>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/14/canada.martin.reut/index.html
>>>>
>>>>Stephen Harper, leader of the main opposition Conservative party...equated Martin's dealings with the United States on softwood to a kid who calls names but is afraid to fight. "He hasn't thrown a punch. He couldn't throw a punch to save his life," he said.
>>>
>>>You got that right, Dan. This one's particularly fractious because it was forced by the aforementioned Harper 3 months before one was to be called anyway.
>>
>>?? The government should have fallen last May 19.
>>
>>>I'm seriously thinkking of voting Green Party, since at least that ballot would be counted, as opposed to spoiling it.
>>
>>Harper's point is that there are people who act, and others who sound off about what they *might* do. You and Martin may have more in common than you think.
>>
>>In recent years I can't recall a better example than Paul Martin of someone who has "risen to their level of incompetence". Mr. Dithers was a good Finance Minister but he has been an abysmal PM and leader in general.
>
>I have no use for Mr. Martin. That started with the way he and his henchmen went about displacing Chretien and continues to this day for even more reasons.
>Harper, on the other hand, is now talking like every other politician - promising whatever he believes will get him elected. And you can bet that his first stated platform statement - to get rid of lawful gay marriages - will help him with his base but will kill his chances with those who might have been dithering.

Your comment on gay marriage isn't quite accurate. Harper has said he will hold a free vote in Parliament on whether the government should replace future gay marriages with "civil unions" or the like. If "no", no further action would be taken. IOW, let Canadians' democratically elected representatives have their say (what a concept ;)) IIRC any existing gay marriages will be left as-is (i.e. not annulled).

Regardless of whether a majority of Canadians is for or against gay marriage, I don't think it's going to cause any significant swing in voter preference. I think the Conservatives should turn the page on this issue. There are other far more important issues to be dealt with.

>I'd rather have a "none of the above" on the ballot. I used to protest "vote" by spoiling my ballot until I learned that those aren't counted at all.
>
>Politicians have really done nothing for the average Joe for way too long now. Lots of promises that vapourize upon election. And we let them get away with it.

I'm interested in why you think Harper "is now talking like every other politician". Putting aside the ideological gay marriage issue for a moment, his proposals have been fairly concrete e.g.

- reduce GST to 5%
- give $120/month baby bonus to parents (I thought the Liberal response to this one was priceless and so, so telling)

As I see it the Conservatives are putting out concrete policy alternatives and the Liberals are reacting. That looks like leadership to me. For the Conservatives, I think that's how an election campaign should be run - how would you do things differently?