Election 2011

[The Bread Guy]

I think it's doubtful, one of my 'Merican mates has the same thing posted, remove Prime Minister, insert Barack Obama...yadda, yadda, yadda

Out there in the British version, too.
http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g1-i9659-k4380151-Dear_Prime_Minister-Off_topic_chatter.html

 

[Redeye]

There seems to be a copy/paste thing making its rounds on Facebook.

Any truth to this? Can't find anything about it on the Net.

No.  It's a "Canadianization" of another completely false meme making the rounds about President Obama.

From the ever-useful snopes.com:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/payfreeze.asp

My wife (who's American) has been picking many a fight on facebook with her old friends down there about how stupid it is to repost this kind of crap without checking facts.  It's lazy when it's so easy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is a link to the Conservative Party of Canada’s platform.

The bits of primary concern to the CF begin on page 32, but it is pretty thin gruel.

 

[a_majoor]

One of the things I note is a slow but steady decline in BQ support, but to whose advantage, in the end?

The NDP. The Bloc is a National Socialist Party (the state uses taxes and revenues to provide favourable outcomes to particular ethnic groups) while the NDP is a Social Democratic Party (the state uses taxes and revenues to provide favourable outcomes to particular economic groups). Just convince Pure Laine Québécois they are actually "Working Families and most of the economic and social policies of the NDP will overlap the BQ by a considerable margin.

 

[Riverain96]

I would tend to disagree with you Thucydides.

As a quebecois francais myself, I am confident in saying that the majority of votes going to the BQ are centered around nationalist motives as well as language issues more than anything else. Many french Canadians feel they are not heard or simply do not associate with any of the other parties. The decrease in votes going to the BQ is coming mainly from a drop in nationalism as an issue of importance to french voters.

The change in votes might help the NDP, and like you said it makes sense considering the social left part of their platforms. However, being that most votes going to the Bloc are not due to a socialist platform, most voters will actually not change their votes from BQ to NDP. I would say votes would be split more between the Liberals and the Conservatives, with more going to the liberals being as we Quebecers tend to prefer center left to center right.

You can also look to provincial politics to confirm this. If you look at the provincial situation for the past 10 years, you will notice the PLQ (Liberal Party of Quebec) has been in power. The PLQ is a center right party and shares more similarity with the liberals and conservatives than the NDP.

 

[Nemo888]

I don't really want to vote for anyone. Plutocrats have corrupted our Democracy. Politicians now look to me like opportunists with all the credibility of used car salesmen. Bill Moyers said it better criticizing the biggest threat to the US Democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za-TYGOE1O0

"The Gilded Age returned with a vengeance in our time. It slipped in quietly at first, back in the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan began a "massive decades-long transfer of national wealth to the rich".

The trend continued under George W. Bush — those huge tax cuts for the rich, remember, which are now about to be extended because both parties have been bought off by the wealthy — and by 2007 the wealthiest 10 per cent of Americans were taking in 50 per cent of the national income. Today, a fraction of people at the top today earn more than the bottom 120 million Americans.

Over the past 30 years, with the complicity of Republicans and Democrats alike, the plutocrats, or plutonomists have used their vastly increased wealth to assure that government does their bidding."

"Everyone knows millions of Americans are in trouble. As Robert Reich recently summed it the state of working people: they have lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings.

Their grown children have moved back in with them. Their state and local taxes are rising. Teachers and firefighters are being laid off. The roads and bridges they count on are crumbling, pipelines are leaking, schools are dilapidated, and public libraries are being shut.

Why isn't government working for them? Because it has been bought off. It is as simple as that. And until we get clean money we are not going to get clean elections, and until we get clean elections, you can kiss goodbye government of, by, and for the people. Welcome to the plutocracy."

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

When rates are examined there had been a general downward trend in tax rates from 91% in 1963 to 35% today.  Democrats led it off with a 14% drop in 1964.  While the big drops since then have been initiated by Republicans there appears to be no great philosophical gulf that is remedied with the Democrats massively hiking taxes while in power.  The evil 3.6% Bush tax cuts are pretty insignificant compared to an overall 56% cut since 1964.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

I look at lower tax rates as economic stimulus, undertaken to maintain competition with the rest of the world. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is the Jeffrey Simpson wishin’ and hopin’ that something, anything will happen to boost his hero his only viable alternative to the ‘evil,’ hated Harper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-election-aint-over-till-the-voters-sing/article1977464/

The election ain’t over till the voters sing

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Apr. 09, 2011

If a shift in public opinion occurs in an election, it happens in the second half of the campaign. So no one should read significance into the fact that the polls haven’t moved much. Maybe they never will. If they do move, it won’t start happening until about a week from now.

Shifts – if they occur – take place after the televised debates, assuming a leader made a strong positive or negative impression. Late in the campaign, undecided voters make up their minds.

Nothing might happen right to the end. Some campaigns are like that. In this campaign, there might not be a break either for or against the governing Conservatives. They might inch up their share of the popular vote in enough ridings to win a majority, or fall a bit short. That’s what the numbers suggest today, as they have since Day 1.

The campaign has been so dull and devoid of passion or arresting issues that the electorate’s preferences today might be more or less the same as on voting day. Presumably, this kind of somnolence is what the Conservatives want, since they lead, they have a good election-day machine and they can count on their older supporters to vote.

And yet, it hasn’t been a great campaign for the Conservatives. Little things that reflect their mania for control, for keeping the Prime Minister in a bubble, for being fiercely partisan all the time, have kept throwing their campaign off message. In this, they have campaigned as they have governed. Presumably, Stephen Harper and his campaign team know no other way to do government or politics.

They also have campaigned as they have governed by showering money around the country. They have made billions of dollars worth of promises – to be implemented when the budget is balanced in four to five years. After which, true to form, the Conservatives will start spending like crazy again, just as they did before the recession, when spending grew about 6 per cent a year.

As for the Liberals, they must be happy. Apart from a wobbly early reply to the “coalition” issue, their campaign has run smoothly. The media are giving them good coverage, Michael Ignatieff is receiving plaudits, and the platform rolled out without too many hitches (although Mr. Ignatieff did have to deal with controversies surrounding two Liberal candidates).

At least the Liberal campaign has made them feel better about their party’s effort, something they haven’t felt for quite a while. In the last Harris-Decima poll, they’re seven points behind the Conservatives, and their leader’s “favourability” ratings have jumped while Mr. Harper’s have declined.

For the Liberals to make this a race, their leader has to be somewhat better regarded and their party has to appear to be a modestly plausible alternative to the Harper Conservatives. There are masses of Canadians looking for that alternative but they haven’t yet seen it in the Ignatieff Liberals.

The last Léger Marketing poll, for example, showed that nearly three-quarters of non-Conservative voters found the prospect of a Conservative majority “scary” (Léger’s word). Since those voters outnumber Conservatives by at least 3-to-2, it suggests that a whole lot of antipathy to Mr. Harper is waiting to be channelled somewhere.

In the same poll, 55 per cent of possible NDP supporters and 75 per cent of Green ones were unsure whether to back those parties. That support could move to the Liberals by the “scary” prospect of a Harper majority. Mind you, 45 per cent of possible Liberal voters said they might also move, so the Liberals’ priority has to be to nail them down.

For Mr. Harper, next week’s debates are all about keeping his anger under control, not sounding so partisan all the time, and surviving a three-against-one format that’s inherently unfair to the incumbent Prime Minister.

For Mr. Ignatieff, the debates are about showing himself as he has been in the campaign, in contrast to the demonic portrait of him in the Conservatives’ negative ads. He needs a lot of voters with a negative feeling toward him to be impressed with what they see. Otherwise, the Liberals’ chances will be over.

Simpson is right about a few things:

1. Debates do matter – above all, the media’s response, which I predict will be “Harper failed,” matter because most Canadians get their information from TV;
2. Votes can and sometimes do change in the second half of the campaign – after the debates; and
3. Canadians don’t much like Stephen Harper – but, sadly for Simpson and his fellow Torontonians, they like and trust Prince Michael Ignatieff even less.

 

[Rifleman62]

Key:

Liberals

The media are giving them good coverage,....

Conservatives

....Prime Minister in a bubble....

All media labeling access as a "bubble". Gotcha, invent, repeat is what the media aim is IRT the CPC. No ethics.

Liberal media love fest with all things Liberal, and media hatred of all things, anything Mr. Harper.

Lots of things on the internet to prove the hatred, including tweets from the media themselves.

 

[Good2Golf]

I don't really want to vote for anyone. Plutocrats have corrupted our Democracy. Politicians now look to me like opportunists with all the credibility of used car salesmen. Bill Moyers said it better criticizing the biggest threat to the US Democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za-TYGOE1O0

"The Gilded Age returned with a vengeance in our time. It slipped in quietly at first, back in the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan began a "massive decades-long transfer of national wealth to the rich".

The trend continued under George W. Bush — those huge tax cuts for the rich, remember, which are now about to be extended because both parties have been bought off by the wealthy — and by 2007 the wealthiest 10 per cent of Americans were taking in 50 per cent of the national income. Today, a fraction of people at the top today earn more than the bottom 120 million Americans.

Over the past 30 years, with the complicity of Republicans and Democrats alike, the plutocrats, or plutonomists have used their vastly increased wealth to assure that government does their bidding."

"Everyone knows millions of Americans are in trouble. As Robert Reich recently summed it the state of working people: they have lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings.

Their grown children have moved back in with them. Their state and local taxes are rising. Teachers and firefighters are being laid off. The roads and bridges they count on are crumbling, pipelines are leaking, schools are dilapidated, and public libraries are being shut.

Why isn't government working for them? Because it has been bought off. It is as simple as that. And until we get clean money we are not going to get clean elections, and until we get clean elections, you can kiss goodbye government of, by, and for the people. Welcome to the plutocracy."

A yes, a little raw information (data) without comparative context is a dangerous thing.

As I would suggest all people should do when presented with apparent "facts" is apply some critical thinking and dig below the apparent surface of the issues presented.  In the example quoted above, let's take a look at global Rich/Poor ratios (Wiki link to UN open source data: here) to see how "bad/unequitable" the U.S. really is, thus helping people put words such as those from Moyers in greater context.

A few extracts from the UN R/P ratios:  (R/P ratios are the ratio of wealth of a bracket of Rich-to-Poor, most often 10th(poor)/90th(rich) and 20th/80th wealth percentiles)

[note: larger number = greater disparity between rich and poor, the 10% is always more extreme than the 20%]


R/P ratio    10%  20%

Argentina    40.9, 17.8
Bolivia      168.1, 42.3
Bosnia-H      5.4,  3.8
Brazil          51.3, 21.8
Canada        9.4,  5.5
China          22.6, 12.2
Egypt          8.0,    5.1
Finland        5.6,    3.8
France          9.1,    5.6
Germany      6.9,    4.3
Haiti            71.7, 21.6
Hong Kong  17.8,  9.7
India            8.6,  5.6
Jamaica      17.3,  9.8
Mexico        24.6,  12.8
Namibia    128.8, 56.1
Russia        12.7,  7.2
Singapore    17.7,  9.7
Turkey        16.8,  9.3
UK              13.8,  7.2
U.S            15.9,  8.4
Venezuala  48.3, 16.0

The full list is at the link above, but one sees that the U.S is in a middle block of wealth distribution (mid-teen % in the 10% P/R category), along with peers such as: UK, Russia, Turkey, Singapore, Jamaica and Hong Kong...a relatively global diverse lot, and not countries that would immediately come to mind as "oppressing the poor".

The most equitably distributed nation is Bosnia-Herzogvina and a hair's width less in the 10%P/R category is  Finland.  These most economically (not talking social rights, etc...) equitable nations are then followed closely by nations with high single-digit % P/R ratios, such as Germany, Egypt (economic wealth, remember), India France and Canada.

Interestingly, the category of nations with significantly less wealth equity starts in the low 20%'s with China (YES, the People's Republic of China, as communist as it purports to be!) gradually degrading to less and less equitable wealth distribution through Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil and Haiti up to the most inequitable wealth distribution in Namibia and Bolivia.

What does this mean?

Well, it means that notwithstanding the "woe are us, the poor downtrodden" case Bill Moyers tries to make in the words noted above, the U.S. sits square in the middle of the pack of nations when it comes to equitable wealth distribution, and not that far quantitatively from those nations with the most equitably distributed wealth.

When it comes to information presented, might I suggest caveat emptor?


Regards
G2G

 

[Riverain96]

I am a 24 year old graduating university student who is undecided as to my voting decision for the upcoming election. I believe in making educated decisions so I have been doing research on the liberal and the conservative platform and have one question maybe someone could help me out with.

Why should I vote for the Conservative Party? In their adds I hear more about why we shouldn't vote for the liberals than anything that actually has to do with the Conservative agenda. I also read through their platform and every paragraph it makes reference to the "reckless coalition" and how terrible the liberals are. Why? I want to read your platform, to understand what you will do to continue the growth of our country, not an editorial on why you dislike the other parties.

I personally like the Conservative platform better than the Liberal one, however I have trouble voting for a party that seemingly does not have confidence it's own ability or beliefs. A party that fully believed they were the best option for the Canadian people would not feel the need to spend time and money insulting the other party...s in the running. In fact they would waste as little time as possible talking about other parties because they would need to take all the time they have to make sure Canadians know they will give them the best. Yes you can compare yourself to the competition in order to differentiate yourself, but what I've seen so far is a long way from being constructive and frankly, is quite unprofessional.

That being said, I am aware the Liberals take part in the same type of behavior so I have posed them the same question.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Riverain96-

You have posed an interesting question.  Without advocating for either the Liberals or the Conservatives, I think your choice really comes down to this question:  Do you really believe that the Federal Government can solve all of your problems?  If you do, then you may be more comfortable voting Liberal. If not, you may be more comfortable with the Conservatives.

This difference in basic philosophies also (partly) explains the campaign advertising.  It is difficult for the Conservatives to run much of a platform that promises you much of anything, except to leave you alone (I greatly simplify, of course).  The Liberal approach is much more activist- they offer you, the voter, much more in programmes to "fix" things for you (in return for taxing you or your neighbour or your employer more- naturally that part is down-played), thus there are relatively more promises.

There is no magic bullet here.  You have to decide (hopefully on your own) which philosophy you agree with more and who you believe is telling (relatively) more of the truth.  Good on you for doing the research. I wish all Canadians would go to the trouble that you are going to.

 

[Nemo888]

A yes, a little raw information (data) without comparative context is a dangerous thing.

As I would suggest all people should do when presented with apparent "facts" is apply some critical thinking and dig below the apparent surface of the issues presented.  In the example quoted above, let's take a look at global Rich/Poor ratios (Wiki link to UN open source data: here) to see how "bad/unequitable" the U.S. really is, thus helping people put words such as those from Moyers in greater context.

A few extracts from the UN R/P ratios:  (R/P ratios are the ratio of wealth of a bracket of Rich-to-Poor, most often 10th(poor)/90th(rich) and 20th/80th wealth percentiles)

[note: larger number = greater disparity between rich and poor, the 10% is always more extreme than the 20%]


R/P ratio    10%  20%

Argentina    40.9, 17.8
Bolivia      168.1, 42.3
Bosnia-H      5.4,  3.8
Brazil          51.3, 21.8
Canada        9.4,  5.5
China          22.6, 12.2
Egypt          8.0,    5.1
Finland        5.6,    3.8
France          9.1,    5.6
Germany      6.9,    4.3
Haiti            71.7, 21.6
Hong Kong  17.8,  9.7
India            8.6,  5.6
Jamaica      17.3,  9.8
Mexico        24.6,  12.8
Namibia    128.8, 56.1
Russia        12.7,  7.2
Singapore    17.7,  9.7
Turkey        16.8,  9.3
UK              13.8,  7.2
U.S            15.9,  8.4
Venezuala  48.3, 16.0

The full list is at the link above, but one sees that the U.S is in a middle block of wealth distribution (mid-teen % in the 10% P/R category), along with peers such as: UK, Russia, Turkey, Singapore, Jamaica and Hong Kong...a relatively global diverse lot, and not countries that would immediately come to mind as "oppressing the poor".

The most equitably distributed nation is Bosnia-Herzogvina and a hair's width less in the 10%P/R category is  Finland.  These most economically (not talking social rights, etc...) equitable nations are then followed closely by nations with high single-digit % P/R ratios, such as Germany, Egypt (economic wealth, remember), India France and Canada.

Interestingly, the category of nations with significantly less wealth equity starts in the low 20%'s with China (YES, the People's Republic of China, as communist as it purports to be!) gradually degrading to less and less equitable wealth distribution through Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil and Haiti up to the most inequitable wealth distribution in Namibia and Bolivia.

What does this mean?

Well, it means that notwithstanding the "woe are us, the poor downtrodden" case Bill Moyers tries to make in the words noted above, the U.S. sits square in the middle of the pack of nations when it comes to equitable wealth distribution, and not that far quantitatively from those nations with the most equitably distributed wealth.

When it comes to information presented, might I suggest caveat emptor?


Regards
G2G

The US is not doing that well IMO using the 10% richest to poorest ratio. The only other country I have experience with that is close to the US's ratio(15.9) is the Philippines(15.5) and that is as corrupt a kleptocracy as you can get.  Ivory Coast and Uganda(both 16.6) are the next two below the US. You have low standards. Canada is a 9.4. Japan is the most equitable at 4.5. Haiti is close to the bottom at 71.7. Interesting stat. 

The Gini coefficient is even worse with the US being number 71. 48 spots below Canada. The US is becoming the Philippines IMO. I'd rather emulate Japan, Norway or Denmark. I don't want to compete to the bottom and try to emulate Mexico.

 

[ModlrMike]

You're using American politics applied to a Canadian election. That's going to fail every time. The vast majority of our MPs are hardworking rural types who are honest and well meaning. Unlike the US and many other nations, you don't need to be an elite or have millions of dollars of personal wealth to be elected.

 

[Good2Golf]

The US is not doing that well IMO using the 10% richest to poorest ratio. The only other country I have experience with that is close to the US's ratio(15.9) is the Philippines(15.5) and that is as corrupt a kleptocracy as you can get.  Ivory Coast and Uganda(both 16.6) are the next two below the US. You have low standards. Canada is a 9.4. Japan is the most equitable at 4.5. Haiti is close to the bottom at 71.7. Interesting stat. 

The Gini coefficient is even worse with the US being number 71. 48 spots below Canada. The US is becoming the Philippines IMO. I'd rather emulate Japan, Norway or Denmark. I don't want to compete to the bottom and try to emulate Mexico.

Well, you can pick and choose nations with similar R/P ratios all day long to support your "plutocratic/oligarchic" charges against the U.S.  You certainly are using examples that suite your US=despotic, wealth-ruled oligarchy argument...what about Jamaica at 17.3?  That's more wealth to the rich than the poor than the Philippines, Ivory Coast and Uganda.  What say you about sunny Jamaica?

I cited a few examples (Egypt in in the sub 10% P/R bracket) where one should not inappropriately draw causality from correlation regarding mode of governance to distribution of wealth.  The point is to look critically at issues where the surface may indicate one thing but for which there is greater complexity to the issue, thus a need to be wary of facile and potentially inaccurate conclusions.

2 more ¢

Regards
G2G

 

[Edward Campbell]

It figures; the one Conservative promise I described as being ”Nonsense” and monumentally stupid” is the one Prince Michael Ignatieff likes, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/a-tory-promise-mr-ignatieff-actually-likes/article1978697/

A Tory promise Mr. Ignatieff actually likes

JANE TABER

Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Saturday, April 9, 2011

It’s not all that bad. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff acknowledged Saturday that he actually likes a promise contained in the Harper Conservative election platform – the one to create a $5-million Office of Religious Freedoms.

“We think an initiative like is the kind of thing that ought to have the support of all sides in politics,” Mr. Ignatieff told reporters Saturday at a press conference in downtown Toronto. “When you see in Egypt peaceful members of the Coptic community being attacked, when you see Baha’is being persecuted in Iran, when you see Jews being persecuted, when you see Christians unable to practice their religion freely in China, I think all Canadians believe in the importance of both defending religious freedom at home but also defending religious freedom abroad.”

The office would be housed in the department of Foreign Affairs and would monitor religious freedom around the world.

Mr. Ignatieff cautioned, however, that this office should not be “politicized”. Whatever work is done must also respect “the sovereignty of countries overseas.”

“The defence of religious freedom is unconditional. It applies to all religious group,” he said. “So I think a stout and courageous defence of religious freedom overseas is a good thing for Canada.”

Mr. Ignatieff's endorsement of the idea is at odds with people in his own party, however. Yesterday a number of Liberal candidates dumped on the idea, according to a Canadian press story.

The story had Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae accusing the Conservatives of creating the new office merely to win support in ethnic communities. “It has much more to do with Canadian domestic politics than it has to do with the necessity of having a coherent strategy for the promotion of democracy and human rights,” said Mr. Rae.

Liberal MP David McGuinty also criticized the move and said Canada already has a safeguard for religious freedom. “We have a document in this country that does that; it's called the Charter of Rights.”

I’ll repeat my objection: just as the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation (even Trudeau could be right now and again, rather like a stopped clock cannot help but be right, momentarily, twice a day) so our nation has no business in the temples of other nation-states. They have their religions, for good or ill,mostly ill – and, if this monumentally stupid idea is ever implemented then I will write to the Conservative PM and Foreign Minister on a regular basis reminding them that I am a long standing (and maximum level) donor to the Conservative Party and demanding that we hector and harass Iran and Saudi Arabia, and several other Arab and Muslim states for their lack of religious freedom for anyone except Muslims.

Like I said, the proposal is nonsense and I’m not surprised someone as unctuous as Prince Michael Ignatieff approves of it.

 

[Nemo888]

Well, you can pick and choose nations with similar R/P ratios all day long to support your "plutocratic/oligarchic" charges against the U.S.  You certainly are using examples that suite your US=despotic, wealth-ruled oligarchy argument...what about Jamaica at 17.3?  That's more wealth to the rich than the poor than the Philippines, Ivory Coast and Uganda.  What say you about sunny Jamaica?

I cited a few examples (Egypt in in the sub 10% P/R bracket) where one should not inappropriately draw causality from correlation regarding mode of governance to distribution of wealth.  The point is to look critically at issues where the surface may indicate one thing but for which there is greater complexity to the issue, thus a need to be wary of facile and potentially inaccurate conclusions.

2 more ¢

Regards
G2G

The higher the number the worse the disparity. Jamaica's 17.3 is slightly worse than the Philippines 15.5 or the US's 15.9, but obviously it is rather corrupt and crime ridden like the other countries in that bracket. I am saying that the USA has been getting worse for about 30 years. I don't want to follow their bad example. I think our major parties are not trustworthy and that paid lobbyists have undue influence.

 

[GAP]

Nemo888....take you silly argument and quit messing up this thread.....go start a new one. :

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

The US sure must be a distasteful place.  By the way, why do they have to build fences to keep out the rabble of the world?  It must be to keep their own suffering people in.

 

[Rifleman62]

http://smalldeadanimals.com/

The First American Prime Minister, On The Law

Oops. Wrong country. (see attached picture)


SUN News TV will be a breath of fresh air, as long as your provider will supply the network (some are not)!

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/brian_lilley/2011/04/07/17915821.html

Selective scandal coverage is a disservice

BRIAN LILLEY, QMI Agency

Last Updated: April 8, 2011

Who knew that the most pressing issue facing the country was whether the Conservative Party of Canada checked the Facebook statuses of people coming to their rallies to see if they are friends with other politicians.

I’m not saying the Tory tactics are right, in fact it was one of our family of papers, the London Free Press, that started the ball rolling on this. In essence, we broke the story and the rest of the media ran with it.

And how have they run with it.

Almost all other issues were put aside while reporters following Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s election tour quizzed the PM and tried to force an apology. They got one Thursday.

Questions about his plans for a cap-and-trade system, the economy and Quebec’s rejection of federalist parties were all vetoed so that we could get to the bottom of Facebookgate. Oh, and there were no questions about Canada sending more troops to Libya.

What is interesting is that while there has been plenty of pick-up on the story we started with the Facebook flap, other media outlets ignored another part of our story that ran on Tuesday.

“When Ignatieff was here last week, the RCMP got physical with two Free Press reporters, even elbowing a pregnant reporter in the stomach. Told she was pregnant, the male Mountie said: ‘That’s what you get for rushing a bodyguard.’ ”

I’m sure you’ve seen the headlines and watched the nightly indignant reports on Ignatieff’s goons roughing up reporters.

What’s that? You haven’t seen any reports like that?

I wonder why?

It’s not like the media hasn’t been tough on Jack Layton. In between snide tweets, the NDP leader has had to deal with claims that his schedule was slower than the other leaders because of his fragile health. Of course that’s not true. Layton’s schedule has been as busy as the other two federalist leaders and he’s covered the same ground.

It’s almost like some reporters are trying to kick the cane out from Jack as he walks by.

Meanwhile it’s all hugs at the Big Red Tent.

On Wednesday, we found out from the NDP that the Liberals had a candidate in Quebec who referred to Native Canadians as “featherheads” and belonged to a white rights group. He had been the candidate since August 2009 but was booted quickly.

We also found out that the Liberals have a candidate in Vancouver who was convicted of drunk driving in 2003. Given how Ignatieff has made it clear he doesn’t believe in criminal rehabilitation for former Harper aide Bruce Carson, you would think he would have something to say. Not really.

You also might think that with two candidates in trouble you’d have seen headlines on Thursday morning that declared the Liberals had racist, drunk-driving candidates.

No, those issues weren’t on any of the front pages, but the Toronto Star did put the Facebook flap back on the front page. Top story, above the fold.

Stories on Liberal woes were downplayed.

I’d rather see election coverage focus on policy. What would each of the leaders do if elected? How would they change Canada?

But if media outlets plan on running story after breathless story about the latest mini-scandal, then it should happen on all the campaigns.

That’s not happening right now and Canadians are poorer for it.

— Lilley will host Byline on Sun News Network