[skippy the wonder dog]

So it's the Finance Minister's job to babysit every department under the Government of Canada to ensure that no funding is being misused?

Oddly, that's not what I argued. I argued that the Finance Minister is responsible for making sure that controls are in place. Or is some other Cabinet Minister responsible for dealing with the Auditor General's reports?

Not that I expect you to respond to my point ... nope, I'll respond for you: "He's got a big job, he's not responsible for his responsibilities."

While the 'contribution' ad is a bit controversial, I was more amused by comments like:
"Canada is content to become a second-tier socialist country boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"

Oddly, that's not what you argued. Sorry, but you're not going to get away with defending Liberal attack ads by saying they're "all based on actual quotes" and then pretending that you didn't say that.

The Liberal ads are not "all based on actual quotes." They are misleading and at least one, which I referred to, invites wild speculation not supported by any evidence.

Factually speaking.

Impeding the progress of private health clinics in Canada is a waste of effort. These clinics already operate in Quebec, Toronto and Vancouver (with one expected to open in Ottawa this summer), the Liberal party won't fund private health clinics.

That's not what their platform says. Maybe you should read it. As I wrote previously, it's nice to know what you're actually voting for.

Martin did flip-flop on the same-sex marriage issue in the late '90s, but sided with it's acceptance last year

Right, so his vision is?

Martin always opposed the invasion of Iraq,

The record on that is quite clear. Martin was initially in favour of Canadian participation, and has always supported the aims of the invasion. His opposition to Canadian participation does not seem to be based on principle or, um, vision.

claiming he supported ballistic missile defence is a bit misleading ... the general consensus from the Canadian public was to decline involvement. And thats what he did. Does that make him a bad leader?

More to the point, does it suggest that his decisions are driven more by polling and less by, um, vision?

The Liberals vision is just as accessible as any of the other parties. Unless you received a story-book outline from the NDP, analyzing the parties platforms is as much of vision as you'll get.

Oh, so you're finally getting around to arguing that they have a vision. Having read their platform, which you don't seem to have done, I'm a little mystified by this claim, because vision is pretty much lacking. It's full of weasel phrases: we won't fund private health care, they say, unless we will.

The Liberal platform is a Rorschach test: it says almost nothing. You look at it and see what you want to see.

That ain't vision.

Only health care has suffered in this country....

And the environment, from the Liberal failure to act on Kyoto, as they had promised to do from the left side of their mouths. They made many promises from the left side of their mouths, but did little to act on them until their government was about to fall.

It was time to make the inkblot look ambiguous, so they acted.

Paul Martin's sole vision is to balance the books. He's a glorified accountant.

I'm not sure if that's a shot at Paul Martin, but either way Canada has reduced it's debt more substantially than any other country in the world. I suppose thats a bad thing?

Do try to argue honestly, will ya? I didn't suggest it was a bad thing. I suggested that Martin had no vision beyond it -- that balancing the books is his sole vision.

Well, as long as you're up front about admitting that this is the Liberal "vision."