60 comments posted · 7 followers · following 0

14 years ago @ - "Mulroney's ... · 0 replies · +1 points

HA! It's hard to think when you're on TV. Hee hee.

14 years ago @ - Fear and loathing in M... · 0 replies · +1 points

And I vote for depressing over hilarious Philippe.

Only in Quebec could a stupid e-mail flame war turn into a headline story about language.

Chill people, chhhhiiiiillllllllll. Relaxe Max.

14 years ago @ - UPDATE: ListeriosisRep... · 0 replies · +2 points

That's not what Kady said, so the only person you're agreeing with is yourself.

14 years ago @ - A summer of discontent · 0 replies · +2 points

Are you saying the media has no responsibility. What do you think would happen if Ignatieff advocated raising the GST in order to help get the deficit back under control? People would freak out.

And what would the media report on? The merits of the actual policy? BORING! Or the effects on the horse race? I think we all know the answer to that question.

14 years ago @ - Blue-chip panels and t... · 3 replies · +2 points

That's because all the punditocracy know that Harper just made that up on the spot so he wouldn't look like he doesn't care about the unemployed; which he clearly doesn't: <a href="" target="_blank">

The pundits are okay with cynicism. It confirms their world view of politicians. But any sign of weakness...ah, that's a mortal sin that CANNOT be forgiven.

14 years ago @ - Blue-chip panels and t... · 2 replies · +2 points

Calgary Junkie - I'm a card-carrying Liberal and I read the National Post. Makes excellent bird-cage liner after I've done rolling my eyes at the editorials.

And the LPC plan is already on the record:

"The Liberal party has proposed a national, 360-hour standard of EI eligibility, for as long as this crisis lasts. If implemented quickly, up to 150,000 more Canadians -- who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own and who have paid into the system --could qualify for EI benefits. That kind of change will have a positive effect on the Canadian economy."

Oh that does mess with the narrative that Ignatieff never proposes detailed alternatives to what the Cons are doing. Oh well.

14 years ago @ - That wasn't so hard · 2 replies · +1 points

Exactly. The real question is why did the Act stipulate that the PBO be under the thumb of the Library of Parliament? The Cons, at least if you believe their 2006 campaign rhetoric wanted an "create an independent Parliamentary Budget Authority to provide objective analysis directly to Parliament about the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy". <a href="" target="_blank">

Just not TOO independent I guess. After all, there's no reason that the PBO couldn't have been designated as a an Officer of Parliament like the Attorney General or the Official Languages Commissioner, instead of an officer of the Library of Parliament.

14 years ago @ - That wasn't so hard · 0 replies · +3 points

Hmmm, reading some of the comments about Page from the resident Conbots, you get the impression he's not nearly as popular with them as say...Sheila Fraser. I guess what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander!

Try to stay on script guys. You're the "accountability" party, and the Liberals are the liars and crooks, remember?

14 years ago @ - Ekos-ting on fumes: He... · 0 replies · +2 points

My theory is that, politically speaking, because the Conservatives and Liberals basically agree on the mission, then everyone knows it's going to end in 2011, and not before, so what's the point in thinking about it. the public is resigned to it.