Canadian Election: Why should I care?!!

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

nimh wrote:

Well, the one positive thing one can say about that article is that at least the National Review's agenda is not "hidden".

I doubt that kind of partisan fervor would persuade anyone who isn't already a Conservative anyway, though.

I'm sure both the National Review and the author will be extremely pleased to know that you can find one positive thing to say.

Yeah no they wont be too alarmed ... but if you post an article here then yeah, you're liable to get people saying what they think of it... duh.

Articles like that are a form of masturbation ... an opportunity to go "oh yeah, yeah, exactly, thats it!" at the reflection of your own opinions. Glee for the believers (see JW above).

Of course, perhaps the NRO should ask itself the question how come the "He'll turn our country into Bush-type America" threat proved so effective a campaign strategy last time in the first place. What exactly is it about Bush-era America that the mere hint of a politician turning the country into something similar was enough to scare the voters back into the arms of a burnt-out government?

Ever-body should vote New Democrat--it's the most effective way to throw a wrench in the works . . .

Of course, perhaps the NRO should ask itself the question how come the "He'll turn our country into Bush-type America" threat proved so effective a campaign strategy last time in the first place. What exactly is it about Bush-era America that the mere hint of a politician turning the country into something similar was enough to scare the voters back into the arms of a burnt-out government?

Polls show a deep antipathy among Canadians toward the Bush administration, made more acute by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That has carried over to a more general anti-Americanism, and academics here have made a cottage industry of talking about the divergence of values between Canadians and Americans.

Martin sought to corral that sentiment by portraying Harper as dangerously pro-American. But the strategy appeared to backfire in this campaign, exacerbating his slide in the polls.

"In the last campaign, those attack ads worked. This time they won't. People are just fed up," said Peter Bryce, 46, a financial manager who said the political rally in this town west of Toronto was the first he had attended.

nimh wrote:

Of course, perhaps the NRO should ask itself the question how come the "He'll turn our country into Bush-type America" threat proved so effective a campaign strategy last time in the first place. What exactly is it about Bush-era America that the mere hint of a politician turning the country into something similar was enough to scare the voters back into the arms of a burnt-out government?

Or, perhaps the NRO sees that ploy in much the same way as the writer of this WAPO article....

Quote:

Polls show a deep antipathy among Canadians toward the Bush administration, made more acute by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That has carried over to a more general anti-Americanism, and academics here have made a cottage industry of talking about the divergence of values between Canadians and Americans.

Martin sought to corral that sentiment by portraying Harper as dangerously pro-American. But the strategy appeared to backfire in this campaign, exacerbating his slide in the polls.

"In the last campaign, those attack ads worked. This time they won't. People are just fed up," said Peter Bryce, 46, a financial manager who said the political rally in this town west of Toronto was the first he had attended.

Finn, we need to tread lightly around our resident psephologist. He becomes cranky and depressed at the mere thought of a conservative victory and his normally tolerant disposition is cast aside in the sheer frustration of it all.

Do you really think it was only ever the Iraq war that made the "watch out, he'll turn our country into America" strategy so successful? That otherwise, there wouldnt have been a "carry-over" in more general anti-Americanism?

That sounds very naive ... deluded, even. If it hadnt been for the Iraq war, Canadians and others would love to have their country become just like Bush's America? Not...

Perhaps some deeper introspection would yield a slightly more credible explanation?

I appreciate your honesty and always assume as much when I see your criticisms of "that kind of reporting", but you yourself admit you don't always apply the same standards to both sides.

That's understandable, as well, but it's now (with the bloggers, the internet, the "everyone has an opinion") a fact of life that we'll all have to wade through some "chest-thumping partisan commenting" to get to the good stuff.

Eating a ballot, not returning it or otherwise destroying or defacing it constitutes a serious breach of the Canada Elections Act.

Disaffected and angry voters, take note: spoiling your ballot is a crime.

There's no legal way to express disgust for politics via the ballot, whether by scribbling on it, writing obscenities, or drawing pictures.

According to section 167(2)(a) of the Canada Elections Act, "no person shall wilfully alter, deface or destroy a ballot." Conviction could bring a $500 fine or three months in jail -- even though the chances of getting caught are effectively nil.

Nil, that is, unless the spoiler wants to make a show of the protest -- by eating the ballot, for example.

Members of the Edible Ballot Society tried that method in the 2000 election but the trend faded after a number of prosecutions.