And vote for Arthur Meighen too, he's my great uncle on my Mom's side.

Who cares about Laurier anyway?

Anyone else get the message "you've already voted" without already having voted?

You've already voted before you voted? Sounds like something John Kerry would say. Perhaps the Calgary Grit hosting the site is starting to block voters who click through Kate's site.

BTW, I'm related to Laurier (very distantly), so he's the only one I could actually vote for.
It's very sad that I could barely find 1 PM I respected out of the bunch! I mean, a choice between Chretien and Martin? Joe Clark and Trudeau? Ugh!Ugh! and Double Ugh!

I got a kick out of Paul Wells' comment that the Shotgun was "stacking" the vote.

Only a Liberal would consider one vote per person to be "stacked", because conservatives may be participating in greater numbers.

Sorry for off topic post, although it has to do with one well-known PM.

Gomery wants Cdn thoughts on scandal
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b2953c5d-2d70-49e1-91b7-ace20fe97797

I had hard time to choose between Jean Chretien and Paul Martin Jr.. Eventually I decided to skip matchup 5 and submit. It took my vote!

I am glad I did not vote for either.

I cannot believe Chretien and Martin would make any list but a hit list. Who is this clown? As for Trudeau...my children's children will still be paying off his legacy of debt. Good God. What a sorry history after MacDonald...

And more b.s. from our media lapdogs...

Nation needs majority government: Grits

Alexander Panetta
Canadian Press

Thursday, August 25, 2005

CREDIT: DON HEALY, Leader Post
Prime Minister Paul Martin talks to reporters in Regina, Sask. on Thursday, August 25. The Liberal National caucus is meeting in Regina this week.

REGINA -- The federal Liberals have begun a sales pitch to Canadian voters that what the country really needs is a majority government.

The party has recovered enough from its spring near-death experience in Parliament that it's thinking far beyond simple survival and taking that case to the public.

Much of the hallway chatter at a summer Liberal retreat that ended Thursday revolved around shedding the government's minority status -- and why that would be good for Canada.

Though he cautioned MPs to avoid sounding "cocky," Prime Minister Paul Martin took the opportunity at a closing news conference to sing the praises of majority -- Liberal -- government.

"Obviously with a majority government it's much easier to fulfil an agenda," he said after the four-day meeting.

"But our goal is to supply a good government -- whether it's a majority or minority."

Still, the goal of many Liberals is to get re-elected in a big way, in a vote expected this winter.

That talk was more than just hubris. Even one anti-Martin Liberal conceded prospects look good for the prime minister.

"He's going to win. And I think he'll get a majority," he predicted.

Several cabinet ministers argued that minority status has put a drag on the Liberals' attempt to govern.

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale suggested the partisan rancour in Parliament could kill any serious discussion on bank mergers.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew grumbled about international meetings he was forced to miss. He said Canada's place on the world stage is being hampered because the government fears it could be toppled when ministers leave the country.

"I believe Canadians want a majority government in the next election instead of repeating another season of extreme partisan politics," Pettigrew said.

Defence Minister Bill Graham said Canadians are waking up to the shortcomings of minority government.

"I think people have realized that while a lot of people felt that minority governing sometimes produces different types of results, they also have their inherent instabilities," he said.

But the Liberals have considerable obstacles in their path, starting with their poll numbers.

The latest surveys gave them a comfortable lead over the Conservatives but still had them under 40 per cent -- the traditional dividing line between majority and minority status.

The party's campaign boss David Herle told MPs at a closed-door meeting that Liberal fortunes could land anywhere between a cushy majority and outright defeat in the next election.

Liberal party finances are also far from ideal. MPs learned this week that the party has a $1.9-million debt.

Herle told them, however, that the party will spend the maximum limit in the next election campaign by borrowing.

The party's up-and-down, scandal-plagued year has hurt its ability to raise money, MPs said privately.

National director Steven Mackinnon also told MPs privately that the party lags "five years behind" the Tories in the sophistication of their Internet fundraising, one MP said.

Another potential problem is voter fatigue. The Liberals will be seeking their fifth consecutive mandate, a feat achieved only once in Canadian history and not in the last 50 years.

The Liberals will seek to do that by campaigning to the left and targetting NDP voters and so-called Red Tories, Herle reportedly said.

And then there's Quebec.

The party no longer seems on the cusp of annihilation there -- which was the case this spring -- but could fall short of a majority because of the continued dominance of the Bloc Quebecois.

"In no way are we envisioning a majority government without success in Quebec," Martin told the closing news conference in Regina.

© Canadian Press 2005

Hey people - please keep your quoting of articles brief. This is for comments, not reprints.

Sheesh - what a choice, Paul Martin or Jean Chretien. I had to skip that one. I also see that Diefenbaker is leading St. Laurent. What are people smoking?

Sorry Kate. My ADHD makes it hard for me to remember what I read five seconds ago. I'll provide links from here on in.

Boy, the comments over at the poll are quit pi$$y. Did you know that refusing to acknowledge PET as the greatest Prime Minister ever is because we are "petty"? To let "one policy" negate a brilliant career...

oh, well, I'll still sleep okay tonight. (He's still losing)

Like sheep you go and vote based on nothing more than party affiliation and a dislike of the Liberals. It is almost sad.

"Vote for Borden, too, just to twist the knife." Twisting the knife? Please. Pearson won the Nobel, Borden could barely win an election. Petty party politics with a gleeful basis in an all-consuming hatred for the Liberals. That kind of single-minded approach hampers your ability to think clearly: your choices are all automatic. Like I sad, it is almost sad.

BCL

BWWAAAHHHAAAA!

Typical Liberal mentality - BCL believes their reasons for voting for someone are superior to those of all others.

Actually, that is not at all what I said. At no time did I say that a) I am a Liberal or b) any Liberals who may also be sheep have superior reasons for doing anything. Thanks for proving my point. Your single-minded approach hampers your ability to think clearly. You bring too much baggage and too many assumptions to the table. It is sad because you have a lot to say, much of it very insightful and quite welcome. But this stuff should be beneath you.

BCL.

Hmmm...Joe Clark seems to be edging out Pierre Trudeau slightly, while Borden seems to be edging out Pearson too.

See, BCL, it's not that we resort to single-minded partisan voting, we just refuse to conform to single-minded idol worship. So what is Pearson won the Nobel for developing peacekeeping -- what has that resulted in? Unarmed Canadian soldiers on the $10 bill and a smaller standing military force than Australia. You want to talk about making a difference in the world? Australia finds 5700 troops to send in to clean up Indonesia...if Canada were to make that level of commitment, we'd first have to hire hundreds more soldiers.

Trudeau is no better -- the Charter opened us up to the quagmire that is judicial activism, and we've been suffering through it ever since.

THAT's why we vote against these people.

Then allow me to clarify on your behalf - your complaints about anyone else's motivations for voting for any specific person in that poll are irrelevant. They do not matter.

Not only that, but your complaint is both arrogant and highly presumptious to assume that those who vote against Pearson and Trudeau are doing so for "partisan" reasons. You've apparently not considered the possibility that the policies instituted by those two prime ministers are responsible for the very "partisanship" you decry.

Trudeau was the single most destructive influence on this country in modern history. He tore down this country and replaced it with something that is still foreign to many of us. Pearson got the ball rolling.

Voting these two out of (good grief - an online poll!) the running on that basis is as valid as any reason for voting in their support.

I guess it's only valid if we're voting the way BCL did; otherwise our thoughts & feelings are invalid. Why does that sound familiar?

HAA HAA ha ha ha. Holy shit. I can't believe some idiots are complaining about people voting for partisan reasons. Of COURSE voting is partisan.

Why don't these retards try questioning the partisanship of the blogger named Calgary "GRIT" who is hosting this petty poll?

"Pearson won the Nobel..."

So did Arafat -- not exactly a crowd to run with, if you ask me.

Our lads are doing all right so far. A sign of things to come ?

Kate, your absolutely right about Trudeau and Pearson. Trudeau should have got The Order of Lenin. Probably did, if the truth be known.

oh dear, PET is catching up...

I have a scary prediction,Pierre god rest his sole has a son who is on the tube lot,s i think most people know his face. This young man will be the Prime Minister of Canada in 10 to 12yearsfrom now max