Vote Any Way You Want!

Whether it's because you believe in the person, or the party, today is the time to exercise your democratic right. You alone will decide based on your knowledge, feeling or sense of trust about the candidates. There has been a great deal of anger in this province in the last year and a half towards mainly one man. With the exception of possibly the Metis of Labrador who claim that the Premier broke a promise to them too, many if not most people in the province were angry at Harper, especially when the issue of reneging on the promise to exempt non-renewables from the equalization formula, was fresh.

At the time, the thought of the province being allowed to keep an extra $10 billion or so was fantastic and exciting. However, the promise was not realistic from the start, and Harper should not have signed his name to a letter supporting that idea. Had Harper said "no, this is not possible" then maybe the Premier would have accepted that too, and none of his follow-up campaign would be taking place. Again, many people in the province felt angry at Harper, but it really was an unrealistic promise. It was certainly a stupid mistake.

The idea of Newfoundland and Labrador being offered a $10 billion windfall is not going to happen. If that was the determining factor in this current vote, you might count the Conservative votes on one hand. The outrage in the rest of Canada however, would not let it happen even if it were tabled.

In this election vote Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green, NL First, PC, or any way you choose. Yes Harper went back on his promise, he made a serious mistake, but he is not the first or only one to do that, and won't be the last. All politicians have made mistakes. They are human. The very unfortunate thing about this election is that it possibly blinds people to good candidates in their district because they might in fact be Conservative. That is too bad, and it seems unfair. There are candidates running who are fresh, bright, and with no political baggage, who haven't accepted free public money. Unless someone can inform me differently, then Craig Westcott is one example.

If you feel you can trust whoever it is, do not let anyone, including our Premier, tell you who not to vote for. It's your choices, all of them. The anti-Harper campaign waged in this province will not sway this voter one bit, and hence, will vote for the person, not the party, as usual here.

A Lively Debate with May and Layton Impressing

This was one of the most lively leaders debates ever in Canada. All five appeared strong at different times in different ways. Particularly impressive was Green Party leader Elizabeth May. She came out aggressively from the start and made some no-nonsense statements to PM Harper about his environmental plan, his being "out of touch" with families who are hurting as a result of the economy. She spoke with conviction on every point she made, and stared Harper directly in the eye and asked no bs questions.

Jack Layton was impressive when he went on the offence against Harper, and also Dion. He did not let Stephane Dion off the hook after Dion stated that Liberals would not be breaking promises as Harper did. Layton reminded him that back in the 1990s, under Jean Chretien, the child-care program was promised and never delivered. That took away some of the Liberals credibility. Dion responded with a weakness in NDP stance on Troop deployment in Afghanistan, voting for the 2011 exit date with Harper. Layton later spoke about the Chretien years when health spending was cut, to the detriment of patients - a history reminder of Dion's party tradition.

Layton did bring up Harper's tax breaks to big oil and banks, mentioning Exxon's tax break to do more tar sands drilling. The tax break figure mentioned was $50 billion. He said he would get rid of that as PM and use it for improved social needs like health care and child care.

Several leaders pointed out that exporting raw materials in some cases is exporting jobs. Layton said "what wooden product can't be made here that can be in China?"
They also brought up Harper's past support of privatized health care, and his Emission Reduction plan. Ducette and maybe Layton pointed out that the Conservatives would lower the emissions rate per barrel but still more barrels of oil to be produced, thus only contributing to the greenhouse gas problem

Harper responded to many questions by describing the government's current approach to each issue.

As for his 2003 statement while opposition leader, concerning sending troops to Iraq, he finally said it was an error.

Ducette had nothing to lose as usual because he does not have to offer Canadians outside Quebec anything.

Through it all, Harper appeared the most composed, smiling, and with attacks from four others, was reminded the whole time that he was the man to beat. Possibly damaging to him was the big oil tax breaks mentioned by Layton, and the recent youth jail time idea. On that topic, and it was good it was mentioned a couple of times, by May, Ducette, and Harper that implementing social programs and resources to direct at "at risk" youth, to diminish the risk of youth crime from happening, was discussed. As well, May mentioned that one law enforcement officer experienced with youth, noted that many who were arrested had little or no literacy skills. So it raised the idea of more emphasis and funding on literacy skills. Though this was not discussed at much length, it was an important topic, and should be raised more often. It related to getting to the root of youth crime.

If anyone gained in tonight's debate it was May, and Layton. Dion appears to be reasoned and sincere, a person who appears to emphasize with real people's needs. However, and this is unfortunate, his English is sometimes a problem. The message is sometimes lost in his English pronunciations, at least to this blogger. He is the person Harper paid more attention to, because of the Liberal Green Shift plan, and their own history.

It was an excellent exchange, with no personal insults, just a couple small jabs. Follow up poll results will be eagerly awaited to see if a party got a bounce from the leader's performances. For the NDP candidates in NL and other provinces who were in the underdog or "iffy" categories, Layton's performance may have helped their cause by making the electorate give a second look at the NDP. Layton was certainly seeing an opportunity to replace Dion as official Opposition.

There were two major debates last night, and the U.S. VP debate couldn't have been more dramatic this the Canadian leaders debate.

Which Debate to Watch, Domestic or Foreign

In terms of expected drama tonight, the U.S. Vice-Presidential debate beats the Canadian federal leaders debate. There could be surprises in the English debate with the five leaders - a debate moment where an emotion driven, or planned, or well-timed remark hammers an opponent - the type that makes the famous moments in political debates. Harper seemed to be fairly cool last night as his four attackers made it clear to the public that his lead needed some knocking down. Unless a new pronounced scandal of national significance is weighing on the shoulders of Harper, there will be the usual expected attacks from opponents in the debate, and afterwards the status quo will exist in the polls.

The U.S. debate is highly anticipated not because the VPs significantly affect the eventual selection of the President, but because people have seen candidate Sarah Palin have George Bush moments in interviews, not knowing basic information, and are waiting to see if she will get caught again and look unprepared for the big job. Joe Biden has done well in debates and could pummel her. On the other hand media reports that Palin is a good debater and has the public speaking skills to make toast out of opponents. However, if she makes reference to her belief, at least once held belief that dinosaurs and people co-existed 6000 years ago, then she will be a baked Alaskan.

When there is something weak about an opponent, or his or her government is tied to some controversial event or topic which had shook the nation, then the potential drama builds. Tonight's Canadian debate would normally have more viewers because it's in English, but it has southern competition. If last night's French-Canadian debate was any indication, it will be another slug fest, and somewhat confusing flurry of cross-fire interruptions - poor interpreters. That's another thing, when translaters are doing their job, but the camera is still showing one leader speak, it is uncertain sometimes who the interrupter was. Anyway, which debate to watch? Which will be more dramatic? We'll know afterwards and that may be up for debate.