Are the more than 100,000 dead innocents in Iraq freed?

You did get that DNC memo that this lie was debunked a long time ago, right?

You might have gotten that memo, but I did not. The article containing the statistics regarding the excess Iraqi deaths during both the Clinton and Bush II administrations was published in a peer-reviewed British medical journal.

If and when the DNC–or, for that matter, the RNC–publishes in a peer-reviewed journal, I might sit up and listen. Until then, no.

Sorry for the long-winded bloviation, but I was asked the question!

Thanks for the answer. I follow the elections in Germany and arch-enemies CDU (Merkel) and SPD have entered into a “grand coalition.” It is an unstable coaltion.

Raj, I can’t get over it… a wiki citation??

It is easier for me to cite to it than to re-type the information that I have reason to believe to be correct.

No grand coalition is going to happen - Libs and Cons in Canada are the historical arch-enemies as the only parties to ever form federal governments in our history. Their platforms don’t usually diverge too much - the current divergence in social values (e.g. gay marriage) comes from the Reform Party roots of the current incarnation of the Conservatives. But essentially you define yourself as a Liberal by not being a Tory, and vice-versa. So the Liberals would have everything to lose by entering into any kind of stable coalition with the Conservatives. Also currently the Liberals are in a leadership race because Paul Martin said he was stepping down, so nobody is in place to make that kind of commitment anyhow. When a new leader comes in they will be focusing on picking a time to take the government down, and running to get a majority (as will Harper!). I concur with the prediction of 18-24 months longevity for this government.

For stories on the election, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/decision2006 is a good source. Stories don’t stay on that site forever for free though.

Overall bear in mind Canada is profoundly more socially liberal than the US. Harper is way to the right of the mainstream personally - his platform is a huge compromise.

Sorry for the long-winded bloviation, but I was asked the question!

To even mention Michael Moore in the context of the election is to live in delusion. You might as well mention Madonna, O’Reilly, Clay Aiken or Trent Lott. Canadians don’t care about our politicians or public figures of any kind when they vote. Why should they?

Stop reading Canadian politics as a Siamese twin of the American version. Try learning about their country’s history and political culture. You might find it informative.

As for closer relations with the US, hah! Harper has already chided the American ambassador about Arctic territorial rights and warned the US not to sail through Arctic waters Canada claims.

Am I to understand then, that if Canada is attacked Quebec will surrender immediately? j/k

Thus, my point (as suggested by the title) was that Canadians rejected Bush-bashing. That they didn’t want the party which campaigned on attacking the government of its neighbor to the South. My sense is that, if they took the U.S. and Bush into consideration at all, it was that they thought that they would rather the government focus on issues of concern to the Canadian people than in scapegoating a foreign government. Indeed, it was likely the ignorance and arrogance of Canada’s liberals in assuming Canadians so hated President Bush that they would not vote in the party which was not anti-Bush and which had indicated that it would cooperate more with the U.S.

The ignorance (and arrogance) seems largely among those who think that Bush-bashing is the ticket to electoral success. A conclusion which today’s Democrats don’t seem to have reached.

And yes, many Canadians do see the inherent contradiction in a federal separatist party. But the fact remains that Harper can’t make any kind of coalition per se - the NDP don’t have enough seats, the Liberals are his de facto enemy, the Bloc would be political suicide (for the Bloc as well as Harper - remember, they are separatists,

I’m going to assume that you’re Canadian and understand Canadian election law. I have a couple of questions.

I understand the issue regarding a coalition between the Conservatives and the separatist Bloc Q. But is there anything to inhibit a “grand coalition” between the conservatives and the liberals–similar to what happened a few weeks ago between the CDU and SPD in Germany? I recognize that “grand coalitions” are largely unstable, since they are generally coalitions between competing parties, but since Harper hasn’t anywhere near a majority, it would appear to suggest that he will have to undergo another election within about 18 months or so. Unless he pays off his coalition partners, of course, which is hardly conservative.

That and the long winded bloviation sounds an aweful lot like Raj.

Just to let you know, I have been using the same handle “raj” (which are my intials Richard A Jordan) for at least a decade. And, to a lesser extent I have used raj49 (1949 was my birth year) or rajmgk (mgk are my partner’s initials) when “raj” alone was not available on a web site.

In the late 1990s, when I was posting on a now defunct message board, a poster, reacting to my “raj” handle, suggested that I go back to India. I, along with the other posters on the web site, were laughing at the comment.

Point: I do not use other handles when I post. Never. Don’t even suggest otherwise.

#81 Queer Conservative — January 24, 2006 @ 11:09 pm - January 24, 2006

Raj - you sound like a currency speculator that got burned in the Wessie Mark/Ossie Mark tango.

Not hardly. That had nothing to do with our being in Germany. All of our investments are nominally denominated in US$, as are my German mother-in-laws. My objection is that Kohl’s debasement of Germany’s currency by buying re-unification has damaged the German economy. The Munich area is doing quite well, also es ist mir wurst. My point, that you apparently wish to avoid, is that self-described conservatives can be and often have been economically dumb. Kohl was. St. Reagan was. GWBush is.

#84 Left of Centre Kanuk(not gay;)) — January 25, 2006 @ 12:14 am - January 25, 2006

This is probably true. As far as I can tell, Harper’s is little more than a caretaker government. Given his minimal plurality, one misstep and there will be a vote of no-confidence. The (reported) fact that he needs the Bloc Q, which is headed by a gay man, should give Harper pause to go into social issues any time soon.

Prediction: another election in Canada within 18 months. Same for Germany.

What makes you think that voters in other countries take the U.S. and Bush into consideration when they vote a new government into office?

Because, as I have mentioned before, Americans are very keen on themselves.

That actually did not originate from me. It originated from a British woman with whom we were confersing in France.

See Columbia’s History of the World edited by Garraty & Gay, p 1061

I will when I get to the local public library over the weekend. I don’t have a copy of the book, and I was unable to download any text from it over the internet. And I can’t assess the reliability of the text. Just because something appears in what appears to be a rather old text doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with reality. Do you have any transcripts (which might be considered “primary sources”) of the Yalta conference?

Not only is this a jingoistic position, it is profoundly ignorant and arrogant.

Going all the way back upstream to the original post,

That and the long winded bloviation sounds an aweful lot like Raj. Thing is, the lack of any reference to Germany is a little confusing.

A wiki cite? Ha!