one week into the election and some general themes are beginning to come about; harper and layton are trying to make up for what hurt them last year.

harper was the boogeyman that potentially could've formed a minority government had it not been for liberal tactics to drive voters into their fold. this time, he's changing about by trying to make the campaign about the issues. oh my goodness, what a novel idea! an election about the issues! it's a good tactic by bringing up the proposed gst deduction, opening debate on same sex marriage, and the rather bold outline of improving health-care waiting times. this forces martin to respond to the issues at hand, not so much attacking harper's conservatives. so as long harper is dictating the issues of the campaign, things look good. mind you, the policy initiatives are hardly bold and radical (2% decrease in consumer tax is not exactly mind boggling economic policy), but it is enough to make the papers next morning and have pundits talking about what was said, not who said it.

however, this is a long election by canadian standards and at this pace, by january 20th harper's policy ideas may need something proposing to change the country's capital from ottawa to kingston. ok, that's bold, but geographically bold.

layton, on the other hand, struggled last time around as last minute potential voters bought into the fear of harper as the PM and voted liberal. in some close races, this strategic vote cost the NDP quite a few seats. this time around, layton's message has been neutral towards harper to undermine liberal scare tactics. this week, he came out with the simple message that a liberal vote in saskatchewan is a vote for conservatives. trying to beat martin at this own game. ahhh, the wonders of our electoral system becoming political ploy themselves. (it's like those playoff possibilities on the last day of the season: if team A losses to team F, and team C wins or ties to team D, then team B makes the playoffs if they score 1 or more goals mind you, i doubt this example has any logic it but the things nerdy politictical scientists write about is now going to be used to confused the shit out of the voter). so unless you live in a "safe" riding expect political scientist from your nearby college/university getting plenty air-time talking about first-past-the-post and all the lovely naunces that it can result in.

paul martin is confusing me. starts off the campaign with the simple "be afraid of harper" message and by the end of week is publicly implying "the best i can do is minority with layton on my side". but knowing martin and the liberals, this is a tactic and once polls potentially show martin in majority territory, he'll forget he was even hugging buzz hargrove. how pathetic was that? again, a risky move that voters just aren't going to buy and see martin as a political opportunist. not a way to start a campaign basically seeking a procedural mandate and cuddling with the opposition's key demographic.

douche bag of the week: paul martin gets the nod.

just now, reading various election sources i noticed that each of the major parties has a blog (or blogue for the french) on their website. unless i'm not looking hard enough, ndp doesn't have one. we don't want to get into the obvious ironies of this. obviously, it's propaganda. they all suck. WE'RE SO SUPPOSED TO WRITE ABOUT YOU NOT YOU WRITING TO US!

the conservatives and liberals have some campaign tag alongs writing them while bloc's duceppe is writing his own, including a brazing image of himself pictured right. wish my french was better so i understood it but judging by the image, his blog is less about the campaign than a kinky story about him and 19 year old college students on chilly night in laval. besides, he doesn't care; he's only worried about quebec, that appears a lock, so why not write about your sexual escapades with young horny sovereignist?

in sum week one, nothing went on and missed nothing you didn't know there's an campaign going on.

mr. matthew good brings up a valid point you need to look at regarding the televised debates and our "democratic deficit."