The Stephen Harper Senate Appointment Poll

86 Replies to “The Stephen Harper Senate Appointment Poll”

1. “Peter Mansbridge” “shocking new Poll” really Pete why have you CBC MSM types not asked these questions?
   What are the details of the coalition deal?
   When was Jack Layton making this deal, before or after the election?
   How many senate seats were given to the Bloc?
   Was Lizzy May offered a seat?
   Why is not the media all over the stolen money from E.I.? some 50 BILLION? ask the Liberals??
   What about the 30 BILLION taken from civil service pensions? again ask the Liberals??
   Why is the Media pretending that P M Harpers filling of Senate appointments is wrong ? would they sooner see the bloc an Lizzy May in there?
   Last but not least why were you Mansbridge so damm rude and constantly butting in with our Duly Elected Prime Minister?
   Your behavior was downright creepy sir.
   P.S. now that “the deal” to bail out the “big 3″ has collapsed aren” you glad P M Harper was smart enough to hold back to see what developed ???
   cheers Bubba

2. There was a link here last week for a blog that was dedicated to exposing lib-media bias…does anyone have it?

3. “If you think the average Canadian ponders the issue of Senate appointments for more than 3 minutes a decade, you’re dreaming in technicolor”
   Ask Preston Manning

4. EDB, I respectfully would disagree that putting Kate or Ezra in the senate would cripple their abilities.
   Stacking the senate with people that were not lapdogs to a party would really shake things up. Do you think that Kate would conform any rule stating she “should” do something? And what is best, it is almost impossible to remove a senator once they are installed.
   Right now, senators tend to shut up and shuffle around parliament…why would they want to make waves…that just attracts attention to their cushy unaccountable job. I have no doubt that Ezra and Kate would use every tool they had available to them (and then some) to either get rid of the senate or improve it’s operations by adding some accountability.
   Maybe some sh!t disturbers in the senate, who aren’t afraid to draw attention to themselves for fear of losing the institution, would be exactly what was needed to get Canadians thinking about this for more than 3 minutes every ten years.
   Frankly, Canada could use a few more constitutional crisis’s. Never heard a hairdresser talk about politics before last week. Bet she votes next election.
   Besides…once Ezra and Kate were in the senate, they could be appointed to cabinet!

5. Bubba, excellent questions all! But sadly, they’ll never be asked. 🙁

6. Harper has no choice but to appoint members to the Senate, since the NDP and Liberals and Senate have so far, been blocking any reform to the Senate, and since the provinces haven’t stepped up to the plate, and elected their roster of Senators.
   If he didn’t appoint them, then he is effectively offering up the Senate as ‘cake-on-a-plate’ to the Coalition (IF, IF, the GG allowed it to take power). We all know that the Liberals operate by patronage and they’d fill it with their cronies.
   Since the Senate is still, unfortunately, a key operator in our parliament, and since it can effectively block, stall and nullify House motions, then, we can’t ignore its power.
   As for Harper making other appointments, that happens to be the only way to get these positions filled. Our system is based on appointments rather than elections. This includes the civil service, the judiciary, etc etc.
   When suggestions are broached that we should move to electing these positions – then, the oppositions starts to screech – that ‘we’ll be just like the Americans’.
   hardboiled – you are, if I may say, getting rather tiresome in your obtuse refusal to recognize the pragmatic reality of our government.
   What seems to be going on, now, is a full-scale propaganda war and political war. The Opposition parties, namely the NDP and Liberals have refused to accept the results of the October election. They are trying to negate it and put themselves in power.
   Their basic plan was the Coalition Putsch, an assault against Canadian democracy, a plan to set themselves up in government, outside of the will of the electorate and keeping themselves immune from the electorate by means of the Bloc – a party, again, outside of the reach of over 80% of the electorate. They planned to hold on to power for several years – spending and spending and taxing and taxing.
   Remember – this is Taxation Without Representation. We didn’t vote for a coalition.
   Harper has blocked their first attempt at this putsch. They have no intention of giving up. Ignatieff has taken over from Dion because Dion failed in this first putsch. Don’t think that they won’t attempt a sequel.
   The Liberals have no money for an election. Therefore, what they and the NDP are doing now, is campaigning, using their allies, the Canadian MSM. They are campaigning in a vicious all-out attack against Harper. This is to set up Canadians so that IF they can be sure that the GG will permit their coalition, THEN, they’ll vote down the January budget – and move themselves into power.
   They’ll keep us, the people quiet – by shaming us into silence.
   If we criticize their use of the Bloc to keep themselves in power, they tell us that we are assaulting all Quebecers and ought to be ashamed.
   If we criticize their refusal to have an election, they tell us that we are wasteful spenders in this ‘economic crisis’ and we ought to be ashamed of even suggesting such a ‘waste of expense’.
   If we claim that we didn’t vote for a coalition, they’ll inform us that, deep down, psychologically, we did just that. They tell us that our vote for the NDP OR the Liberals OR the Green Party was actually not a vote for that party and its policies. No, it was instead (though we didn’t articulate it) a vote AGAINST Harper.
   Then, we are told, that a coalition is ‘constitutional’; no – not a whisper in the constitution. We are told that it’s been done before; no, not an unelected PM taking over from an elected one. We are told that it’s done ‘elsewhere’. So what? And most certainly, not by a party that doesn’t take the most votes.
   So- right now, it’s a propaganda campaign. Ignatieff is going to set himself up as a ‘Quebecer’; and he’ll appeal to the latte Liberals in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver who approve of a Ruling Party run by a Sovereign rather than by election.

7. Make me a senator please!
   I promise to stay drunk and sleep all day (when I’m not leering after shapely young office assistants).

8. Is anyone else tired of the ” everyone else is doing it” argument? Just once I’d like someone to say “screw what x is doing” when this blurb is said.
   I’m not sure which statement I hate more, the aforementioned one or ” because of the economic crisis we must lay-off some people”.
   Conspiracy theory: I’m starting to think the “7 yrs recession watch” wasn’t only to bash Bush, but it was also planting the seeds for the “economic crisis” excuse many unprofitable companies are using right now.

9. On the run and no time to read above but here’s my 2 cents worth. Fill the seats, Don Cherry would be my first overall pick. Take several other like minded and mouthed appointies and presto, a house alive. If Harper can legally expand the senate, do so, and appoint more of the same. Let the oposition howl like something caught in a zipper and simply say, yes I agree it is wrong, lets get rid of the senate as it now stands and elect 2 senators from each province. That would enhance our parlimentary system and turn it and the senate into something meaningfull and accountable to it’s citizens, an elected senate member would actually mean something. As it stands now we have an elected dictator as Prime Minister and a senate of has beens that are incapable of anything worth while.

10. ET: **Ignatieff is going to set himself up as a ‘Quebecer’**
    Does this mean he’ll align himself with the sovereigntists(Bloc)? I certainly hope so, but any such clear declaration would be too much to hope for.

11. Edward:
    John A. McDonald said the senate was to serve as a place of sober second thought. Course with John A. in charge, ensuring a little sobriety somewhere in the legislative process was probably an excellent idea.

12. ET.. The situation with quebec can be looked after with a referendum by the ROC as to “If we want quebec to remain within confederation?” The people of Canada should wake up to the fact quebec has been sucking the rest of us dry for years. To the folks that tell me that not all quebecers are responsible (just a few radicals) I call BS. They all seem quite content to sit back and spend tax dollars from the ROC (read mainly Alberta). If these “normal “quebecers get their butts voted off the island maybe they will wake up and turf the separatists and become an equal participant within Canada.

13. About PM Stephen Harper – from his bio page:
    He’s been employed by some of the country’s biggest newspapers …
    Much has been made over the Prime Minister’s well-scrutinized relationship with the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
    But he brings more than just media savvy to that game; the PM has actually worked for three of Canada’s largest newspapers: the Globe and Mail, the now-defunct Toronto Telegram and the Toronto Star.
    As a boy, he had his own paper routes in Leaside and Central Etobicoke.
    So, the media are attacking one of their own????
    And they are so gaga over the fact that Iggy worked for BBC.

14. ET: while I might be tiresome, I’ll stay the course – arguing for smaller government, less taxes, and more personal freedoms for all Canadians.
    As it is right now, I get to hear conservatives argue for patronage appointments and larger government, because the Conservative government ‘has no other option’.
    Pragmatism? No.
    It’s larger government and more patronage appointments.

15. Thanks ‘ET’, a great read and I think that is what going to take place.

16. glasnost – I’m speculating, but what I mean by Ignatieff setting himself up as a Quebecer is that he’s embedded in the old Liberal 1960-80s view of Canada as only Ontario-Quebec with the rest of Canada irrelevant to governance.
    The West is viewed as Raw Resource Money; and further East is viewed as Dependent Make-Work Welfarites in return for votes.
    Immigrants in Ontario are viewed as ghettoized enclaves kept dependent on federal subsidies in return for votes (that’s the Liberal multicultural policy).
    Ontario itself is viewed as Having the Duty of Keeping the Country United by voting Liberal and the Liberals are viewed as Warriors against separatism.
    The fact is – that the above is a fiction, a narrative created by the Liberal Party for ONE purpose, propaganda, to manipulate Canadians into the vote. It’s been The Canadian Narrative for a generation. It’s worked quite well.
    Another fact about the Liberal Party, as I’ve said before, is that it doesn’t operate as a party based on policies. It operates as a Sovereign Divine Right. That’s why it uses narratives rather than actual policies. It operates as a Ruling Party. The electorate is irrelevant – except at election time, when massive funds are flung at them – in return for their vote. After the election, they can return to their beer and popcorn.
    Ignatieff operates in this mode. He’s aligned himself with Quebec because that enables him to ensnare Ontario.
    Remember, he was the one who first introduced the Motion in the House to define Quebec as a Nation. That was a blatant political ploy.
    Duceppe immediately jumped in to declare that he and he alone had that right…and actually moved it as a Motion.
    This left Harper with no option but to change it and submit a Motion that ‘the Quebecois’ (not Quebec) are a nation within a united Canada’. That’s a 19th c view of ‘nation’ as a reference to a population but NOT a territory.
    So, I’m speculating, but I see Ignatieff as part of this Ottawa-Montreal centralist clique; someone who sees the West as Raw Resources. He may intellectually know that the economic and demographic nature of Canada has been transformed and that the Old Canada of Ontario-Quebec no longer exists. But he doesn’t operate this new way. He patronizes the West, asking them to ‘forgive and forget’. Heh.
    I think he’s going to resurrect the fear of separation that enabled the Liberals to control the Ontario population for a generation. You will note that this narrative is on our MSM even now.
    Then, he’s going to present himself as a Quebecer who ‘understands distinction’ but, is a nobleman (and Quebecers like elitism) who will ensure that their role in Canada is ‘noble’. So, he’s going to tell them that they are ‘a noble people’ and he’s going to tell Ontarians that ‘watch your words and acts or Quebec will separate’.
    He can’t present himself to the West as anything other than an urban intellect; so, as I said, he’ll be patronizing and play his ‘I’m guilty and beg your forgiveness’ game. That’s all. There aren’t enough votes to concern him.
    He’s after Ontario and Quebec.
    Will a second putsch succeed? Depends on the GG, depends on whether the NDP-Liberals think they can pull it off. Certainly Layton has no intention of letting Ignatieff or the Liberals, who all signed, off the hook.
    But Ignatieff might think that ‘writing a narrative’ might work better.
    The problem is, that the Liberal narrative, based as it is around a 1960-80 view, is out of touch with reality. The reality that the West is the economic and demographic hub of Canada; that the East (Nfld) isn’t as downtrodden as the Liberals might wish; that Quebec-Ontario aren’t the economic giants they were. And that blogs exist.
    People now can learn, talk, inform themselves. They can’t be manipulated by the old top down propaganda as easily as they used to be. I don’t think the Liberals realize this. They are used to being the Sovereign. And the Author.

17. ET: **I think he’s going to resurrect the fear of separation that enabled the Liberals to control the Ontario population for a generation. You will note that this narrative is on our MSM even now.**
    I have little disagreement with your analysis. However you have not opined how he will deal operationally with the above gut-level issue. Will Ignatieff support aligning the Liberal Party with the Bloc? Voters will ask that question.

18. Still waiting on all the freep votes from the folks that frequent Olivia Chow’s site.
    Oh, that’s right, there are only 102 apparently.

19. “Instead, the Liberals cause a problem, and then pin it on Harper.”
    Replace the words, ‘Liberals’ with ‘Socialists’ and, ‘Harper’ with ‘Opposition’ and you have the game plan/tactics for almost all communist organizations.
    Pathetic, isn’t it?

20. PiperPaul, I have a better substitution. Every time a Liberals talks about what “Canadians” want or what they need, or what their “values” are, simply substitute “Liberals.”
    For example, “Liberals don’t want an election,” or “Liberals want massive government intervention.
    When Jack Layton says what Canadians want, again substitute “less than one in five (Canadians).”

21. glasnost – again, I’m speculating. It sounds strange but I’m going to suggest that Ignatieff will align himself with the Bloc. Why?
    Note that when we ‘Canadians’ reject the role of the Bloc in the coalition, a very valid objection by the way, we are immediately branded as ‘anti-Quebec’. A ridiculous merger of the Bloc=Quebec but there it is.
    So Ignatieff, who wants the Quebec vote, is not going to align himself against the Bloc. His agenda is to swallow the Bloc and set up the Liberal Party as the Defender-of-the-Faith(Quebec). He’ll get so close to the Bloc that it may not realize what has hit it; then, Duceppe may wake up, realize he’s being smothered, and fight back.
    Ignatieff will, as well, chastize Ontario for harboring ‘feelings of ill-will’ towards Quebec, inform them that they must Keep-the-Faith and support Quebec..etc.
    This is the Old Narrative. Will it work? The Bloc, remember, started in 1990s and was defined as actively seeking separation. That of course is hogwash; the Bloc is now quite happy about its MP salaries and pensions and has no intention of upsetting this trough. Quebecers vote for it as the ‘natural default party’ of Quebec.
    Can Ignatieff light the separatist fires again? Can he remove the Bloc? Can he frighten Ontarians into submission again? Is the Old Narrative viable anymore?
    Ignatieff doesn’t realize, I think, really really realize, the new Canada. He also doesn’t realize that Canadians are not as easily manipulated as they were even a decade ago – Blogs are vital.
    And there’s the NDP. Layton has no notion of giving up. He’s after the Liberals.
    What should Ignatieff do? My own view would be to stop resurrecting the old narrative, stop fighting with the other parties. Concentrate on developing a grassroots funding and policy base. The Liberal Party has never, ever, done either of these tasks. It has always operated as a Ruling Party, one that governs by Sovereign Divine Right not by policies for and by the people. So, I don’t know if Ignatieff, an elitist, a sovereignist, can even contemplate such a task.

22. Great list Joe! I’ll admit to being unfamiliar with 2 of those names.
    Somehow I don’t see Kate or Don Cherry bumping elbows with the Ottawa crowd, tho.
    “Senator Gwen Landolt” would be music to my ears! She has accomplished more for Canada and abroad than all the Libs appointees combined! An amazing powerful woman!

23. hardboiled, I hate paying taxes to support the bozos in Ottawa—and elsewhere. However, until an act of some parliament or other changes the rules, I follow suit.
    I agree with ET about your intransigence, which, if it were the reality of the present situation—PMSH making no appointments—would put us in a worse position than we already are:
    Those senators are going to be appointed. Do you want the Liberals and NDP to do it? Such a travesty would absolutely INSURE that big government, corruption, and all the other things you abhor would grow exponentially.
    hardboiled, in this instance, standing on principle, disregarding the context, is called “cutting off your nose to spite your face”. With respect, this is not a wise thing to do.

24. ET: ** Quebecers vote for [the Bloc] as the ‘natural default party’ of Quebec.**
    Referring to the results chart elsewhere on this site, 1.4M voted for the Bloc, 2.1M voted for others.
    The reason that it’s important whether the Ignatieff Liberals (and the NDP) align themselves with the Bloc, is that this is a gut-level issue with Canadians in Quebec and the ROC, albeit the issue is differently nuanced in those populations.
    Now that the Liberals(Dion) and the NDP have exposed that they’ve been trysting with the Bloc, it’s important to keep momentum in that association. Sitting Quebec Liberals were certainly not elected by expressing sympathy to the separatists, and any MP doing so will be punished in a future election. That’s the situation in Quebec, in ROC it’s even simpler; how many Liberals were elected on a platform of pandering to Quebec separatists?
    Vive la coalition! Let’s have an election!

25. Ya, bluetech, I really like the sound of “Senator Gwen Landolt” too.
    I agree that she’s powerful, but not in the crass, political sense. This lawyer (they’re not all creeps!), who’s stood firm for marriage, the family, and the real needs of kids for over three decades and has foiled more nefarious radical feminist plots, both in Canada and internationally—REAL Women has NGO status at the UN—than most people can even imagine, is a true Canadian hero[ine!].
    A name left off the list is Ted Byfield. Whoops! He’s already too old, but he’d be better for the country than ten of the lefty Senate dolts half his age.

26. This is all starting to add up to an Election me thinks.
    The choices will show what he has in mind. I expect the Liberals may call a confidence vote just out of arrogance with Iggy at the helm. Seems they still haven’t learnt a thing.
    Harper is just safe guarding the Senate & installing people who will go along with his reform of the Institution.
    The liberals used it for Patronage for 40 years now. Time to change the game.
    I voted #3 as well. Lot of cynics on here lol.
    By the way Iggy was part of the Coalition though not as enthusiastic ,or so it seemed. Harper only wanted to stop even more Government Welfare. He was out to get rid of supplying the Separatists as well with seed money to run. Something liberals forget to mention. Those bastions of Unity. Sure it would have affected the Liberals, but the Conservatives where in worse shape after their fall, & are now for the moment in Power. This law is only 5 years old to prop up an a lying Liberal party by Liberals. Even a Liberal appointed Court found it unconstitutional many times. Till it was bulldozed through, because their donations where sub zero.
    Blaming Harper is dodging the facts.
    JMO

27. glasnost – the ‘other parties’ are the federalist vote in Quebec..well, I’ll exclude the neorhino, marxist-leninist, which each got over 2,000 votes etc.
    But the Liberal, NDP and Conservatives parties in Quebec are seen as ‘Canadian’. Not Quebec parties. So, if you are a federalist, or for some reason, feel some filiation with ‘Canada’ then, you’ll vote for these parties. But the Bloc is less of a separatist party and more of a Quebec party. It appeals to the home-grown, born-in-Quebec etc people.
    The Liberal Party, I’ll bet, wants to swallow the Bloc. Therefore, I’m guessing, just guessing, that Ignatieff will try to set his image up as more Quebecois than a Bloc Quebecer. He won’t go after the West; it doesn’t have the votes. His agenda – and I’m speculating – will be to take over the Bloc votes in Quebec. And in Ontario, renew the flames of ‘if we aren’t nice, Quebec will break up the country’.
    I don’t think he wants that coalition. For one thing, it puts the Bloc, rather than the Liberals, in power. The Liberals are just the sock puppets in the coalition. But he can’t at the moment disown it, because, coward that he is, he signed it. So, like his attitude to the West (please forgive and forget)…I think he hopes everyone else will…please forgive and forget his support for the coalition.
    His agenda will be to frighten Ontario and move it back into Liberal control, and bow to Quebec, and move the Bloc out of the way. Just guessing.

28. “Make me a senator please!
    I promise to stay drunk and sleep all day (when I’m not leering after shapely young office assistants).”
    Teach, I’m a pretty old guy, but I’m pretty sure that, if I were there, staying drunk and leering after shapely young office assistants would not be mutually exclusive.
    And, as old as I am, I’m still young enough to qualify to sit there. Unlike the favoured candidate of some posters, Don Cherry. Next February 5 Don will be officially too old to sit in the Senate. So can I stand in for Don?

29. Oh my God!!! I voted for the first option. Another poll gone horribly wrong!!!!

30. Holy crap! Is Grapes that old? I almost tripped in my walker when I read (in BIG TYPE) that.

31. ET: **Ignatieff will try to set his image up as more Quebecois than a Bloc Quebecer**
    This is the part of your input that I don’t understand. What categories do you think we have in Quebec: Separatiste, Fedraliste, Quebecois, Bloc, PQ, etc, and how do they align with Lib, NDP, Bloc. That’s what really counts.
    I feel that the conservative strategy should be to force the opposition into a coalition that includes the Bloc and to face-off in an election on that position. Canada deserves no less. Let’s bring it to a head, and ask the people what they feel at the gut-level. This is the only way that any reasonable balance will be established in Canadian democracy.

32. To get a better look at the composition or the Canadian Senate, certain, rather uneven facts about this unelected body of tired and retired old people.
    Note that the population of New Brunswick @ 750K is represented by 8 senators.
    Population of British Columbia @ 4.4M is represented by 3 senators.
    Population of @10.1M of the 4 western provinces is represented by 20 senators.
    Population of @2.3M of the 4 eastern provinces is represented by 23 senators.
    How is this for a Canadian senate representation?
    Is this higher mathematics or what?
    ……………………………Senate….Population……..%
    ……………………………..seats
    Manitoba…………………….6……..1,196,291……..3.6%
    Saskatchewan………………..5……..1,010,146…….3.0%
    Alberta ………………………6……..3,512,368…….10.5%
    British Columbia…………….3……..4,428,356…….13.3%
    ………………………………20……10,147,161…….30.45%
    New Brunswick………………8………751,527………2.3%
    Newfoundland and Labrador…5………508,270………1.5%
    Nova Scotia………………….7……….935,962………2.8%
    Prince Edward Island………..3……….139,407………0.4%
    ………………………………23…….2,335,166………7.0%
    Senate provincial seat distribution:
    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/lists/PartyStandings.aspx?Menu=SEN-Politic&Section=b571082f-7b2d-4d6a-b30a-b6025a9cbb98
    Population by province:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population

33. My thoughts on the Senate are different than many here. I don’t want the Senate to be elected. Judging by the US Senate, and the two different approaches that have been used, we can examine the effects. As originally created, the US senators were elected by the State Government in each State. These Senators were representing the STATE, and were beholden to the State for their position.
    For a number of reasons, (an interesting read), the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in 1913, and henceforth, Senators are now directly elected.
    This has changed the direction and loyalty of the Senate. Where Senators were formerly allied most closely with their State, now Senators are more closely allied with, and loyal to, their Federal Party.
    To minimize this split loyalty, I would like to see our Provinces and cities have the decision-making power in choosing Senators.
    Here is what I propose-
    Each Provincial Legislature produces 3 nominees every 4 years, for an 8 year term, on a nationally set date, (personally I’d choose April 1). How these nominees are selected is up to the Province to decide, direct appointment, elected on the Provincial election day, drawn out of a hat, or whatever.
    The 3 Territories each do the same for 1 nominee every 4 years, for the same 8 year term, following their chosen method.
    All Cities over 1 million population, (currently 5), choose 1 nominee every 4 years, to the same term.
    Additionally, the sitting Prime Minister seats 15 every 4 years, hopefully following the existing regional guidelines, (if not, the next election could punish him or her).
    This totals 106.
    Where this leads us is to a more representative Senate. In any jurisdiction, if the sitting Government is re-elected or if the Government changes, the nominees still reflect the voice of the people. This system would reflect the will of the people with a four year lag, currently, we have a lag of about a half a century.
    Ian Vaughan

34. Good job. Show Olivia Chow how to run a REAL poll. Haha.

35. Rob Harvie:
    Nice try, but your analogy is flawed on multiple levels. First, John Turner wasn’t picking Senators that he had considered for the position; he was rubber-stamping a flurry of appointments made by Trudeau ON HIS LAST OFFICIAL DAY AS PM. Turner could have denied Trudeau’s cronies; he didn’t, and that’s what Mulroney was calling him on.
    At no time did Trudeau EVER show any desire for Canadians’ participation in the process of choosing Senators – indeed, he recoiled in horror at the prospect, once saying, when asked about a Senate where the members were elected by their respective provinces “But then the Senate would be filled with people from the provinces!”. Sure, he pushed for Senate reform, but he wanted to retain the right to appoint half the Senate after an election, while allowing provincial governments to appoint the remaining half after their respective elections. Note the key word in both cases is “appoint”, not elect.
    Stephen Harper has waited patiently since taking office for the provinces to come around, but he has been stymied by Liberal governments in Ontario, Quebec, BC, and New Brunswick. Alberta elected a Senator, and Harper, true to his word, appointed him. It appears Brad Wall in Saskatchewan is warm to the idea, but not ready to implement it. Tell us, Mr. Harvie, how much longer was Mr. Harper supposed to wait? Forever, until he left office? The Liberal senate continues to block and delay legislation not to improve it, but purely to play partisan games, yet the media jumps on Harper and casts aspersions on his motives. Nice try.
    You might consider reading about game theory, especially as it applies to “The Prisoner’s Dilemma”. The optimum strategy in repeated trials is to co-operate on your first move, and then repeat what your opponents did to you on their last turn. This simple strategy is called “tit for tat”, and it is exactly what Mr. Harper is doing. If the Opposition is going to cook up backroom deals that depend on the support of separatists, and try to steal the PM’s job before he even tables a budget – hardly what I’d call co-operation, Mr. Harvie, though your definition may vary – I don’t see how you can criticize Harper for responding in kind. Unless you feel that it’s perfectly OK for the Liberals to steal from Canadians, lie to them, and get in bed with separatists, while at the same time, the Tories are not even allowed to take perfectly legal actions to improve their position.

36. homez, the msm talked the economy down for years in order to elect democrats. they have what they wanted now lets see if they can repair the damage they have done. it may be too late.