's the parents fault and their children should be removed? Or should responsibility fall to the child?

But I guess when you want to vilify a politician, any politician, for things beyond their control you can see things however you want.

The problem with attack ads, or the Liberal adscam issues, was that the politicians KNOW/KNEW what was happening and condoned it. Do you really think that Harper, or any other of the numberable plagirisms that occur in speech writing for every leader, are openly condoned by the politicians they work for? Plagiarism in speech writing is wrong, but also a common occurance...and this has been reported on and even openly admitted by some speech writers since this was reported.

[Colin]

This is quite an all encompassing statement...it's awfully difficult, in my mind, to create such a broad link. You can question the character of this gentleman but to immediately use that to draw a direct line to Harper's character is fairly ridiculous. Let's use SOME common sense when looking at how these things happen...even further, who the hell cares? This issue is nothing compared to the crap that virtually every party has pulled in government...if this is all the opposition has they are dead in the water IMHO.

Over-reaction to my post? Just a bit...if you want to read into that I said you were stupid that's on you.

I see.

Leadership always shoulders responsibility for the people that report to, or through, them. However, I also think it's fair to say that it's impossible for any one person to review everything that comes there way. .....

But doesn't that give you pause to question his judgment at all? Or is he given a free pass?

But I guess when you want to vilify a politician, any politician, for things beyond their control you can see things however you want.

I was just pointing out something that bothered me. I haven't decided who to vote for. Also, I'm a writer, I dislike plagerism. Seems to me most higher learning institutes hate it so much that they summarily expel anyone caught. Again, that's not directly against Harper, just makes me wonder if he vetted this guy enough to be sure this wasn't going to happen.

It's my opinion that if one doesn't ask questions, one should dutifully ba-a-a then shut the hell up.

I was disappointed to hear a few weeks ago that Dion would get rid of the $1200/year support for parents with young children. I later learned that he's not taking that away and that Harper was propagandizing heavily. I went from being very disappointed in Dion to very disappointed in Harper. First I questioned the Liberal leader, then I questioned why Harper would insinuate what he did.

Questions. Real democracy.

The problem with attack ads, or the Liberal adscam issues, was that the politicians KNOW/KNEW what was happening and condoned it. Do you really think that Harper, or any other of the numberable plagirisms that occur in speech writing for every leader, are openly condoned by the politicians they work for? Plagiarism in speech writing is wrong, but also a common occurance...and this has been reported on and even openly admitted by some speech writers since this was reported.

I questioned the Liberals heavily following the adscam nonsense. That was ridiculous.

Just because something is a common occurance and is admitted by some doesn't make it right and doesn't lessen the fact that it's illegal.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Colin

[Zowpeb]

But doesn't that give you pause to question his judgment at all? Or is he given a free pass?

I was just pointing out something that bothered me. I haven't decided who to vote for. Also, I'm a writer, I dislike plagerism. Seems to me most higher learning institutes hate it so much that they summarily expel anyone caught. Again, that's not directly against Harper, just makes me wonder if he vetted this guy enough to be sure this wasn't going to happen.

It's my opinion that if one doesn't ask questions, one should dutifully ba-a-a then shut the hell up.

Just because something is a common occurance and is admitted by some doesn't make it right and doesn't lessen the fact that it's illegal.

You continue to go back to a question of judgement...and while I agree with you to a point, in other words it's not a free pass, I just don't see that this should be as big an issue as you seem to feel it is. I can almost guarantee you that every leader in this campaign has used portions of speeches that are plagiarized. Harper is attacked on the character of those around them and the attack ads they've ran...what about the Liberals and NDP? The Liberals run just as many attack ads and the NDP have some pretty questionable candidates too:

http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/abc/Election_...itemid=78707038

In that article on the NDP, one of them sounds like a borderline pedophile and 2 were filmed doing drugs and one just resigned over comments. My biggest question is why the media doesn't JUMP ALL OVER THE NDP for these candidates? Instead, we get WEEKS AND WEEKS of media BS about an off-colour joke by Ritz...but the NDP essentially gets a free pass?

Uh, since when is plagiarism of speech writing illegal?? If a professor MISSES that a student plagiarised a PART of someone elses work and gives that student an A then should that professor be fired?? That seems to be what you imply over Harper? After all, a professor has a duty to his students and his school...don't they? I'm sure you'll disagree so why is it different?

I fully agree that a core fundamental of democracy is to question those running for office. However, how we ask questions, what questions we ask and why we ask them matters...and the media does a crap job of promoting "issues" based on how/who they want to see win. It seems to me that you don't seem to like that this isn't an issue for me and most people...I'd rather question each parties economic goals and environmental goals and how they plan to acheive them. It sounds like your stuck on some of the political BS that the media uses for storylines...and yeah, I can see that you more then likely go more in-depth then that...so I just wonder why you're stuck on this.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Zowpeb

[JLP]

I think what Canada needs now is a further-right party. Staunchly anti-immigration and anti-abortion, this party could appeal to maybe one-in-five current Conservative voters. As it is, fragmentation on the "left" has three parties divvying up more than half the vote; while Harper and the Cons get something of a free ride.

[Zowpeb]

I think what Canada needs now is a further-right party. Staunchly anti-immigration and anti-abortion, this party could appeal to maybe one-in-five current Conservative voters. As it is, fragmentation on the "left" has three parties divvying up more than half the vote; while Harper and the Cons get something of a free ride.

I somewhat like the idea of proportional representation...the downside would be coalition governments that would over-compromise and watered down policy but at least it would better reflect the will of the majority. I do believe that this type of government would be incredibly difficult to work with in times of trouble where concise, prompt, action is required...such as times of war or times of economic struggle. Of course, such localized strength has it's downside too and requires trust in the leadership...which is why all parties make this a campaign issue.

Another option would be an elected Senate that would be a more democratic check against government policy...perhaps have only proportional representation in the Senate...I've never liked the idea of life-time Senate appointments.

I find the NDP still, and some of the defunct far right parties, to be too extreme in their policies. They serve such a small part of the population and typically run on some sort of grass roots platform that alienates too many. Sure, having a far right party would also divide the right wing vote and help the left wing parties compete BUT this is always changing...the opposite allowed the Liberals to run undaunted through the 90's.

[nhfarber]

Looks like the race is tightening

http://www.nanosresearch.com/election/CPAC...ber-5-2008E.pdf

[Zowpeb]

Looks like the race is tightening

http://www.nanosresearch.com/election/CPAC...ber-5-2008E.pdf

In this election, the polls are being run daily which I find crazy...I'd rather see them run every few days with larger sample sets and increased accuracy.

How can you only poll 247 people in Quebec and 311 in Ontario and be accurate??

It's also worth noting that Nanos shows the Liberals with the highest polling numbers by a significant amount.

Ipsos Reid, for example, has the Liberals at 23% nationally...compared to 30% from Nanos...Harris/Decima had the Liberals at 25%...Ekos had the Liberals at 25%.

Nanos is the latest poll released but Ipsos and Harris/Decima are from last Thursday and Friday respectively so they should be fairly relevant still.

Ekos had the largest sample size and lowest margin of error but was released October 1st so the debate may have swayed some votes (though I can't see why since it was terrible overall).

[JLP]

In this election, the polls are being run daily which I find crazy...I'd rather see them run every few days with larger sample sets and increased accuracy.

How can you only poll 247 people in Quebec and 311 in Ontario and be accurate??

It's also worth noting that Nanos shows the Liberals with the highest polling numbers by a significant amount.

Ipsos Reid, for example, has the Liberals at 23% nationally...compared to 30% from Nanos...Harris/Decima had the Liberals at 25%...Ekos had the Liberals at 25%.

Nanos is the latest poll released but Ipsos and Harris/Decima are from last Thursday and Friday respectively so they should be fairly relevant still.

Ekos had the largest sample size and lowest margin of error but was released October 1st so the debate may have swayed some votes (though I can't see why since it was terrible overall).

polls by "Nick Nanos" lol

[JLP]

I do believe that [coalition governments] would be incredibly difficult to work with in times of trouble where concise, prompt, action is required...such as times of war . . .

War is when your country is invaded, and any government will respond to that. Don't confuse that with the Bush Doctrine's sham of 'pre-emptive' war, which is imperialistic, illegal and immoral. Canada must resist the fascism and militarism that have taken root south of our border. A hard rain is falling and Canada must stay out of it. Vote ABC.

[Zowpeb]

War is when your country is invaded, and any government will respond to that. Don't confuse that with the Bush Doctrine's sham of 'pre-emptive' war, which is imperialistic, illegal and immoral. Canada must resist the fascism and militarism that have taken root south of our border. A hard rain is falling and Canada must stay out of it. Vote ABC.

I agree with what your saying in regards to Iraq...but Afgahnistan, at least the original intent behind why they went there, was wholly justified, even by your logic that you must be "invaded" as 9/11 was an attack on American soil...

I think it's clear that a majority government has the ability to act in a much more clear and concise manner, which is especially important in times of war or economic turmoil...whether you agree with the conservatives or not is another question.

My vote goes to whomever has the best economic proposal...

This, to me, rules out the NDP and Green party whose policies are going to hurt businesses and consumer confidence which will only lead us even further into a recession. JMHO.

I am, obviously, currently swayed to the Conservatives but if I'm unimpressed with what they are supposed to release tomorrow then I may still sway to the Liberals...thus far I think the Conservatives will spend government money smarter and are creating jobs in a more efficient manner. For all the hits they're taking our unemployment rate is still hovering at it's lowest point in 31 years. When it comes to the Liberals, I actually like Dion's sincerity, I'm just highly unconvinced of the ''Green Shift'', though I also think the Liberals would be smart enough to adjust it if it was creating high prices in the middle of a recession.

Thus far, it seems to me that the Conservatives have released their policy in drips. So far I agree with many of the moves they've proposed...though admittedly some are simply focused on politically strategic initiatives but this is true of every party. I simply don't buy into the theory that Harper's conservatives are in-line with Bush's US policies. There is no evidence to support that Canada has moved in the same direction as the US at all...nor has it made the attempt. The issue in the US can't even be entirely blamed on Bush (yeah, the guys an idiot but that's clouding people's reasoning)...this has been building since before Clinton, possibly back to Reagan. Some will blame Greenspan, and that's possibly fair. From everything I've seen and read I believe Bush could have prevented this in his first 6 months by backing down on his tax cuts, especially after 9/11. However, the best he could have done was forced a slow down sooner and hoped for a softer landing. The Conservatives, and Liberals before them, have been attempting to improve the regulation of our markets for years...quite the opposite of the deregulation that occured in the US. The Conservatives have increased transfers to provinces at record levels which will only help health care and education. I want to see their plan for infrastructure spending and I want to see a really good plan on spending for future technology and growing those businesses. The R&D support funding won't help grow and diversify Canada for another 6-10 years so a short term bridge is needed...the infrastructure spending could be that bridge. I want to see money spent on more clean energy facilities (people can talk "green" all they want but most of our emissions come from coal fired facilities, put in clean faclities and close the coal plants). More water treatment plants, better highways, more transit, all those things could be that short term bridge to keep the construction industry moving, jobs being created short term and thus consumer confidence held at least in check. Many of these things are already being done...but I want to see the actual plan. The Liberals plan on lots of infrastructure spending but it's not part of their plan till years 3 or 4...which is too far out.

As much as people don't realise it, Harper has been right that the fundamentals are strong. What's going to kill us is that people across North America are in a state of panic. "The only thing to fear is fear itself"...that famous line was said in 1932 at the height of the depression after market had collapsed down to 10% of it's value in 1928. The TSX dropped more today for nothing more then blind panic and has dropped 33% since June...it's becoming a self fullfilling prophecy. There is no reason for this when unemployment is low and people have still been spending like crazy. We have no mortgage/credit problem like the US...but again, it's becoming a self fullfilling prophecy because of panic.

[CerebusClone]

I was disappointed to hear a few weeks ago that Dion would get rid of the $1200/year support for parents with young children. I later learned that he's not taking that away and that Harper was propagandizing heavily. I went from being very disappointed in Dion to very disappointed in Harper. First I questioned the Liberal leader, then I questioned why Harper would insinuate what he did.

That's just called campaigning, all party leaders are tring to twist every single event, action, or declaration from an opponent into some kind of catastrophic issue. Harper's speech writer got a little lazy, and copied part of another speech he heard... so what, that's not a big deal, and really had very little to do with Harper himself or his party. It was the writer's fault, he lost his job, and in a normal world we would all move on to much more important issues.

Instead now you have Duceppe making a huge deal out of this, saying Harper is a liar and a cheater, and that basically he's unfit to be a leader. Now I have a question for Duceppe: if we were to fig into his past speeches, and found significant traces of plagiarism in some of them, would he step down as the Bloc leader? Would he call himself a liar and a cheater?

I hate hypocrism... but the biggest display of hypocrism came a few years ago from Bernard Landry. Mr. Landry left the Parti Québécois because he felt that 76.2% of the confidence votes were not enough to remain the leader of his party... yet somehow he feels that 50% + a single vote is more than enough to completely remodel the political structure of Quebec, which would also have a significant impact on the rest of Canada.

[JoeLassister]

That's just called campaigning, all party leaders are tring to twist every single event, action, or declaration from an opponent into some kind of catastrophic issue. Harper's speech writer got a little lazy, and copied part of another speech he heard... so what, that's not a big deal, and really had very little to do with Harper himself or his party. It was the writer's fault, he lost his job, and in a normal world we would all move on to much more important issues.

Instead now you have Duceppe making a huge deal out of this, saying Harper is a liar and a cheater, and that basically he's unfit to be a leader. Now I have a question for Duceppe: if we were to fig into his past speeches, and found significant traces of plagiarism in some of them, would he step down as the Bloc leader? Would he call himself a liar and a cheater?

I hate hypocrism... but the biggest display of hypocrism came a few years ago from Bernard Landry. Mr. Landry left the Parti Québécois because he felt that 76.2% of the confidence votes were not enough to remain the leader of his party... yet somehow he feels that 50% + a single vote is more than enough to completely remodel the political structure of Quebec, which would also have a significant impact on the rest of Canada.

What if he would actually step down as the leader? Don't call hypocrism until it really happens.

Edited October 6, 2008 by JoeLassister

[simonus]

not a big deal, but I'm pretty sure "hypocrism" ain't no word. Hypocrisy is the word I think y'alls are looking for.

[Jean]

I'm already sick of this campaign, and I consider myself a political geek. I'm esepcially sick of Gilles Duceppe's fearmongering, and I'm extremly dissapointed than it seems to be working.

How do americans manage to keep their sanity trhu their 6months+ campaigns?