James Moore is the first person in Canadian history to be elected to four consecutive terms in his constituency.
Years of Service: 3099 Days (8 years, 5 months, 25 days)

You know, when people make this kind of comparison …
http://blog.canoe.ca/thehill/2009/05/13/the_tor... (H/T David Akin sidebar Tweets ?)
Christina Spencer
“The ads stress the fact that Ignatieff spent 34 years outside Canada. That means the Liberal leader, who is 62, has spent 28 years in Canada. As it happens, 28 is almost as long as Mr. Poilievre has spent in Canada, since he’s 29 years old.
If 29 years spent in the country is enough to be a high-profile, rapidly rising MP, why isn’t 28?”

I'm mystified by the kind of reasoning advanced by Ms. Spencer.
Has Mr. Ignatieff found the fountain of youth?
Or is he like Dorian Grey – frozen in time?
Has he somehow managed to go “Back to the Future”?

I believe Mr. Poilievre is an ambitious MP, but I don't think he is vying for the Prime Minister's job – at least, not yet. Once again, fruits come to mind. Cherries and blueberries (I'm fed up of apples and oranges).

Wow the whining over somethng the Canadian people, and not negative attack ads, will decide is incredible.

I'm going to leave you ideologues to it….have fun grinding your teeth over nothing.

Pierre Poiliever was first elected in 2004,
that gives him 50% more experience as a Canadian MP than Iffy.

Pierre has spent 17% of his life, as an elected MP.
Iffy has spent 5% of his life, as an elected MP.

Pierre has has never won a leadership race, neither had Iffy.

I now suspect these blogs are a cover up for the aithful so thye won't note the failure of the Harpercrite debacle

Here's more hypocrisy just in case you want some current facts about this poor excuse for a government:
But the deal represents an apparent about-face for the Harper government, which has long insisted federal taxpayers would not subsidize GM pensioners. Ottawa is expected to argue that only the provincial portion of the bailout can be used for the pension plan, but critics are already saying that distinction is meaningless.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/h...

hmmm, that shud read

Pierre has never won a leadership race, and neither has Iffy.

Trudeau won the leadership and election when he was an elected MP and in politics for only about 3 years… he did ok for someone who was suspected of being a commie because he travelled behind the iron curtain and learned that people were not happy as the propoganda machines had been telling people. His experiences opened the door for the US to start down the road to a freindly relationship with China.

''but critics are already saying that distinction is meaningless''

Critics? Do these critics have names or are they the authors of this critical article?
Blah blah blah.
We have seen the msm do this time and again,
the truth will come out in about 48 hours.

“Trudeau won the leadership and election when he was an elected MP and in politics for only about 3 years…”

Ahh … would this aphorism apply?
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana

Are you referring to Harper and Mulroney in your own party?

Gee, I could lend MI my, “The Canadian Encyclopedia” collection, published in 1985 but then there is still a 20 year gap.
I could help and recruit one of my kids. They have extensively travelled every province and territory on my dime so they actually lived the life of a Canadian, those other 20 years.

What? Just off the top of my head, our former member in Davenport, the late Charles Caccia, was elected 10 consecutive terms.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=328b9cb9-24ea-4602-abb8-ff33227c2f3f&Language=E&MenuID=Lists.Members.aspx&MenuQuery=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.parl.gc.ca%2FParlinfo%2FLists%2FMembers.aspx%3FParliament%3D%26Riding%3D%26Name%3Dc%26Party%3D%26Province%3D%26Gender%3D%26New%3DFalse%26Current%3DFalse%26Picture%3DFalse%26Language%3DE

Terry1, if you're still around, please refresh my memory. I believe a few threads back (which one, I can't remember) you said something to the effect that this Conservative Party is NOT like the previous Conservative Party, i.e. the PC. Now, you're saying “Harper and Mulroney in your own party.” So which is it?

Oh, and by the by … in the previous thread you said “… ideology is good in church and not in public life where 80% of the people don't want or need it. …”
I wonder how Liberal MP Rob Oliphant, a United Church minister, feels about your dogmatic POV. I only point out his name because he happens to be on CPAC right at this moment being interviewed by Catherine Clark.

So who are the ideologues again? Methinks the fickle finger of fate points to one Terry1.

http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article...

And it showcased a party that – even in the absence of the former prime minister – is increasingly reverting to the old habits of the Mulroney era.

He ran as a LIberal not a minister. the Liberla party is one where religion is tolerated but is clearly not part of their makeup.

the ideologues reside right within your party.

I don’t know what happened to my comment.

Charles Caccia was elected to 10 consecutive terms.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=328b9cb9-24ea-4602-abb8-ff33227c2f3f&Language=E&MenuID=Lists.Members.aspx&MenuQuery=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.parl.gc.ca%2FParlinfo%2FLists%2FMembers.aspx%3FParliament%3D%26Riding%3D%26Name%3Dc%26Party%3D%26Province%3D%26Gender%3D%26New%3DFalse%26Current%3DFalse%26Picture%3DFalse%26Language%3DE

Did Trudeau pretend he wasn't Canadian when he traveled out of the country?

These attack ads are not saying that Mr.Ignatieff is less of a Canadian or anyone else that has been or is outside the country for whatever reason. All they are saying is that the reason he has come back to Canada is that he wants to become the Prime minister period. So anything else is just political spin and they know it. Some say that the Conservative party should not be running attack ads. Well I say to that baloney! The government gets attacked all the time in question period. Do the Liberals just expect that the government to do nothing and just take the abuse? That’s just absurd! If you attack someone you have to expect that they will respond in kind.

When the Conservatives were in opposition they didn’t use attack ads. That’s because they didn’t have to. They had question period to attack the Liberal government of the day. Where the opposition has control what the questions they will be asking with parliamentary immunity where they could say absolutely anything they want without any consequence what’s so ever,but I’m babbling here now LOL!

I suspect James Moore has better and more important things to do.

I’ve finally put my finger on why I don’t totally love the Conservative ads: they let Ignatieff off too easy. I seem to recall him granting his Newfoundland and Labrador MPs a “special dispensation” to vote against the federal budget he was so ready to back because they said it wasn’t “fair” to Newfoundland. Sounds to me like they threatened to publicly undermine him, and he couldn’t have that.

I think a person who does that is “not a leader.” I also don’t think we should let Canadians forget his blatant hypocrisy on this issue.

Wilson everything you post is garbage which is why I rarely answer your nonsense.

Stephen, here is another fact of the day for you.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/639152

“… the Liberla [sic] party is one where religion is tolerated but is clearly not part of their makeup. …”

Terry1, you'd better get your talking points straight.
You apparently missed this:
http://www.cfrb.com/node/928171
“Michael Ignatieff finds his religious voice
Wed, 2009-05-13 14:50.
Brian Lilley
Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal Party will be giving a speech to a religious conference on Faith and the Sustainable Economy. From the website of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
Join the Forum on Faith and the Economy, Ottawa
The EFC and the Canadian Council of Churches are together sponsoring a lunchtime roundtable discussion on “Faith and Sustainable Economy” with MPs from all four political parties on May 12 as part of the CCC's weeklong meetings in Ottawa of the CCC Commission on Justice and Peace. Liberal party leader Michael Ignatieff will speak on “What Difference do Churches Make?” at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, 82 Kent Street on May 13 from 3 pm to 5 pm. The public are invited.”

See? The leader himself is trying to appeal to the “faith” community. Are you going to accuse him of being a religious fanatic or “ideologue” too?

Harper is #2, after only 3 years as PM, wow, and he hasn't even scored his majority…yet.
PMSH beats out Chretien, Mulroney and Martin for Best PM!

thanks for sharing terry1.

Wilson, typical of your inability to read all the facts…Harper was at 15% last year and is in a slide down not up.That's an almost 25% drop. Just imagine that drop in the popular vote next election By this time next year he will probably be at Kim Campbell's level of 1%.

A fine reminder for Terry1 to read the entire article – not just the headlines.

He's not simply appealing to the “faith” comunity. As a politician looking for votes he simply wants to be seen and hear by all voters. That does not make him a religious person nor does it make him a faith based candidate. Your imagination likes to run wild I always note.

if you will notemy response to woilson you will see that I did read the whole article…you should have as well instead of taking your poorly aimed pot shots.

Hunter also crunched the numbers for Iggy. Direct quote: “… Iggy gets praised because he was living out of our country for more years then he has been alive,…”

Must be true!

Hunter also crunched the numbers. “Iggy gets praised because he was living out of our country for more years then he has been alive…”

So KA if harper is aleader why is he hated so much by so many? Is that due to good leadership?

Note to Terry. If you are willing to state Toronto star editorials and articles provide proof, be prepared to give the Toronto sun the same credibility when discussing Liberal issues.

Terry, if you would like to discuss the merits of the GM pension plan and bailouts, as a 30+ year CAW member I will be happy to debate you. There are several things wrong with the article you allude to.

And by the way, the GM pension fund is the SOLE OBLIGATION of the Ontario provincial government, due to a guy named Bob Rae.

I quote whatever newspaper gives me the right news. I have quoted the sun often as well as the NP and the G&M.

I know where the obligation lies but Harper is joining in with Ontario on that bailout. I do believe that GM should be allowed to live or die with market forces. I don't see Ford, Toyota or Honda looking for government cash.

See Terry, right away you have your facts wrong. Both Honda and Toyota received close to a billion in tax defferrals, free land, tax-exempt grace periods, government paid worker traing , discounts on utility costs and more to open plants in southern Ontario, effectively putting GM, Ford, and Chrysler at a disadvantage.

Next problem you have is both Toyota and Honda have asked for billions in bailouts from the Japanese governments. Matter of fact Terry almost all countries have provided bailout cash for the auto sector.

Next….

TOKYO — Honda Motor Co. said it is seeking a government loan to help shore up funds at its U.S. operations, becoming the latest Japanese auto maker to ask for Tokyo's help in doing business abroad.

The development comes one day after the financial arm of Toyota Motor Corp., the world's largest auto maker by sales, said it is in talks with the Japan Bank for International Cooperation to line up financing.

Actually Terry, yiou have the facts wrong, go back and reread the article. The 15% was in refeerence to worst PM, not best PM. Take a look at the data in the last line as well and you will see the reason for the increase compared with the previous poll.

So he has gone from 15% saying he is the worst PM to 22%….that's even worse than my original number….his popularity is now down almoat 50% in one year.

” The poll indicates polarization of opinion about Harper. More than one-fifth (22 per cent) say he has been Canada's worst prime minister since 1968, the most of any leader, and slightly more than the 19 per cent who give that dubious distinction to Mulroney.

The percentage of those who say Harper ranks as the worst prime minister in the past four decades has shot up rapidly in the past year. In June 2008, only 15 per cent said he was the worst prime minister.”

Sorry for the earlier mistake.LOL

I don't have my facts wrong and will get back to that when I have more time. the best subsidies would have been to give the consumer a tax break, equal to the subsidies, to buy NA/Canadian built cars and they would decide who could survive and not a bunch of union thugs putting extreme political pressure on governments.

Financing is not a subsidy.

Once again you have completely misunderstood what I said. Show me where I said Michael Ignatieff is “a religious person.”

I simply wanted to correct your wildly erroneous perception ans statements to the effect that the Conservative Party is full of religious fanatics, whereas “… the Liberla [sic] party is one where religion is tolerated but is clearly not part of their makeup. …” [your words from a previous comment].

Since you have now backtracked by saying “As a politician looking for votes he simply wants to be seen and heard by all voters” I sincerely hope you will apply the same yardstick to the PM if he happens to meet with a “faith” community.

As for my imagination running wild, thanks for the compliment.
“The great instrument of moral good is the imagination.” Percy Bysshe Shelley.

Pardon me while I cut and post from the previous thread, but the comment is relevant here as well:

“Many voters in this country did not live through any of these events, thus these events have little meaning to them – does this mean they are not qualified to choose the Prime Minister?

Where do we draw the line here – you can vote even though you have not experienced major events that apparently define Canada, but you can not be the PM if you were not here for those events? Doesn't that logic actually exclude the interests and priorities of a large number of voters?

I must admit that I thought Ignatieff's attempt to make these ads into an attack on new Canadians was just a diversion, but with arguments like this one I think he might have a point.”

I must say I thought that video was quite amusing. Apparently Gretzky's hockey career makes us “Canadian”. Of course, he spent most of that career in the US, which is where Ignatieff spent part of his career, so…

Pierre also parachuted into a riding he never lived in before, coming straight from Alberta to Ottawa. He never finished university, never held a real job beyond an internship with Magna he won in an essay writing contest.

So if its OK for Pierre to run for office some place he has NEVER lived for more than two months, I think Iggy can run someplace he lived for 28 years.

Oh, was that not the comparison you were going for?

I don’t vote Liberal. I don’t even vote because I find government immoral. But you guys are truly pathetic if you think this even makes a difference. Conservatives are even bigger liars and cheats than Liberals, and that’s saying something.

And you only confirm my beliefs that all parties and their supporters are, deep down, authoritarian prigs who shouldn’t be given the right to run an ice cream stand, let a lone a country.

i never backtracked one bit. However, you will have to admit that the regressive part of the reformatory party were all cut from the same cloth. Manning and Stock day were/are religious fundamentalists and while Harper conceals it he is one of them as are most MP's from that side of the party.

Harper always says God bless Canada after every speech. Iggy does not as an example.

The Liberal party prides itself on being non religious and very secular in its philosophy.

Shelley was a brilliant poet but he was pretty damn immoral himself.

Gayle, another irony is that the ads are mostly being played on hockey night in Canada with two American teams playing using many foreign born players.

Toyota follows other automakers seeking government help as sales plunge worldwide. GM has received $13.4 billion (about R140.5 billion) in US aid and is seeking more to keep operations in its home market running through February.

France granted Peugeot Citroën and Renault a total of €6 billion (R79.4 billion) in five-year loans in January.

In the UK, vehicle makers are seeking support for their finance units from the Bank of England. Mitsubishi has received subsidies from Japan's ministry of health, labour and welfare to help pay wages.

By the way Terry, Toyota lost more in the last fiscal quarter than GM. Nissan is in serious trouble and has already received government aid. Much of the gloomy job losses coming from the U.S. are related to the auto sector. I'll find the link for the job losses Canada would face if one of the Big 3 folded, it's astronomical.

Yes Terry, it's ironic youe mentioned that. Hockey Night in CANADA!!

I wouldn't loan it to him Bec. Next thing you know he leaves the country again and you have to wait over 30 years to get your book back.

And yet he is still ahead of every Liberal PM other than Trudeau as the best. Says a lot about Chretien, no?

Proud Canadian: “When the Conservatives were in opposition they didn't use attack ads.”

Good point. They “attacked” in Question Period.

The Liberals have an equal opportunity every day to attack the government — so, what's their beef?

“If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time and you would achieve nothing.”
— Margaret Thatcher

Michael Ignatieff is just setting out to be liked.

Not a leader.

Couldn't the party at least have notaleader.ca redirect to Ignatieff.me? That would be an excellent way to send a message. It's a blank page right now.

I ALSO MENTIONED THAT IT IS ONLY AMERICAN TEAMS PLAYING ….many with canadian expats.

I should have added the word mistrust about Harper as in hated and mistrusted. Thatcher was trusted to do the right thing. Chretin is disliked becasue he did the right things which were all tough but had to be after the Mulroney debacle and he won 3 majorities in a row.

Iggy is not running to be liked;he's running to replace someone who is broadly disliked and that makes the difference in perception about him.

As I said in an earlier post…Harper will down there with kim Campbell in about a year at 1%.

they do attack in palriament and the government side attacks back…..so what's your point?

I'm sure there is no point except to defend stupidity and desperation.

You are entirely correct, Terry1. Ignatieff pretty much says “***k Canada. I'm only here for myself”. Harper, on the other hand, wants only the best for Canada and since he is a man of faith, he calls upon his diety to bless our country. I'd rather have a PM who wants the best for our country than one who wants the best OF our county…for himself. God Bless Canada.

How would you know what is the “right” news (I note that you did not use the word 'correct' but, rather, the word 'right' – freudian slip?) if you are not there, personally, for every event that you quote?

Poilievre is an MP for a riding in Canada, where he lived his entire life. Ignatieff wants to be PM of a country which he absented for most of his adult life. You made a technically correct point but…the two men are worlds apart when it comes to what they seek.

Uh oh, did the universe just tilt? I actually agree with one of Terry1's points – the one about letting the market dictate GM's fate. Holey moley, what just happened here? Seriously, Terry, do you think that if Harper let that happen the Libs and NDP would just let it slide? I believe, although I have no proof, that if Harper had a majority, there is a 50% chance he would let GM survive or die on its own. As for the pensions, the Ontario government has an obligation thanks to Bob Rae. The pensioners should not have to suffer because Ontario made the stupid mistake of electing that particular government. I think that as long as Rae is a senior member of the LPC, the party may be carrying a liability. It is a testament to a swollen ego that a dismal failure as Premier should think that he could lead a national party to victory. One thing I'll say in Ignatieff's favour is that he managed to push Rae to the side – at least publicly.

All political leaders are hated by many for periods of time. There were many who hated Chretien, Mulroney, Pearson, Trudeau…etc. and I'm sure many hate Ignatieff, Rae, McGuinty, Harris…etc. What's the point of your comment? Heck, even Clinton who was one of the best Presidents, was hated by many. All leaders have their hate segments. In my 56 years on the planet, I've never known one who was not hated by some people. Even Kennedy was reviled by some.

My, are you desperate for a “comparison” to Ignatieff on the absentee Canadian front! Gretzky made his mark in Canada as a phenom in the game of hockey. He went to the US to continue his career, he would have preferred to remain in Canada. He also spent a great deal of time here off season with his family, still does. He's not aspiring to lead Canada as PM but he'd be more in touch with Canada, the rank and file citizenry than the Count if he were.

Ignatieff, spent “part of his career in the US” he spent another part in Britain, married and had a family there,we can assume his kids are dual citizens. Not much to compare I'm afraid.

In fact Ignatieff has to take a break from his pressing duties to swan off to Bermuda for this break week. So typical of the Upper Crust attitude, send the MP's off to work in their ridings, do the grunt work, hoping he can cash in on the rewards should they be able to gain a few points, so he can effortlessly become King of the Hill.

It's not about being here for the events, it's to emphasize all these events took place in the time span Ignatieff wasn't here. It was a generation plus, most Canadians never even heard of the erstwhile professor.

The man is an opportunist. It's more about him than about what's best for Canada. The Liberals needed a Mannequin to put in the window, they had nothing in the store. That will become clearer as the truth ads continue.

Chretin … did the right things …

i can't believe my eyes. how about a list of the RIGHT things he did, other than:
- not abolish the GST
- not bring in universal childcare.

“stupidity and desperation”, that sounds like you terry1.

Stephen,

Perhaps you can clear something up for me. According to biographical accounts of Michael Ignatieff, he left in 1978 and returned in 2005. For him to be gone for 34 years he’d have had to leave in 1971. Yet he was a professor at UBC until 1978. Are they counting time he was absent during his days when his father was a diplomat?

No, it is not relevant. In fact, your cut and paste has no bearing on the topic. Sorry, Gayle, your attempt to veer us off the topic and onto something unrelated just didn't work. Nice try, though.

Gretzky – relevant to this discussion. Snort. Good grief. Hockey is hockey no matter where it is played. Running a country without knowing it is quite another. Snort. Grasp at a lot of straws, lately? Snort.

Nice try, though. Try again some other time. I have to say, Gayle, that your hiatus seems to have dulled your ability to post relevant comments. What happened during your time away? You have not been the same since you returned.

Oh Liz, have you stooped so low that you feel need to respond to a minor amusing point?

Who cares what happened while Ignatieff was not here – if they are relevant to the good governance of this country then you have to consider how many people vote who were not here, or born, when those events occured.

If the best criticism you can muster is that he took a position in a prestigious university or two (which no Canadian university can match, by the way), then I suggest you do not have much.

As for your opportunist complaint, I defy you to find me a politician who is not an opportunist – or have you already forgotten the unneccessary election, called in violation of the fixed election date laws in order to ensure the timing was at the maximum benefit for the conservative party, costing the taxpayers 30 million dollars.

But I guess in your little world that is totally different…

Who among the opposition respects the the fixed election date law? Did the coalition of Libs, Dips and Separatistes consider those laws?

Chretien called elections when he knew he could win as opposed to the necessity for one. Tell us all Chretien didn't tell a whopper of a lie to ensure he would win….. GST? “It's gone”!

Being given an opportunity most of us know our limitations and suitability for the offer at hand and make our decisions on those grounds. He had no intention of returning to Canada before being lured with the promise of big things, leadership and the opportunity to be the PM of the country he chose not to live in for decades. It hardly seems unreasonable to question his motives which many of us think is more for personal gain.

I'm concerned about his accepting this opportunity, assuming he is fit to take the reins of power without living here or having a scintilla of experience in politics.

Events happen, we are mentioning them to emphasize the time span he was away from Canada, is that so difficult to get? We're talking a generation plus here, not a decade.

Your comment about “my little world” is so typical of the condescending arrogance you're noted for on the blogs you're allowed to comment on.

It's sad that even today Liberals like Terry just can't let go of the vision and dream of Trudeau's Canada.

There must have been something pretty funky in that koolaid..

Way to totally miss the point, yet again.

Here is what I said:

“I defy you to find me a politician who is not an opportunist…”

To which you responded by pointing out other politicians are opportunists – so thanks for proving my point.

As for the rest, yes, I get it. He committed the great sin of having such a great intellect that the best universities in the world hired him to teach there. And to you that means he would be a terrible PM.

Oh, and what an awful man – actually wanting to be Prime Minister. Show me someone who wants to be Prime Minister and I will show you someone who is in it for personal gain. Why, even the great Harper was prepared to create divisions in this country when his power was threatened by the coalition – prepared to fan the flames of separatism all because he feared his residence at 24 Sussex was about to be taken away from him.

See, what you do not get is that a lot of us have lived out of the country – and those of us who have never considered ourselves anything but a Canadian. Not only that, but those of us who attended university were taught by professors from other countries – professors who live in Canada, but who claim citizenship and affinity with their countries of origin.

But, as I say, if this is the worst thing you can find about Ignatieff, I think he is doing OK.

So much for your Try holier than thou BS:
there is our current Conservative government, which seems to be run by aging schoolboys with a penchant for calling names. The country is facing serious economic problems, but our Conservative leadership thinks the important thing to tell the public is that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has spent much of his life outside the country. Good for Ignatieff for getting out in the big world and making a success of himself. More Canadians should do the same.

The fact that Stephen Harper and his gang think success in the world is a weakness tells us a lot about them. These are the small thinkers who don't get the arts, don't get science and have no plan for our economy beyond building roads and bailing out failed automakers. Ignatieff's advice that the Conservatives should “grow up” and do their jobs properly was the smartest thing he could have said.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tory+grip+mor...

That's typical of right wing nut bars…all are hypocrites and telling the truth or taking bribes is ok for them but not others.

of course you quote me in an incomeplete sentence….Chretien eleiminated a $43BB tory deficit and made the country prosperous once again and now we ge tto watch Harpercrite squander that wealth. GST would have been abolished but Martin convinced his party that GST was needed at that time. He went about his THREE TERM MAJORITY in a very orderly manner. Harper will never ever see one majority and most like will never win another election,thank the stars.

Beer and popcorn…I have long ago let go of the Trudeau legacy and put it amongst my finest memories.

However, now I, and all Canadians, am living the ultimate nightmare and his name is Harper.

http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/485594

Iggy threw out the gauntlet..the war is on.

Here you go nasty Tory boys and girls..the Liberal hit man has spoken now that he is back on his feet.
Warren Kinsella:

I'm heading back from CTV, where Tim Powers, Brad Lavigne and I did a Question Period panel thing with the legendary Craig Oliver – and the ad stuff came up. Craig wanted to know why the Reformatories (my word, not his) are resorting to attacks on a good man's character.

“Because they're scared,” I said. “Because they don't know what else to do. We're beating them badly – we're whipping them, in fact. And people don't like their ads. They're bringing in tons of money for us and tons of new members. So the Conservatives are reverting to type.”

But does that mean we'll just let them get away with it? No way. At the right time and place – and in the right way – we'll give them a beating they won't ever forget.

That's a promise.

That's our boy, Warren!! He doesn't take crap from Tories and their overinflated egos.

We are not talking about a myriad of other people, we are talking about a person who has accepted the opportunity to become the PM after living abroad for a very long time. It appears more for personal gain than for the good of the country.
This is only a part of it. He's being handled and carried along by the cadre who recruited him, he doesn't do well winging it . He's the epitome of contradiction calling the factual ads attack ads. If the truth is an attack, what's left?

Lust for power award goes to Paul Martin, he got it, after salivating for it for decades then he blew it with a frenzied trek across the country spewing a barrage of lies about Mr Harper with comments such as Harper doesn't have Canadian values, etc.
Sad end for Martin for whom there were great expectations among Liberals and others.

Stephen Harper enjoys the job, he has said so. He also has said when the people decide otherwise he will move on and doesn't plan on writing any book about how someone did him wrong. He is the best person in Canadian politics to be PM at this time, we are lucky to have him.

Blah, blah,blah…

People who run for the highest office in the land are by definition egotisitical. You have to have a big ego to think you can lead a country.

Harper is no different from any who came before him or from any who will come after.

(and if lying about your opponent makes you unfit for office, Harper should have resigned years ago)

What a great man that WK is. He has to prove it by quoting himself and giving people a blow-by-blow description of his interruptions … er … interventions, in case anyone missed his pearls of wisdom.

Gayle said to Liz J:
“If the best criticism you can muster is that he took a position in a prestigious university or two (which no Canadian university can match, by the way) …”
Oh, I hope you're not denigrating our own Canadian universities … or are you?

On Ignatieff's lack of Canadian experiences, i.e. not having lived here for 34 years.
What about all the people who were not born yet and thus did not experience some or most of those pivotal historic events, Gayle asks.
• Well, how many of those people were parachuted into a safe Liberal riding?
• Immediately ran for the leadership of the party, and lost, probably rejected by some party members because he was considered an interloper?
• Was given a consolation prize as Deputy Leader in the shadow cabinet?
• Saw another opening for the leadership, and was awarded the crown with no opposition?
• How many of those same “inexperienced” young people are vying for the keys to Sussex?
• And how many of those same people said that if they couldn't make it here, they'd go back to their old stomping grounds?

Cue Old York, Old York (with apologies to ol’ Blue Eyes)
“Start spreading the news, I’ve headed your way
I want to be part of it – Old York, Old York.
These vagabond shoes are longing to stray
Right through the very heart of it – Old York, Old York!

I wanna wake up in a city that lets me sleep
And find I’m king of the hill, top of the heap.

These little town Blues are blocking my way
I’ll make a brand new start of it – in ol' Old York
If I can’t make it there, I’ll go make it elsewhere
It’s up to you – Old York, Old York!

Old York, Old York
I want to wake up in a city that’s half asleep
And find I’m A-number One, top of the list, king of the hill
A-number One!“

At least he doesn't hide behind some rock like the tory attack ad writers do.

here's another fact of the day…the Tories are going to get whipped in Quebec:
The Léger poll indicates that the Harper government's support in Quebec remains at only 13 per cent, which could possibly wipe out most of its 10 seats in the province were an election held today.

“This is catastrophic for the Conservatives,” said Jean-Marc Léger, president of Léger Marketing. “Poll after poll shows they are losing ground. It will be a tough time for them.”

He said the numbers indicate that if a federal election were held today, Conservative losses in Quebec would mean that the Liberals would likely form a minority government.

The low number represents a precipitous Tory drop from last year's high. Only eight months ago, polls indicated support for the Conservatives in Quebec was at 35 per cent, narrowly surpassing its main rival, the Bloc Québécois, with the Liberals a distant third.

Now, however, the Liberals have outpaced them both. Liberal support has climbed to 37 per cent while the Bloc appears stalled at 33 per cent.

The overall popularity of the Conservative government also remains low, with only 22 per cent of respondents saying they are satisfied.

Léger pointed out that even during the height of the sponsorship scandal, the Liberals' popularity never sank below 30 per cent.

The poll also shows that only 10 per cent of Quebec voters say Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a good leader, placing him a distant fourth among major party leaders.

Support for the Liberal Party coincides with the rising popularity of its new leader, Michael Ignatieff.

While it might be too early to tell, the poll seems to indicate that recent Conservative attack ads, which began just as the poll was taken, have had little or no impact on Ignatieff's rise in popularity.

He polled the highest support of the four major party leaders at a lukewarm 29 per cent. Second place went to Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe at 23 per cent. Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party, was third at 17 per cent.

“We face an economic crisis and people want an alternative, and the only real alternative is Michael Ignatieff,” Léger said. “Overall, they want to give him a chance, they want to like him. The main question is, is he likeable? They don't know yet.”

VOTER INTENTIONS

Léger Marketing surveyed 1,053

Quebecers from May 13 to 17.

Here is a look at voting intentions on the federal front.

IF A FEDERAL ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY:

Francophones Non-francophones Total

Liberal Party 32% 58% 37%

Bloc Québécois 40% 4% 33%

New Democratic Party 14% 16% 14%

Conservative Party 11% 19% 13%

Green Party 3% 3% 3%

Other 0% 0% 0%

Does that make Gabby from QC the last standing Tory in La Belle Province

Wow, what a country we'd have if the Ignatieff Liberals were to win power over the outrageous EI scheme they're proposing. What would sustain it? Who would pay the people across the country who could work the stated number of hours/days then lay off for the rest of the year? This is a form of freeloading on the working, taxpaying people and the employers. What sort of country would result from such a mad scheme? It's going to entice a lot of people to get employment for the required period and get pogy for the rest of the year. Some may even come out of retirement.

Why is Quebec so gung-ho about the idea? Is there any connection to this mindset and the fact that resource rich province has remained “have-not”?

Most of your complaints are internal LPC issues, and in any event you have not explained why any of those issues means he is not qualified to be Prime Minister. It sounds like you are scrambling to find some reason to criticize the man.

He is arrogant too – but that does not disqualify him either.

Oh, and he has bushy eyebrows…

PS – pointing out the fact that no university in Canada is as prestigious as Harvard or Oxford does not mean I am denigrating Canadian universities.

But I think you know that…

You are aware that Harper is lying about the LPC plan on EI reform, right?

You are the one who suggested lying about your opponent disqualifies one from the office of PM after all.

Au contraire my good lady.

We are indeed living the worst nightmare – Trudeau's and Cretin's Canada, but Mr Harper is doing everything he can to clean it up after so many dark and corrupt years .

Take a deep breath and relax over there Terry – you're in good hands with Harper.

B&C…The Quebec poll out thbis morning says that 90% of people in that province do not agree with you. It will be the same elsewhere as well pretty soon except for the blind mice in Alberta.

I know this will come as no surprise to many but here's the real story on the future of this conservative non government:

THE MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL STORY IN THE COUNTRY THIS MORNING

——————————————————————————–

Monday, May 25, 2009, 08:41 AM
…is not the EI sabre-rattling stuff, or the Leger poll in Quebec, or yet more commentary about the Reformatory ad misfire. All of those stories are interesting, but I don't think they are necessarly surprising.

The Big Story is the story bearing this headline in today's Hill Times: “CONSERVATIVES COULD LOSE NEXT ELECTION, CABINET STAFFERS SCOUTING FOR NEW JOBS”

If you read any political yarn today, read this one by Abbas Rana in the Hill Times. It gives you the real picture – and that is, senior Conservatives know they are going to lose the coming election, and therefore their jobs. So they are voting with their feet.

Those of us who work in this business have been seeing an increasing number of Con CVs landing in email in-boxes in recent months. Abbas' story is the first to confirm that blue staffers are making a rush to the lifeboats on the Harper-piloted Titanic.

For those of them who cannot find work, I wonder if they'll be revising their opinions about EI eligibility rules?

The Liberal response to the so-called “attack ads” (which only the Libs and the Lib-loving media call them) has been so very weak and unconvincing. Why? because they are based on facts, and even have video of Iggy the (arrogant) American. All the Conservatives need to do further, is produce another ad, something to the effect that….can you imagine if an American wanted to run for President, who had been absent from the USA for 34 of the last 38 years? Why, they'd throw them out on their butt so fast they wouldn't know what hit em.
Also notice in how the MSM on TV showing Iggy's latest finger-wagging the Liberal faithful in his most professorial way……the media cuts right at the end of the finger-wagging, because they don't want people to see the LACK OF applause, by even the Liberal faithful. The MSM is such a lapdog for the Liberals and Iggy, it is truly pathetic; and a sad statement on “journalism” in Canada

You believe in fairy tales and unicorns to.

Cynical viewer….I ahve been to several Iggy 'finger wagging” events and in every one of them he gets standing ovations. Your cheap shot lies don't hold water.

Where is Harper lying about EI “reform”?
One thing we do know the Liberals used the fund to bolster their surplus.

The LPC plan is temporary, but Harper is condemning it as though it were a permanent measure.

Gayle, the only thing I scramble is eggs.

Look, I'm not denying Mr. Ignatieff's considerable achievements; they would be an asset under different circumstances. Were he hired to become chancellor/dean at one of our own prestigious universities, it would be considered a coup (in the positive sense of the word). But leading a university is not the same as leading a country, especially one as difficult to govern as Canada.

Having someone who's spent most of his working life outside the country presuming to move into 24 Sussex practically unopposed – sorry, that shows monumental self-importance.

In case you're interested, I part company with my conservative friends when they criticize Ignatieff as just an academic, or an intellectual snob, or even for his taste in coffees (I'm partial to espresso myself). Those are not the points that disqualify him, IMO.

What does disqualify him is that he has not paid his dues here, neither in this country nor within his own party. He has not worked his way up the ranks. Regardless of whether you think the events I listed previously, and some others I did not, are relevant or not, I believe they are part of our Canadian psyche and our Canadian experience, which Ignatieff missed out on, he did not live through.

The time for philosopher kings is past.

Terri – Dion (remember him – the guy you prediced would be Prime Minister right now?) also polled well, about the same numbers after his election and you got just as excited. His Quebec numbers jumped and Liberal$ got excited about making a quick return to the fast track to Trudeau's Canada.

But then something happened didn't it. Canadians began to think about putting the Liberals back into power and its implications. They also began to see how strong a leader Harper has been.

Terri – polls go up, polls go down but one thing remains the same.

Canadians don't trust the Liberals.

Liz J hysterical….in your logic the GST as a separate tax should not go into general revenues either.

Give your hysteria a rest.

Liz J. Hysterical… so now you're saying no other party would have respected the 4 year election law. What a hoot. So, one day Mr. harpercrite says to his people ” I don't think the opposition respects our law so lets break it and have an election. you are simlpy covering up the fact he broke his own law and furthermore he brought the Liberals back to life and is now desperately trying to attack their new leader. It ain't working and it won't. Iggy is getting all the free publicity in rim shots that get reported on all newscasts and in all newspapers. He has taken his responses to the public so they can decide on him themselves while harpercrite hides behind a rock.

Brian Mulroney became Prime Minister without ever sitting as an MP first, did he not?

I understand you think people need to do certain things to “deserve” being Prime Minister. You are certainly entitled to that opinion.

Personally I am more interested in whether or not he will be a good Prime Minister – parachuted in or not. While I may not want to invite him over for supper, I have no problem with him running our country. I think we would be well served by him.

If massive egos disqualified someone from being Prime Minister we would never have anyone running for the position.

B&P, Unfortunately you are dyslexic I think. My name is TERRY and not TERRI and I am a hetrosexual male.

Dion was framed by Harper and the Libs won't let that happen to Iggy. Dion took it lying down because in the end he believed,wrongly, that people would see he was a good leader.

The war room in the LPC is preparing to tsker some pretty good shots at Harper and his record and will have him framed as an abject failure. Untrue you will say then but they will be facts about his lies and possibly even Cadman type stuff.

Harpercrite has failed canadians twice now and won't get a third chance. He is not a leader or servant of the people.

Here's another fact of the day:

Steven Chase and Kevin Carmichael

Chelsea, Que. — The Globe and Mail, Monday, May. 25, 2009 04:30PM EDT

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is warning Canadians the federal budget deficit will be “substantially higher” than originally forecast.

He made the announcement Monday after meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts at Meech Lake in an attempt to hammer out a unified strategy for tacking growing concerns over pension security and retirement savings.

The sharp economic downturn has hammered Ottawa's coffers, drastically lowering the amount of corporate and personal income tax the government is collecting.

This deepening deficit threatens to plunge the government into record levels of red ink. A mounting deficit will also push Canada further into debt, increasing the national mortgage that Canadians will have to eventually pay off.
…………………………………………………………………………………

Gee, and this brilliant government cut the GST so we could all have fun now and pay later. What a bunch of ideological and populist clowns these tories are. They don't have a clue and are worse than the NDP at fiscal responsibility.

Temporary is sometimes difficult to remove. Depending on how long it would be deemed necessary to remain in force, it could wreck havoc with many small business employers as well.

Can't imagine how EI could sustain huge numbers of people collecting from the plan after working only a bit over one month and laying off for the rest of the year.

We still don't know what has happened to the millions the Liberals used from EI to create their surplus. It has to have impacted it.

Fact of the day: Another Stephen Taylor thread hijacked by terry1. He should simply be ignored. He loves hearing himself talk and most of what he says is dribble. Don't stroke his ego. He thrives on it.

Re Ignatieff he says, “Iggy threw out the gauntlet..the war is on.” LOL. The expression is, he threw DOWN the gauntlet, but never mind.

35 of 98 comments are terry1's. That's a lot of hot air.

The conservative ads are facts as well – I guess that's why they hurt so much and you and the MSM are fighting them so hard eh Terri?!

What the hell are you ragging on about ?

Judging by the frenzied retorts you keep your little fingers busy clicking out you have it right with the word hysterical, that's exactly what you are.

batb….it simply takes that may posts to deflate the tory egos here. My ego says Harper must go and so do about 80% of other Canadians and 90% of Quebeckers.
.

Liz J Hysterical..take a valium and relax. Good liberal governance is coming your way.

I think you should explore what is “Ragging” here. Hysteria is a form of ragging. LOL

Here is the best fact for today:

Harper had risen to the post of justice-of-the-peace by the time a judicial enquiry found him guilty of, as one historian put it, “violent and oppressive measures” – vindictive to a point beyond all reason.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/this-country/

Terri – are you also a Canadian of convienience? You seem to be taking this pretty seriously?!

Who is Terri? I see terry1 here and that's all

I need some help here. Did I see an interview of Iggy by an American TV station in which he made some rather disparaging remarks about Canada.? Does any one have a copy of that ?

Gayle, that is still less than the Liberals stole from the Canadian people.

Terry What did Judge Gomery have to say about your boy Warren? Questionable activities?

More important is what the current inquiry will say about a tory PM taking cash in hotel rooms.

Anyone who admits they don’t vote is a fucking idiot. Go away.

“Brian Mulroney became Prime Minister without ever sitting as an MP first, did he not?”

No, actually Brian Mulroney was first elected in a 1983 by-election in Elmer Mackay's riding, vacated in his favour. However, he had been very active both in federal and provincial politics beginning in his university days. He gained a great deal of experience organizing campaigns and so on, so he indeed paid his dues.

We'll have to continue disagreeing on whether Ignatieff is a suitable candidate, though. I’m afraid his having a big enough ego is not a sufficiently convincing argument for me.

I am sorry, but I beg to differ (from Wiki):

“Mulroney was elected party leader on June 11, 1983, beating Clark on the fourth ballot. He attracted broad support from the many factions of the party and especially from representatives of his native Quebec. Two months later, Mulroney entered Parliament as the MP for Central Nova in Nova Scotia, winning a by-election in what was then considered a safe Tory seat after Elmer MacKay stood down in his favour.”

I notice that you are, yet again, (deliberately?) mischaracterizing my arguments. Of course I never said that having a big ego qualifies Ignatieff – rather I pointed out that ALL people who have been Prime Minister have had huge egos, and thus the fact Ignatieff is egotistical hardly disqualifies him for the job.

I do like it when we are polite, but perhaps you could do me the courtesy of responding to what I actually said.

Thanks

The Conservatives ran an operating surplus; the deficit you are talking about was interest on Pierre Trudeau’s debts, calculated at the usurious interest rates he left behind him.

Chretien did the right thing. Like his hotel deal, Adscam, APEC summit, the billion-dollar boondoggle, the firearms registry (why is the cost benefit analysis a cabinet secret?), government contracts for no work, I could go on and on.

But don’t let the truth get in the way of your spin.

Sorry for the repetition, but it's necessary.
You said: “Brian Mulroney became Prime Minister without ever sitting as an MP first, did he not?”

And I said not quite. Let's review the chronology.
1. Brian Mulroney became leader of the PCs in June 1983, as you rightly pointed out.
2. Two months later, i.e. sometime in August 1983, Mulroney won the Central Nova by-election, thus becoming an MP.
3. The next federal election was held on September 4, 1984. That is when Brian Mulroney became PM. So he sat as an MP for some 13 months prior to becoming PM.

I.e, Brian Mulroney did not become “Prime Minister without ever sitting as an MP first” as you stated.

And Gayle, please get over your complex that people – in this case, me – are trying to twist your words. You said something which was inaccurate, and I corrected your inaccuracy, that's all.

As for the ego thing, it would help if you could discern a little mild sarcasm now and then. I know you did not state “Ignatieff has a big ego therefore he’s good PM potential.”
I simply responded to your general premise that ALL PMs have had big egos, reducing it from the general (all PMs) to the particular (Ignatieff). IMO, big ego or not, he’s still not prime ministerial material because of what I’ve already stated in previous comments.

The hour is late here in QC, so we’ll have to argue another day.

Maybe Stephen will one day see the light and change the format from these dreadful threaded conversations, where the space for replies keeps getting narrower and narrower!

I love headlines like these:

“Grits figure campaign will put Harper on pogey”

Don Martin's column

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/fp/Grits+...

Once again, Terry1, it would be wise to read beyond headlines:
Don Martin:
“It's an insanely generous nanny-state concept. …
Price tag for this benefits bonanza, if ever implemented: $1 billion, maybe more.
But hard times and ease of understanding may turn this imprudent policy into shrewd election politics. …
… crafting a one-size-fits-all benefits structure has a simplistic appeal.
But just 360 hours to qualify? For a benefit payment period that's just shy of a year? Come on, that's a bit rich, even for Liberals. …
… there are many better ways to reform the system, starting with the Conservatives' re-announced $500-million to stretch benefits for long-term workers … “

These statistics are arbitrary garbage. First off, the Tories are back up in the recent polls to 35%. Which means 65% (not 80!) of Canadians don't have the Conservatives as their first choice. But you know what that means? Even more Canadians don't have the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, or Greens as their first choice. Second, using Quebec seems pretty arbitrary too when you consider that the Conservatives are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out in front in the four western provinces while the Liberals are way behind.

Not too sure what you're getting at other than proving you are completely full of it. There are a lot of notable Liberal supporters that I can at least respect in a debating forum… you are not one of them, especially as your “evidence” is so easily refuted.

Alex, First of all percentages don't equate to actual numbers of people. They are modelled after ridings and population segments in the various regions of the country. The Quebec poll is very accurate because it polled 1003 people in Quebec only with a very small margin of error and there is more than one poll to concur with those results. The federal one has over a 6% margin of error in each province/region and several other polls still have the Libs ahead.

Refuting evidence is one thing..talking out of your southern brain is another issue.

Nice channel change, Theresa.

Fair enough. I should have said he became leader of the party without having sat as an MP first – since he refused to run as an MP after he lost the leadership race to Joe Clark. My point is the same though.

As for the word twisting, I was referring to the ego comment, not Mulroney.

It must be a challenge Terri to try and put a positive spin on poll results that are basically unchanged from the disasterous showing that the Liberals had under Dion.

It also must be tough when you see the mid 40's leadership numbers that Harper has (versus the same low 30's for Ignatieff) .

You are right – the numbers don't lie, but Liberals usually do in my experience.

Your welcome Eve

whine and cheese……
35% on average for the libs is higher than last last election but Harpercrites average of around 32% is much lower than October.

Harpercite is not anywhere near the high 40's in popularity…how about low teens as a more exact number.

Phil, you are another angry tory who likes to use the big lie. Check your statistics world wide in Trudeau's time…our debt and deficits were lower than almost all otyher western countries with high birth rates and baby boomers growing up. Trudeau put money into infrastructure to support the fast population growth and even found time to free us from the British crown among things he did.

Mulroney's numbers were much worse than his peers in other countries…..so go peddle your lies to other ignorant believers. Many of us do know the facts and call your stuff BS.
Mulroney finished off his kleptocracy by taking cash in a hotel room, from a known slug, while still in power.

Chretien and Martin put the country's finances on a very solid footing only to see the latest tory kleptomaniac rip us all off again.

Hows that for real facts.

Here's your real fact of the day. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty have turned a $19B surplus into a $50B deficit. That's a turnaround of $69 billion dollars.

You Tory folks keep hashing your canards, it's great to see that you've got your priorities straight.

What do you care?
You claim not to be a supporter of the Liberals ,NDP or Bloc.
But yet you troll around political sites desperately seeking attention.

Here's your real fact of the day. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty have turned a $19B surplus into a $50B deficit. That's a turnaround of $69 billion dollars.

You Tory folks keep hashing your canards, it's great to see that you've got your priorities straight.

What do you care?
You claim not to be a supporter of the Liberals ,NDP or Bloc.
But yet you troll around political sites desperately seeking attention.