Done with policies, mind you, that were enacted by the Conservatives such as free trade and the GST - both of which the Liberals hollered and screamed against. So, again, you can never take politics out of the equation. The Liberals certainly never have.

My problem? Politics is an inescapable component of governance. Governments of all stripes, on both sides of the border, engage in this leaving-the-cupboard-dry fiscal strategy.

You talk about Liberal surpluses being about governance. But they didn't do anything with these surpluses, except leave them to the Conservatives.

And I think Mulroney is someone who convinced himself that governance trumped politics on certain issues, such as Meech and the GST, and Canadians let him know what they thought about that kind of governance.

Again, there has to be a balance between governance and politics, or else you'll never get a crack at the former.

I'm actually surprised at how many political junkies want to downplay the political component of public policy. Unless you can convince others of the merits of your principles, you'll never get a chance to implement any of them.

It's an interesting analysis. Part of the problem with being in opposition is that you can only work with what the government gives you. And, if all you have are fake scandals, then I guess you have to run on that. Or maybe don't force a fourth $300 million election in seven years? Duh.

Regarding Liberal branding strengths, I think two things were in play. First, Liberals probably thought their brand could give Iggy plenty of cover on the nationalism front. Second, that Liberal brand on that front has been eroding. They're no longer seen as the champion of Canadian federalism in Quebec. Indeed, the sponsorship scandal was in large part the result of wrapping the party in the flag, and having it lead to the corruption.

Regarding the Liberal brand and its fiscal record, again, governments usually don't leave their oppositions with much fiscal room to work with. Once the spending and taxing commitments are made, and there is no surplus, it's very hard to make new promises and pay for them - regardless of what your record in the past was. In fact, that Liberal record involved running big surpluses, which allowed the Tories to come in and spend that money the way they wanted, and leave little else for others. That's what governments usually do politically. Wonder why the Liberals didn't. In some ways, their policies on surpluses and campaign financing while in government led to their own demise. Fascinating.

You're playing semantic games here. Yes, it's called a debate, but it's more than that. If Iggy didn't know that, then he deserves losing. Furthermore, he's not the academic martyr you make him out to be. He was more than willing to lie when it suited him. He thought he was up to the task. He routinely thumped his chest in Harper's direction. He lost and was humbled. It's that simple.

I don't think there's any excuse for someone who wants to be our prime minister to mistake a political debate for an academic one.

You're playing semantics in asking that a political debate be an academic one. There are all kinds of debates. In a campaign, it's much like a job interview. It's not only about what you say, but how you say it. I don't think there's anything sinister about that.

I also get a little tired of Iggy and his apologists complaining after the fact about how politics is. Tis always been thus. For him to lose at it, then have himself and his supporters whine and complain about it, I think is somewhat unbecoming.

He was more than willing to throw the mud when it suited him. That he wasn't up to the requirement of the job is nobody else's fault but his.

What is it about my post again that suggests the leaders' debate was anything but a debate?

What kind of political leader would view these political debates as academic in nature? Not a very good one.

In fact, taken to its logical conclusion, the only way Ignatieff could have won the debate is if he'd become something we all despise, especially you.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there.

I find it incredible how Iggy felt he didn't need specific prep for the debates. And it showed. Not only did he not have an answer for Layton's knockout punch, but his mannerisms were completely off the whole time. He put his hand on his hip, was shifting his weight all the time, and gesturing inappropriately.

Everybody said Iggy made many improvements as leader, pointing to his stump speech and party organization. But it seems pretty clear now that this is someone who was out of touch, and didn't have anyone around him who could put him in touch when necessary. Which explains that awful concession speech, the "rise up" incident, the "go to hell" remarks in the last week, and on and on it goes.

He had a decent first two weeks of the campaign. Then the debates happened. Then everything started falling apart - especially with a leader obviously unequipped for the task.

So the characterization of the NDP's rise in the polls as one "surge" would seem to be at least slightly off the mark, wouldn't it? This was clearly a Quebec-centric phenomenon, with spillover in the rest of the country. Wouldn't that be more accurate?

Oh, and thanks for the numbers. Good job.

Dion: Not a leader. Iggy: He just didn't get it. Oh, he also was just visiting, etc, etc, lol

Does anybody have any numbers on the NDP outside of Quebec, and whether or not it constitutes an actual surge?

Additionally, I don't know how anyone can interpret a majority mandate as a desire for change.

Like I said, he didn't get it. And, judging from some of the postmortems in the Star and by other Liberals, he was arrogant - all the way until the end.

I wonder how long he'll stay at U of T.

Isn't democracy about the will of the people? And some of you don't actually care what they want. And, in every referendum in Canada and UK on the matter, the people have convincingly decided to stick with the system they have. How isn't that democracy? There is no groundswell for change, and there never has been - except among those who think they know better than the people that democracy is supposed to serve.