Was Harper really the right choice, and what were we thinking?
368218
I very much like his wife - could she be a Cabinet Minister?  She is a real charmer - a lively one.
749525
Bad for The Tigers. I dont know what Dombrowski was thinking.\n\nThat sanchez dude was big prospect in our system, and he'll come back to haunt The Tigers in the future.\n\nI'm just hoping that Sheffield can keep his head in the game.\nHis bat might us help us.
714518
I do research. During the 2006 elections I went to a website called votersissue.org. Sometimes I just went and type the name of the person and a website detailing their stance on issues has been helpful. The media has pretty much mislabed politicians making one conservative where they were actually moderate. Making someone a liberal but they actually were a little to the right.
588518
It looks like Ben Harper is (see link)\n\nhttp://www.nme.com/news/22910
981297
I would NEVER vote a strait party ticket.  For me, I voted for who I felt was the best choice.  I had to believe in what they stand for.  They had to have a good stable platform.  Anyone who I noticed changing positions or sliding back and forth on issues.  I suppose in a couple cases, it was a choice between the lesser of 2 evils.\n\nI sincerely hope that everyone votes smart today.  Far too many people have switched to the party vote and that's one of the worst things you can do.  That's NOT why the party system was created.
1170303
Trudeau, he was just soo full of life and a crazy guy. I wish we could have another prime minister who was serious but also a goof.
717074
I think she made the right choice. Myself, I would have messed him up way worst than she did. I am glad she won her suit against him.
1093898
All this time, I thought the people (kinda) selected him. W was such a good leader with his savings and loan (sarcasm), and then the Texas Rangers, the brilliant people of Texas decided he should run that state (into the ground) also. After his overwhelming success at that endevour and the difficulty of deciding who was the lessor of two evils for the 2000 presidency, he was elected (albeit, with less votes than his opposition) as the President of the U.S. While Jeb was originally considered the heir apparent, W's ability as a leader overwhelmed the influential leaders of big business. He was perfect; he could sing and dance and do whatever he was told, all the while convincing the American public that everything he did was in their best interest. Increase deficit spending? Yay, let's do; it'll help make our kids work harder. Ignore global warming? Yay, it's too cold in the winter anyhow. Jeb couldn't have done this as well, he was too smart for his own good; maybe even has a mind of his own.
760075
Harper is only stating the obvious, but I would have preferred not to open that can of worms again.  For better or for worse, the problem of Quebec separatism will be solved sooner rather than later.  The uncertainty caused by Quebec separatism is an economic drain, so resolution is a good idea.  \n\nBoth the federalists and separatists think that the motion, which is symbolic only, is a good idea.  Clearly there are some differences in interpretation, but I think the advantage is to the federalist side.  Harper has out-manoeuvred the BQ by neutralizing their platform of alienation and having the separatists vote to keep Quebec in Canada.  \n\nAt the core, Quebec separatist are in the business of extorting dis-proportionate transfer payments from the federal treasury.   Harper has called their bluff.  By giving Quebec recognition as a nation within Canada, he is also contemplating more provincial autonomy.  With more provincial powers the provinces will have more fiscal responsibilities and the federal level will have fewer fiscal responsibilities.  Voters in Quebec will miss sucking at the federal teat and will abandon the separatist cause to vote for more federal spending.  Before this happens, Harper will be able to pay down a substantial fraction of the national debt.  \n\nI can't wait for the next election to vote Harper a majority.
118607
No.  There is no party that is truly conservative anymore.  We can't even protect our borders. We can't even win in Iraq.  Why?  Politics.  I am from the political standpoint of Winston Churchill.  He crushed his enemies with brute force.  He was considered on the fringe of the right in his time but if he was Prime Minister from the start rather than Neville Chamberlain, Hitler would have been stopped rather than appeased.  I urge anyone who considers themselves to be a republican to read Churchill's biography.  Find out how a true conservative thought.  He did nothing short of save this world.
209159
Is this the right P. Johnson, maybe?
274203
McCain might be a good choice because he, more than just about anyone else, can reach across party lines and solve problems.  He tends to work well with Democrats while maintaining his own virtues.  He has a strong military background which is important at this time.  He has a great Senate record.
702382
Sir Wilfred Laurier was probably one of the most important Prime Ministers ('best' is so difficult to determine). He came to power at just the right time to see Canadian politics transitioning, and he was probably the most important PM to Canadian unity since Confederation.
1077874
He acted in the best interest of his people.  Americans think that he isn't trying, or that he has alernative motives.  Thousands of people in your country were just killed, what do you do?  Who do you blame?  When you hear rumors of nuclear arms, do you just sit back and relax?\n\nI find that, being Canadian, I can step back and look at his point of view. You guys are clouding you sight with anger.
806851
That depends on the other nominees. I don't think he'd be such a bad choice, though.
752250
Amen Jason!!!\n\nBlack or White. Good or Bad. \n\nThe world is not that simple.\n\nWhy can't I be fiscally responsible, yet socially liberal.\n\nWhy can't I be pro-environment and anti-abortion? \n\nWith two parties we are forced to select from two cookie cutter candidates, both heavily funded by corporations. \n\nPolicy is made by who has the most members, not who can come to a compromise.\n\nIn Canada, Britain, and even our close friend Israel... parties are forced to compromise and make agreements to get things done. \n\nThe reason we are sliding downhill fast is that it's either one slate of policies or the other, with NO in between.\n\nWe need open access to any party with enough to support to be able to considered viable. Libertarians and Greens, Constitutionalists, and Socialists, et al. \n\nEliminate all of the two party "funny money" and allow a TRUE democracy to really exist.
1030381
Why should anyone "hate" Stephen Harper?  I thought the Gays and the Lesbians were trying to put an end to hate.  Are you saying now they should promote hate toward one man?\n\nThe question for his existence is not anyone's to answer.  Stephen Harper exists because God created him; just as you exist because God created you.\n\nThe question seems more your attempt to advocate hatred of one human being and not intended to call to understanding or acceptance. \n\n Why wouldn't you be as curious to the existence of gays and lesbians?