Post-debate Highlights, and a suprising revelation

So Paul Martin doesn't know a thing about Constitutional Law or the modern history of Canada's constitutional struggles. Forgetting that Martin himself has promised to use the clause and that Liberals themselves seem opposed to the scheme, this represents a massive gaffe by Paul Martin's handlers. You would think that they would have warned him: "don't try to go toe to toe with Stephen Harper on the topics of economics or constitutional law.

That fascist nincompoop Jack Layton seems to have been almost a non-factor. This can't help but be good news. Anything that puts the NDP nearer to the 0.008% of the popular vote they deserve in any country that believes itself educated and civilized is a good thing.

The CBC reports that most people who think they know the "winner" of a debate didn't actually see it. This is I suppose how the Liberal/NDP propaganda wing explains away Harper's debate victory (since he's 1/4 debators, anything over 25% is "good" in a sense).

Tonight's French-language debate was interesting because Harper got targetted by Duceppe, the litmus test for who is poised to win the election.

Speaking of which, time for my surprising revelation: I'm scared that Harper might win. There, I've said it. I'd prefer the Liberals to win again. Why? Well, because a Conservative minority would be no different really from a Liberal one: the NDP still call the shots, you simply get less corruption. That's no good. Also because it validates the whole United Alternative bullshit, aiming to replace the Liberals with the same Red Tories we chased out with Reform in 1993. Finally, because a Liberal win means Alberta Independence shoots up to 65% in the polls overnight, while Harper winning would make people believe that "we can work within the system" which it may appear to overnight but will again screw us over in 10-20 years. I want Alberta out, I want it out now, and Harper's temporary electoral success as "Liberal-Lite" gets in the way of that.