As we enter the home stretch and get ready to vote I would ask you to consider who answered the questions you as a Canadian asked honestly and openly. Who best represents the way you wish to be governed. I for one found they all got lost in the race and none of them addressed the human issues fully and some not at all. Up to this point in the campaign not one leader has spoken to our children‘s needs, or rights although they are our future. Stephen Harper, talks about the economy like he is not spending money like it is water on jets and photo opts like the G8 G20 summits. Ignatieff with his $1000.00 a year crap offer towards a college fund crap, when he knows damn well that the damage is done in the educating of children long before college and that the price of tuition will eat that up and it is not guaranteeing anything except making him look good at election time. Stephen Harper played down everything that was negative about the Tories. All of the scandals his party finds themselves in are just not fair and were a conspiracy by the opposition parties to bring his government down. Beverly Oda was just doing her job, Helena Guergis is just a liar and he and his party were just doing their job stabbing her in the back. Stephen Harper says he did not know about, Bruce Carson‘s criminal past, or he would have never let him into his inner circle. Stephen Harper also claims that his jets costing more than double the orignal agreed upon price does not take them out of budget and I say that is some new way of doing costing. As for Sheila Fraser‘s report it is all just a big misunderstanding and the wording is not a bad as the first draft, although it does not vindicate the Tories at all or their practices. As for being the 1st party in the history of the Commonwealth to be brought down on a non confidence motion due to their contempt of parliament, harper again says not his fault the whole of parliament is conspiring to ruin him his party. Finally Stephen Harper says he believes in the democratic process, but asks Canadians to give him a majority so that he does not have to explain himself to the rest of Canada. To give him a mandate to rule not to govern. Harper has proven that it is economics all the way and God bless the child that has got his own because there will be nothing in the way of social programming for the less fortunate and as for the rules of democracy he intends to not have to worry about them when he returns to parliament with a majority government.
Micheal Ignatieff in my opinion missed a great opportunity to expose the Harper Government‘s non democratic approach to everything. He failed in my opinion to show that he was the guy to trust with Canada, but kept eluding to the great work and history of other Liberal leaders and other Liberal governments. I think that he did not address any of the core issues that he claims led up to the vote that brought this government down. He offered band-aid solutions to everything and seemed to be saying if you elect me I promise to come up with a plan. He was animated where Harper was dull, but his message was I do not have the answers right now and I will have to get back to you on that. The big difference I see between the two is that Mr. Ignatieff has a heart and is for social programs and I believe that he will stick to the rules of the democratic process once elected and that would be a nice change from the present way of doing things.
Jack Layton is still being Jack Layton the king-maker the middle man, but not ever the king. He promises a lot and knows the chances of him ever having to deliver is just about nil. Jack is the guy at an auction that forces the bid up with no intention of buying the article for sale. Great for the people selling, but bad for the people buying and in this case Canadians and the other politicians. Jack Layton has reopened the constitutional debate for Quebec knowing that he will never get the chance to do so, I found that to be opportunistic on his part and a little ingenuous. I heard a native woman on a CPAC call in show say that she is urging all Natives not to vote for Jack Layton, or Stephen harper, because when Harper scrapped the accord and cancelled all of the deals made with the natives by the Liberals giving them some of what they are due, Jack Layton sided with the Tories to gain personal power and I must say I agree with her 100% they shot down all of the deals made with the liberals in the accord. this is the problem with Jack Layton politics, he is willing to let bad things into the law, to get a photo opt looking like it was him that made it all possible.
Not one political leader got into, child abuse, sexual abuse, abuse of women, but everyone had a lot of money to throw around all of a sudden where before the election there was none. Not one leader spoke of the Canadian people living on the streets and a growing number of them being our youth. Low income housing was not mentioned either by anyone. What of Harper, Kenney and Toews Campaign Blue Blindfold and the refugees sitting in jail without benefit of due process, no mention of these things either. For goodness sake what of Omar Kadhr, child soldiers and the torture of the Afghan detainees? What of the deporting and handing over to other countries of Canadian citizens, to be interrogated, imprisoned and tortured? Why has this all become not important now that we are in an election, but was important enough to have the government shut down on numerous occasions for?
Lots of talk of rights and freedoms and multi culturalism, but no talk of the cracking down and out right criminalizing of some citizens rights to wear religious clothing and certain religious icons. No talk of the churches role in the sexual abuse of youngsters and their refusal to do anything about it and the hiding of it from the law. I sit here at my computer and I wonder if we the people of Canada are full of crap? Do we protest too hard about things we care little about? Are we getting what we want and do not know it, or deny it in public and secretly back this government behind closed doors in the privacy of our homes? Are the politicians right in thinking and now vocalizing That Canadians do not care about anything with the exception of money and cost?
The Conservatives are ahead in the polls say the media, but who can trust any kind of reporting these days just behind lawyers and politicians news people have to be the next biggest liars on the planet. News papers have become little more than comic books entertaining , but not based in facts. One only has to look at the election coverage to see that they are manipulating the story rather than just reporting it.
Gilles Duceppe looked and sounded like what he is a separatist fish out of Quebec waters. He flopped around making a lot of noise and saying nothing new. Quebec this, Quebec that and in the end lost more support in Quebec. His biggest mistake was to call on the former head of the Quebec Gestapo to speak on his behalf. It showed his lack of confidence and his inability to get votes on his own. For the first time Gilles looked rattled and unsure of Quebec being his private play ground. I have never heard him use the name of the Parti Québécois to rally his cause. I think that the Bloc is a seriously wounded player on the federal scene and soon they will vanish into a bad memory.
Unfortunately I think that this election will do nothing for the people who need the change the most. I think that not one of the leaders is touch with what the most vulnerable in canadian society need just to survive. Waiting until the economy is fixed will do little for those dying in waiting rooms, or seniors eating cat food, or the homeless sleeping on the street in 20 below zero temperatures. Waiting for the economy to right itself will not stop children, or women from being abused, or give the natives of Canada fresh drinking water, decent housing or an equal shot at an education, but the economy seems to be one party’s answer to everything. I see this election being about conscience, compassion and seeing the need to address the needs of ones citizens; too bad none of the leaders saw it that way, or at least took the opportunity to voice it.