Conservatives Headed For A Majority, Harper Says

[Aaron]

CBC

NIAGARA FALLS, ONT. - Stephen Harper says Canadians should throw their support behind the Conservatives if they want a majority government. He says there's no way the Liberals can win enough votes to form one.

"If Canadians want a strong majority, they should look at giving us that kind of a mandate," Harper said during a campaign stop in Niagara Falls, Ont.

"We're headed towards a national majority and I think we're getting closer to that all the time."

Recent polls suggest Harper's Conservatives are running neck-and-neck with the Liberals.

Harper suggested public opinion has shifted toward the Conservatives because Martin lacks a direction or vision for Canada. "We are providing a direction for this country," Harper said.

"There's no realistic possibility of getting a Liberal majority in this election," Harper said.

He also urged Quebecers angry at the Liberals to vote for the Conservatives instead of the Bloc Québécois, which holds a strong lead in the province.

Harper declined to discuss his plans should the Conservatives win a minority government, saying he expects more developments during the final two weeks of campaigning.

He did say he has had some consultations on a transition of government. "I've always had reserve plans and if things continue as planned, they will expand."

Any thoughts on this? Personally I think their giving themselves too much credit. At best they'll get a minority government, especially with the votes going to the Bloc in Quebec, and the votes for the NDP that are tradionally popular in the Maritimes. I just don't think that Canadians are disalusioned enough with the Liberals for the Conservatives to win big.

[Icehawk]

If Canadians want a strong majority, they should look at giving us that kind of a mandate,"

Why? so you can strip gays of their right to marry, take away women's right to choose, overrule Supreme court judicial decisions with the notwithstanding clause and than run the country back into deficit with your moronic fiscal platform?

We're headed towards a national majority and I think we're getting closer to that all the time

Only in your dreams you arrogant fuck.

We are providing a direction for this country

Yes, a direction straight back to the cretacious period where christian based "family values" trump common sense and human rights.

There's no realistic possibility of getting a Liberal majority in this election

Fuck, I cannot seriously believe this guy. Not only is he a bigot, but he's arrogant and overconfident as well.

[Darth Wong]

While Harper may be overconfident, I nevertheless smell the stench of death on the Liberal party. Harper, regardless of his personal flaws, is a far more poised and natural public orator than Martin, and he demonstrated this during the debates. He definitely came out of those debates strongly, in large part due to Martin's incompetence.

I can't say I'm pleased about the prospect of the Canapublican party gaining power, but perhaps if a majority of their seats are in Ontario, our MPs will moderate their agenda.

[Aaron]

While Harper may be overconfident, I nevertheless smell the stench of death on the Liberal party. Harper, regardless of his personal flaws, is a far more poised and natural public orator than Martin, and he demonstrated this during the debates. He definitely came out of those debates strongly, in large part due to Martin's incompetence.

I can't say I'm pleased about the prospect of the Canapublican party gaining power, but perhaps if a majority of their seats are in Ontario, our MPs will moderate their agenda.

I hope you're right, but is there any evidence to suggest that the Ontario MP's are less extreme than the western ones?

[Col. Crackpot]

While Harper may be overconfident, I nevertheless smell the stench of death on the Liberal party. Harper, regardless of his personal flaws, is a far more poised and natural public orator than Martin, and he demonstrated this during the debates. He definitely came out of those debates strongly, in large part due to Martin's incompetence.

I can't say I'm pleased about the prospect of the Canapublican party gaining power, but perhaps if a majority of their seats are in Ontario, our MPs will moderate their agenda.

welcome to the dark side my Canadian friend.

[J]

I can't say I'm pleased about the prospect of the Canapublican party gaining power, but perhaps if a majority of their seats are in Ontario, our MPs will moderate their agenda.

I sure hope so, the thought of the old Reform party gaining power as the new Conservative Alliance party scares the living shit out of me.

[Montcalm]

If by some weird luck Harper wins the election,he'll have to listen to the BQ bitching at everything he decide

[muse]

Speaking of the BQ, I have this feeling that a Conservative Alliance government will seriously piss off Quebec...it's hard to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing....

[Aaron]

Speaking of the BQ, I have this feeling that a Conservative Alliance government will seriously piss off Quebec...it's hard to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing....

Everything that doesn't benefit the BQ pisses them off. Their like spoiled brats that way. Personally I think it's a good thing, their platform after all is to seperate from Canada. Why should we give traitors any reason to be happy?

[Korvan]

While Harper may be overconfident, I nevertheless smell the stench of death on the Liberal party. Harper, regardless of his personal flaws, is a far more poised and natural public orator than Martin, and he demonstrated this during the debates. He definitely came out of those debates strongly, in large part due to Martin's incompetence.

I can't say I'm pleased about the prospect of the Canapublican party gaining power, but perhaps if a majority of their seats are in Ontario, our MPs will moderate their agenda.

I hope you're right, but is there any evidence to suggest that the Ontario MP's are less extreme than the western ones?

Actually, the Vancouver-Quadra Conservative rep is quite "liberal". He is for gay marriage and opposes any military involvement in Iraq. His background is spookingly similar to his Liberal counterpart and apparently they get along quite well.

Of course, in Vancouver there's a little bit of liberal hippiness in just about everyone. That goes away quickly once you get to BC's suburbs and rural areas. In the town I grew up in (Salmon Arm, located in central BC), my next-door neighbors were some of Canada's leading holocaust deniers.

[Icehawk]

An intersting development Michael Moore is speaking up warning against Harper and the swing to the right.

Although I disagree with his notion that supporting Martin also supports the right I nonetheless am very surprised and thankful for his support.

[Aaron]

CBC

OTTAWA - The Conservatives retracted a news release issued Friday with a headline reading: "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?" and later changed it to "How Tough is Paul Martin on Child Pornography?"

The release, which states "Martin says he's against child pornography, but his voting record proves otherwise," was sent out to media at 15:40 EDT and recalled an hour later.

Liberal Leader Paul Martin responded to the release saying, "This is a personal attack. I'm a father and a husband. This crossed the line and he should apologize."

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper admitted the language of the headline may have been somewhat strong, but he didn't backtrack on his message.

"What's in bad taste is the Liberal party's record on child pornography," Harper told reporters. "I will attack them on it and if they want to fight the rest of the election on it, good luck to them."

Media backlash against the headline pushed the Conservatives to change the headline, party spokesperson Rhonda Walker told CBC.ca, but the body of the release remained the same.

Another Conservative news release titled "The NDP Caucus Supports Child Pornography?" accuses 11 caucus members of voting against prohibiting the creation or use of child pornography.

"The NDP does not support child pornography. And it is hard to imagine a worse day to play politics with this issue," read a party statement.

"It's ridiculous," Layton said. "I ask everyone to remain calm. We should work together to protect children in this country and everywhere. When you have something this horrific and tragic, people need to pull together. Political parties need to pull together."

Hours earlier, NDP leader Jack Layton had suggested he could work with a Conservative minority government.

These attacks follow a public outcry on Thursday over the issue of child porn in Canada. A wave of disgust was triggered by the news that the killer of 10-year-old Holly Jones of Toronto had admitted his child sex fantasies had been fuelled by the regular consumption of internet child porn.

"This is an important issue that needs to be treated seriously by Parliament," said Walker.

An hour and a half before I go to the advance polls I see this little gem. Even though I plan to vote Conservative because they support increased military spending, which is the only issue that I really care deeply about. They certainly aren't doing very much to endear themselves to me. I was hoping that this election they would keep the dirty pool out of it.

[admiral_danielsben]

If Canadians want a strong majority, they should look at giving us that kind of a mandate,"

Why? so you can strip gays of their right to marry, take away women's right to choose,

I have a question: A woman's right to choose WHAT? To send her children to whatever school she chooses, or teach them herself if she has the time and can spare the effort? To choose her own healthcare provider, rather than some state-sponsored system that takes forever?

It seems Liberals north of the border aren't any more flexible on 'choice' than they are in the US. To them, it means only the option to kill unborn babies, regardless of medical necessity.

I am very much 'pro-choice'. I also oppose abortion. It is not contradictory. I just support a woman's right to make different choices. Infanticide is not one of them. I am not a mysognist (sp?) pig - if somehow a man got pregnant, he should no more kill the unborn child than his wife should. Same with either parent when talking about a fetus raised in an artificial womb, when such technology exists. I support a woman's right to choose a lot of other things, like where her children go to school (although if she is married, her husband should also have a say - no greater or less than hers).

I am hardly a fundie. I am not a follower of any 'organized' religion - although i am nominally Jewish. I simply believe that a woman's right to choose is incompatible with abortion. It's just a PR game by pro-abortion advocates: Example,the National Abortion-Rights Action League recently changed its name to NARAL Pro-Choice America. The whole Idea is to promote 'a woman's right to choose' as a metaphor for abortion - rather than what it is, killing the unborn. Late-term or 'partial-birth' abortion is essentially infanticide, while earlier on it is still killing a living being that will, with care, evolve into an intelligent, feeling life-form.

What somewhat angers me is that feminists generally lean pro-abortion. I suggest they read Herland - a book that showcases an all-female society (incidentally, written by a suffragette - last name Gilman). A minor part of the book indicates that the women there considered abortion revolting - and had never considered using it even when their population was overflowing. They limited their reproduction rate by other means. And they do exist, even for those of us who are not parthenogenic. Condoms, birth control in the form of patches, pills, and injections, sponges, there are dozens of methods. As a plus, most STD's can't penetrate a latex condom.

Opposition to abortion does not equal being down on women - on the contrary, almost as many girls are killed by abortion as boys. And ytou can support women in the military and in other careers while opposing abortion. It seems the so-called "pro-choice" people would prefer to gloss over that.

[aerius]

I have a question: A woman's right to choose WHAT? To send her children to whatever school she chooses, or teach them herself if she has the time and can spare the effort? To choose her own healthcare provider, rather than some state-sponsored system that takes forever?

I don't know where you live, but the Canadian healthcare system works quite nicely and is pretty damn efficient. It's not a state bureaucracy where the paperwork for your heart surgery gets tied up for 10 months as they decide whether or not to shell out for you. If I break my leg I get a nice trip to the hospital where they fix me up, and all I have to pay for is the ambulance ride. I do not have to spend the next 5 months sorting out bills with my insurance company. I get taken in, they fix me up, and I'm done, that simple. I can even get hospitalized outside of my home province and all I'll have to pay is a ~$40 administrative fee.

[Aaron]

I don't know where you live, but the Canadian healthcare system works quite nicely and is pretty damn efficient. It's not a state bureaucracy where the paperwork for your heart surgery gets tied up for 10 months as they decide whether or not to shell out for you. If I break my leg I get a nice trip to the hospital where they fix me up, and all I have to pay for is the ambulance ride. I do not have to spend the next 5 months sorting out bills with my insurance company. I get taken in, they fix me up, and I'm done, that simple. I can even get hospitalized outside of my home province and all I'll have to pay is a ~$40 administrative fee.

Indeed the healthcare system is fairly efficent. The worst thing that I have ever witnessed is it took my sister two months to get her heart surgery. But she was monitered weekly and if things had gotten worse they would have done it on an emergency basis. I myself have never had to wait longer than one month to see various specialists and each of my seven surgeries were very timely.

[Graeme Dice]

I have a question: A woman's right to choose WHAT? To send her children to whatever school she chooses, or teach them herself if she has the time and can spare the effort?

I know many people that are home schooled, and you can always choose to send your children to any school you want.

To choose her own healthcare provider, rather than some state-sponsored system that takes forever?

The Canadian healthcare system costs less than a 1/3 per capita what the American system costs. You also don't have to worry about going to a hospital that you can afford, since you've already paid for any of them.

[Trytostaydead]

An hour and a half before I go to the advance polls I see this little gem. Even though I plan to vote Conservative because they support increased military spending, which is the only issue that I really care deeply about. They certainly aren't doing very much to endear themselves to me. I was hoping that this election they would keep the dirty pool out of it.

That just reminded me of that Chris Rock movie where the ad says the character Rock plays SUPPORTS Cancer. Hilarious stuff. No one supports child porn except for the pedophiles. But lawmakers are somewhat sane that there are a lot of loopholes built into the system so that only those that are widely accepted and clearly identified as child porn will be prosecuted.

However, you get a conservative to say that's not enough and say the opposition is so liberal they think child pornography is okay. It's an easy target, with wide fields that you can pass an aircraft carrier through.

[admiral_danielsben]

I have a question: A woman's right to choose WHAT? To send her children to whatever school she chooses, or teach them herself if she has the time and can spare the effort? To choose her own healthcare provider, rather than some state-sponsored system that takes forever?

I don't know where you live, but the Canadian healthcare system works quite nicely and is pretty damn efficient. It's not a state bureaucracy where the paperwork for your heart surgery gets tied up for 10 months as they decide whether or not to shell out for you. If I break my leg I get a nice trip to the hospital where they fix me up, and all I have to pay for is the ambulance ride. I do not have to spend the next 5 months sorting out bills with my insurance company. I get taken in, they fix me up, and I'm done, that simple. I can even get hospitalized outside of my home province and all I'll have to pay is a ~$40 administrative fee.

I live in the US. Perhaps I'll ask the question differently: What if you're a rich guy/gal who wants to pay your own way? I don't think you can do that in Canada legally (unless I am wrong. Am I?)... or if you do, you still have to pay taxes. Kinda like public/private school in most countries, including the US: You have to pay for public school even if you don't send your kids to public school.

I'm not saying the US is better... hell, the US is pretty bad, esp. considering how arcane Medicare is. Including the fact that you aren't able to buy private insurance instead of Medicare (you can get supplements, but if you don't like Medicare...).

Canada and the US will never change their health systems entirely. Why? prescription drugs are expensive in the US, and some non-emergency surgeries, such as some types of transplants in Canada have very long (months or years) waiting lists. Poor Americans go to Canada to buy prescription drugs, and rich Canadians go down to the US for certain surgical and transplant procedures. $$$ is made in the exchange.

I'll spell out my positions. While I am not an objectivist or a libertarian, I agree with them fairly often on economic issues at least - very low taxes, a rather smallish government, etc. I am rather moderate on social issues (save abortion, which i am strictly opposed to), and generally am pro-military and am mildly-to-moderately in favor of interventionism. Basically, a neocon-objectivist-moderate hybrid who is also pro-life. Try to figure that out.

[Aaron]

I live in the US. Perhaps I'll ask the question differently: What if you're a rich guy/gal who wants to pay your own way? I don't think you can do that in Canada legally (unless I am wrong. Am I?)... or if you do, you still have to pay taxes. Kinda like public/private school in most countries, including the US: You have to pay for public school even if you don't send your kids to public school.

There are now a few private clinics in certain provinces that if you have the cash you can get some things done faster than waiting through the normal system. Don't ask me what procedures they are though, I have no idea. Even if you use these clinics your tax money is still paying for the healthcare system, there's no way out of that.

I'm not saying the US is better... hell, the US is pretty bad, esp. considering how arcane Medicare is. Including the fact that you aren't able to buy private insurance instead of Medicare (you can get supplements, but if you don't like Medicare...).

Canada and the US will never change their health systems entirely. Why? prescription drugs are expensive in the US, and some non-emergency surgeries, such as some types of transplants in Canada have very long (months or years) waiting lists. Poor Americans go to Canada to buy prescription drugs, and rich Canadians go down to the US for certain surgical and transplant procedures. $$$ is made in the exchange.

There's a long waiting list for transplants up here simply because there's not enough organs to go around. My uncle waited almost two years for a liver transplant. In the US system, money talks thats why rich Canadians can come down for transplants. Up here regardless of how much $ you have you still have to brave the waiting list.

I'll spell out my positions. While I am not an objectivist or a libertarian, I agree with them fairly often on economic issues at least - very low taxes, a rather smallish government, etc. I am rather moderate on social issues (save abortion, which i am strictly opposed to), and generally am pro-military and am mildly-to-moderately in favor of interventionism. Basically, a neocon-objectivist-moderate hybrid who is also pro-life. Try to figure that out.

Nah that'll just give me a headache

[Darth Wong]

I have a question: A woman's right to choose WHAT? To send her children to whatever school she chooses, or teach them herself if she has the time and can spare the effort? To choose her own healthcare provider, rather than some state-sponsored system that takes forever?

Oh puh-lease, the name "pro-choice" is no more propagandistic than "pro-life".

It seems Liberals north of the border aren't any more flexible on 'choice' than they are in the US. To them, it means only the option to kill unborn babies, regardless of medical necessity.

Fetuses, not "unborn babies". An "unborn baby" would presumably be reasonably formed and have a functioning brain and central nervous system rather than being a blob of mindless protoplasm.

I am very much 'pro-choice'. I also oppose abortion. It is not contradictory. I just support a woman's right to make different choices. Infanticide is not one of them. I am not a mysognist (sp?) pig - if somehow a man got pregnant, he should no more kill the unborn child than his wife should. Same with either parent when talking about a fetus raised in an artificial womb, when such technology exists. I support a woman's right to choose a lot of other things, like where her children go to school (although if she is married, her husband should also have a say - no greater or less than hers).

I am hardly a fundie. I am not a follower of any 'organized' religion - although i am nominally Jewish. I simply believe that a woman's right to choose is incompatible with abortion. It's just a PR game by pro-abortion advocates: Example,the National Abortion-Rights Action League recently changed its name to NARAL Pro-Choice America. The whole Idea is to promote 'a woman's right to choose' as a metaphor for abortion - rather than what it is, killing the unborn.

Most fertilized eggs die when they don't attach themselves to the uterine wall properly. STOP THE SLAUGHTER!!!!

Late-term or 'partial-birth' abortion is essentially infanticide, while earlier on it is still killing a living being that will, with care, evolve into an intelligent, feeling life-form.

Pigs are intelligent, feeling life-forms too; do you run around shooting pork-eaters for being murderers? And this "evolve into" statement is sheer idiocy; not only does it grossly misuse the word "evolve", but it is also based on the assumption that potentialities should be treated as actualities. That logic leads to the outlawing of contraception too.

What somewhat angers me is that feminists generally lean pro-abortion. I suggest they read Herland - a book that showcases an all-female society (incidentally, written by a suffragette - last name Gilman). A minor part of the book indicates that the women there considered abortion revolting - and had never considered using it even when their population was overflowing. They limited their reproduction rate by other means. And they do exist, even for those of us who are not parthenogenic. Condoms, birth control in the form of patches, pills, and injections, sponges, there are dozens of methods. As a plus, most STD's can't penetrate a latex condom.

So? Why does this mean that a blob of mindless protoplasm should be assumed to have such important rights that the host female should be made a prisoner and forced to use her body, despite great discomfort, the agony of childbirth, and possible permanent health consequences to support this baby for nine months against her will?

Opposition to abortion does not equal being down on women - on the contrary, almost as many girls are killed by abortion as boys. And ytou can support women in the military and in other careers while opposing abortion. It seems the so-called "pro-choice" people would prefer to gloss over that.

No, opposition to abortion generally means one of two things:

1) Religious stupidity
2) The moronic assumption that we should treat a mindless blob of protoplasm as a baby because it would eventually become one if the woman is forced to continue using her body as a host for the next 9 months.

[Master of Ossus]

While I am generally in favor of a woman's right to choose, I have serious reservations about abortions as a sort of after-the-fact birth-control method. I think that society has grossly abused its right to have abortions, and while I don't want to do away with abortion, I also don't see any realistic method of preventing what I see as abuses from taking place if abortions are legal.

[Darth Wong]

While I am generally in favor of a woman's right to choose, I have serious reservations about abortions as a sort of after-the-fact birth-control method. I think that society has grossly abused its right to have abortions, and while I don't want to do away with abortion, I also don't see any realistic method of preventing what I see as abuses from taking place if abortions are legal.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that these "casual convenience abortions" are a rght-wing fiction. Abortions are an invasive, uncomfortable, and generally traumatic experience for the mother, both physically and emotionally.

[Master of Ossus]

Mike, I'm sure that they've been exaggerated by pundits and such, but I'm also sure that they DO happen. I've personally talked with several women whose attitudes about their abortions seemed to be, "Well, I didn't really want to have to deal with the kid, since it was really just a one-night stand, and I didn't want any consequences to go along with it..." Now, the counter-argument that I saw, of course, was that these people shouldn't be parents if they have such an attitude. On the other hand, I found that perspective to be reprehensible, since it seemed that they were just ducking the consequences of their actions.

Back on-topic, CNN just posted this:

Two polls released overnight put the Liberals down at 29 percent, near historic lows and far below the 40 percent seen as a minimum to maintain their majority in Parliament.

The polls, one by Ekos and the other by Ipsos-Reid, have the Conservatives at 31.4 percent and 32 percent respectively.

Ipsos projected that neither party would win the 155 seats needed for a majority but that the Conservatives could take 125 to 129 seats and the Liberals 92 to 96.

The Ipsos poll was conducted for CTV and The Globe and Mail newspaper and should carry a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20. The margin for the Ekos survey for the Toronto Star and La Presse newspapers was 3.3 percent.

In an interview published in Saturday's Globe and Mail, Martin said the campaign had "stabilized," but he did muse about the possibility of losing power.

"I didn't come into public life to sit in the chair. I came in to do the things I want to do. And I guess my only disappointment (would be) that I didn't have the opportunity to do it," he was quoted as saying.

Martin took office from fellow Liberal Jean Chretien last December.

Not looking real good for Martin and the liberals, but it also doesn't look like Harper can win the majority.