, 08.18.2021 06:08 PM

My latest: whither goes Nova Scotia, goes the nation

Big waves always start off as small waves.

Is the wave that hit Nova Scotia politics this week going to sweep away Justin Trudeau?

It could. (It should.)

Here’s a recap: On Tuesday night, a Nova Scotia election that was supposed to be a foregone conclusion, a sleeper of a contest, very unexpectedly became something else entirely. And thereby shocked many, many pundits, pollsters and politicos.

The so-called experts prognosticated that the Nova Scotia Liberal government was going to be re-elected, handily. Polls showed the Grits with as much as a 28-point lead. But the good people of Nova Scotia had other plans.

The Nova Scotia Progressive Conservatives — and they are truly progressive conservatives, more on that in a minute — swept away 15 years of Liberal rule with a left-leaning platform that promised more and better health care. Tim Houston’s Progressive Conservatives captured nearly double the seats won by the Nova Scotia Liberals and were elected with a comfortable majority.

The Nova Scotia Grits, meanwhile, ran a disorganized, lacklustre campaign. Their newly installed leader, Iain Rankin, revealed himself to be the rookie he was — and, at one point, was forced to to admit to drunk-driving charges in 2003 and 2005.

Rankin kept his seat — but a number of senior, veteran Liberal cabinet ministers lost theirs.

What happened?

Well, the pandemic, for starters. Like their federal Liberal cousins, the Nova Scotia Grits were seen as arrogant and complacent. Houston and his New Democrat counterpart, Gary Burrill, zeroed in on Rankin’s health-care shortcomings.

And Houston promised the sorts of things that have become important to voters since COVID-19 hit: A $15 minimum wage, more paid sick days for workers, and rent control.

Another sleeper factor: The cost of living. Pollsters like Abacus — and others who have supplied numbers to this writer without attribution — have identified the rising cost of living as the top issue for voters across Canada.

So, the obvious question: Do the shocking Nova Scotia results portend a big change when Canadians line up to vote next month?

Perhaps not. Voter turnout in Nova Scotia was very low. It’s difficult to draw big conclusions when less than half of eligible voters are showing up to decide who should lead them.

Also: Alternation is real. That is, Canadians — particularly in places like Ontario — will often vote Team Blue at one level of government and then vote Team Red at the other level. Perhaps Tuesday night’s result was a case of Nova Scotians blowing off some steam, only to stay within the federal Liberal fold on Sept. 20.

Maybe. But most of all — and as I always like to say — campaigns matter. The Houston Tories ran a disciplined, smart campaign. The Rankin Grits just didn’t.

Federally, Justin Trudeau’s campaign effort has been as uninspiring as Rankin’s was. On day one he needed to clearly explain why he called an election two years early. He needed to persuade Canadians that calling an election — during a surging pandemic, raging wildfires and a deepening crisis in Afghanistan — was the right thing to do.

He didn’t.

Erin O’Toole has problems of his own — most particularly, an enthusiasm for vaccines, except where his own caucus and candidates are concerned. He’s given them a pass.

But, on Tuesday night, it was Trudeau who may have been hearing footsteps echoing through the halls at Rideau Cottage in Ottawa, where he lives. An election campaign that was supposed to be in the bag now, suddenly, looks less so.

Nova Scotia, you started a wave.

And it’s a wave that may well get a lot bigger and sweep away another Liberal government, too.

— Waren Kinsella was chairman of the federal Liberal war room in 1993 and 2000


  1. Sean says:

    Justin’s campaign for corruption definitely has the whiff of Martin’s in Dec. 2005. Wynne 2018. They appear sad, tired, unfocused, distracted. They know what’s coming. In a few weeks, the horse race will be about even… We all know what that means… The desperate crazy-town ads about abortion are already shot and in the can.

    • Derek Pearce says:

      You may be right, but a couple things:
      1) NS Premier-designate Houston **specifically** said during the campaign that he was “a Red Tory, a PROGRESSIVE Conservative, that the fed party are merely Conservatives” and he never mentioned O’Toole’s name once. He distanced the fuck out of himself from the CPC.
      2) the difference between Justin “all Fed employees must be vaccinated” and O’Toole’s ” it’s a choice ” will be noticed by voters. Nuance in this will be ignored, that’s the narrative.
      3) Canadians quite often like to have opposing parties between their provincial capital and Ottawa. 8 of our jurisdictions now have Tory government.
      4) O’Toole while younger looks older than the Dauphin.
      5) The feds these days spend and have spent more on voters than any provincial govt can.
      6) the CPC climate plan is too convoluted. People don’t love a straight up carbon tax but they “get it” moreso than the tortuous hoops the CPC wants people to jump through on this. People are finally taking climate change seriously.
      7) Ditto as #6 for child care.
      I despise Trudeau, I’m voting for Singh. I suspect we’ll be right back where we started when this is over, with another Lib minority. But Justin will at least be eyeing the exit and his caucus will be eyeing it for him, so at least there’s that.

      • Gyor says:

        The Nova Scotia PCs ran to the LEFT of the Liberal NS government, so as odd as this might seem, I think Jagmeet’s Singh’s NDP is a more ap comparison then Erin O’Toole’s CPC.

        Singh is running to Trudeau’s left and attacking him on his weakness on Healthcare (broken promise on pharmacare), affordable housing, climate change, support for small business, etc…

        Jagmeet has alot more experience now then he did last time and the public is hungrier for leftwing economic policies then they were. I think he’s plan to tax the corporations that Trudeau funneled money too only for the money to go to giving CEOs big bonuses will be a big one and his promise to cut internet costs will be popular and a contrast to Trudeau’s not just broken promise on this issue, but his turning a blind eye to CRTC corruption on this issue.

        The debates are going to be hugely important.

        • Gyor,

          I think this time we will not see the usual left-wing stampede to the Liberals to keep the CPC out. First off, O’Toole is far more moderate than Harper ever was. Secondly, as you’ve said, we can feel NDP momentum building on the ground in English Canada and it’s coming at the expense of the Liberals. So, I expect to see some form of a CPC government with a considerably reinvigorated NDP in Parliament. In short, both parties will make noticeable gains while the Liberals drop seats and end up back in opposition.

        • Walter says:

          Erin O’Toole is running well to the left of Jean Chretien.

          • Sean says:

            Exactly! See the announcements re. foreign investment in real estate, drug approvals (poppers) and safe injection sites. If you are NDP, I don’t follow why you wouldn’t vote for O’Toole at this point. Some of that is HARD left.

      • Sean says:

        DP… Interesting points. However:
        1. Rankin cozied up to Justin. I don’t think any provincial leader will ever do that again. Ever.
        2 I philosophically agree with the Liberal position on mandatory vaccines for certain jobs. However, O’Toole’s position is more grounded in the day to day reality that Canadians are facing. Practically speaking it is a choice and it probably always will be. I also don’t think for one moment that Justin is serious about actually making his policy happen.
        3. True. But that is never seamless. There is always overlap at some point and I think its coming.
        4. Agree. O’Toole looks like an adult.
        5. So did Martin in 05/06. So did Harper in ’15 for that matter.
        6. 99% of Joe and Jane Front Porch are not interested in the details of climate plans beyond the fact that a party indeed has a plan.
        7. Agree. And I like Warren’s analysis. Voters will always take cash before tax credits.

      • Pedant says:

        The mandatory vaccine wedge issue already seems to be waning. O’Toole said that CPC candidates either need to be vaccinated OR, if they choose not to be, must be tested regularly. I think most Canadians will view that as a reasonable compromise. In terms of all federal workers, Trudeau hasn’t even made clear what the consequence would be if workers don’t get vaccinated. He’s obviously too scared to admit in front of the cameras that they’ll be fired under his order. His credibility is diminished on the issue.

        You left out cost of living – top issue among young voters and one of the top overall. That’s what people care about, bread and butter issues like housing and food costs. And there, the Liberals are extremely vulnerable.

        • Sean says:

          No. They won’t be “fired under his order”. The election is on the 20th. Therefore Justin will reverse the policy on the 21st. He will quickly give up on this just like he gives up on every other policy.

        • Doug says:

          Trudeau’s pathetic mandatory vaccination wedge illustrates why he lacks the experience and awareness to occupy a leadership position:
          -despite the media narrative otherwise, the typical anti-vaxxer is a Liberal voting,m Millenial woman residing in Ontario: https://www.macleans.ca/society/typical-vaccine-hesitant-person-is-a-42-year-old-ontario-woman-who-votes-liberal-abacus-polling/
          -anyone with any work experience would have identified the potential HR and Legal implications of such a policy and done the upfront due diligence to understand the implications
          -the public sector unions are some of Trudeau’s most influential supporters. They will not tolerate any policy that could potentially reduce their membership, or call attention to the incredivle privlege they enjoy (ex. a union member refusing vaccination could be entitled to paid time off)

      • Fred J Pertanson says:

        My two cents:
        1) True.
        2) Justin’s position on vaxing fed employees: “There will be consequences if you don’t vax”. Reporter: What consequences?” JT: “ummm, errr, ahhh”.
        JT hastily got rid of the official policy position which happened to be exactly the same as O’Toole proposes.
        3) Coincidence, not causation.
        4) O’Toole looks and acts mature. Jt, not so much.
        5) True. But I think the population at large is waking up to the fact that this is not sustainable.
        6) It is a bit complicated, but maybe better than me giving my carbon tax to you, and Quebec cement companies being exempt?
        7) Targeting child care to those that need it makes a lot of sense. Better than the fire hose approach. If you make $200k per year, you don’t need subsidized day care.

        A vote for Singh will destroy what is left of our health care system. He promises to unite families from abroad, i.e. bring your elderly parents, grandparents etc. to Canada. Think of the impact on hospitals, LTC, etc.

  2. Warren,

    I’m sticking with my twin predictions: the CPC will form government and 40% of Liberal supporters will sit this one out, probably a new party record.

    Says all you need to know about the so-called leadership qualities of this phoney baloney prime minister.

    • Pedant says:

      I have to admit, the Liberals have begun the campaign weaker than I expected and the Conservatives stronger (NDP fairly strong too). Even the issue of vaccine mandates seems to be rolling off the media radar a bit, since Trudeau has yet to explain what the consequences will be for federal workers who refuse the vaccine.

      As Warren noted, the issue is COST OF LIVING, particularly the housing bubble. That’s what voters under 45 care about, and rightly so.

      One smart move by the Conservatives is to release the platform document good and early. This is the exact opposite of the 2019 campaign where they dragged their feet. They were ready this time.

      • Sean McCarthy says:

        Pedant said: “One smart move by the Conservatives is to release the platform document good and early”

        Exactly. They’ve very cleverly shifted / framed a lot of the discussions to their favor and forced the other parties to react. They are fighting the campaign on favorable ground.

        The sudden rebrand of the leader (gun show pic) is also very clever precisely because it was unexpected and the Liberals don’t know how to react to it.

        • david ray says:

          So the old boss would be the new boss who is the same as the old boss.\
          Yup, that’s what you get if you vote for cons cause a lot of them are still there and past is always prologue and you’ll hate them even more than Trudeau withing six months.
          I think I’ll vote Turban.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            Except the old boss has made it clear that he will not interfere with the affairs of the CPC as conducted by the leader and caucus. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

    • Steve T says:

      I would love to believe you, but I’ve learned to never underestimate the stupidity / simplicity of the Canadian voter.

      They love the milquetoast non-committal banalities of the Liberals. It’s like how everyone wants to order the “medium” size. It just feels like such a lovely middle ground, even if voters don’t really understand who they are actually voting for, or what the politicians are proposing.

      A few general healthcare-related comments (scary!!), and random made-up boogeyman stories about how conservatives will throw everyone to the wolves except the “rich”, and Canadians will sleepwalk blissfully to the Liberal camp once again.

      • The Doctor says:

        Lorne Gunter wrote an excellent article about exactly this many years ago: why the Liberals are the default voting choice for a very large number of Canadians. It’s seen as safe. And the Liberals are no dummies, they know this, and that’s why they trot out that histrionic “Evil Conservative Hidden Agenda” shit every election campaign, without fail.

    • Robert White says:

      O’Toole played the ABORTION card, Ronald. Your prediction just got blown out of the water. The CPC will not get traction with the voters now that they have offended every single woman voter in Canada.

      I cannot believe how the Conservatives opt to shoot themselves in both feet every election since the one hit wonder Harpy was run out of town on a rail back to Alberta.

      The Conservative party is anathema now.

      Best to revise your prediction, Ronald.

      P.S. Talk radio this morning is lambasting the Cons for their desperation.


      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        Let’s start with where I agree with you: during the leadership race, O’Toole pledged to respect physicians’ conscience rights and not to force them to refer patients to other doctors. Now, in the midst of the campaign, he says they must refer patients. Is that a contradiction? Of course it is.

        But it is also a significant softening of his position so that every women will have access to a physician who performs or refers women to those who offer abortion services.

        What hasn’t changed is that Erin was and remains today resolutely pro-choice. Women can take O’Toole at his word or not believe him. Either way, the chips will fall where they may.

        • Robert White says:

          It is highly doubtful that Canadian women can take a Conservative federal politician at his word when he sings from the Roman Catholic hymn book via his pontificate position as Conservative leader.

          Canadian women don’t want the Pope deciding their futures, and patriarchy is politically offensive in the extreme now that we are entering the gender parity phase of governance via best practices & ethics.

          When the Roman Catholic Church ordains female priests I change my tune a bit, but until that date I’m going to be intransigent on this issue.



          • Robert,

            I need more. How is Erin’s longstanding pro-choice position an example of Roman Catholic orthodoxy? Up to now, you’ve lost me.

            If you’re referring to his command and control style as leader, I would put it to you that every successful Prime Minister has come from that mould, some more controlling and some less but with it being known to caucus and the party who is exactly in charge. In other words, the leader.

            I would also remind you that O’Toole is also pro-LBGT2. In fact, he’s not only the first progressive leader but the first CPC leader writ large to take that position. He repeated it again recently while in Quebec City. Last Friday to be more specific.

          • Robert White says:

            That’s just my point, Ronald. The Cons are continually mentioning a Constitutionally defunct non-debate every electoral iteration since Steven Harper himself made sure that all of the Conservative Party adherents understood that the Conservative Party would no longer entertain debate about abortion rights for Canadian women given that their rights are constitutionally enshrined and all debate is now a moot point no longer worthy of discussion on any campaign trail.

            I believe that is some sort of provision in the Conservative Constitution drawn up in the lead up to office pre-Harper one hit wonder dynasty.

            If Mr. O’Toole virtue signals to his right-of-center base via mere mention that he is concerned for doctors that are compelled to perform abortions against their Constitutional rights as citizens of Canada, or he even mentions that he stands for pro-choice sides of arguments between the religious right and the constitutionally protected left, he is referencing an old debate that no longer has relevance in our contemporary short-window time frame to chose a secular politician to govern Parliament.

            Abortion is no longer any sort of discussion or debate in contemporary Canadian politics as Harper himself indicated to the right-of-center when he was in power.

            If Harper gets it why don’t you?

            If O’Toole even mentions his pro-choice private belief system it drags everyone back to the Roman Catholic Church orthodoxy of no abortions permitted by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchical decision making body which is religious and not part of our secular democracy in so far as we govern our political commons for all religious & non-religious folks across Canadian society in a secular Constitutionally protected & sanctioned democratic tradition via Parliamentary democracy.

            The Roman Catholic constituency cannot vote their faith into our Constitutionally protected legislation to overturn it in blocks of majority voters.

            No amount of finessing of the legislative process or democratic process will work to undermine our secular constitution on abortion rights.

            We don’t care what O’Toole thinks on a personal level when it comes to the rights paradigm and Canadian women.

            So why would the Conservative leader even mention the abortion issue and that he is ‘pro-choice’ if it actually a defunct debate under Harper’s directive himself.

            Harper knew the church advocacy would screw the Conservatives in the polls and that’s why he canned the debate way back when I was even a Conservative.

            Conservatives will never learn, ever.


          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            I absolutely agree that abortion is settled law in Canada as no government of any political stripe will ever bring it up ever again otherwise they are out of power. But I would venture to suggest that O’Toole is trying to at least blunt what will be the predictable Liberal attacks and deliberate distortions of his and the party’s official position. As you’ve said, Harper made it a no-go there under his leadership. But the Liberals try this one every election cycle. In modern times, it continuously goes all the way back to Martin in 2014 — and it worked like a charm that time.

            Perhaps you are right that Erin by bringing it up is shooting himself in the foot but I would venture to say that most Canadians, women or otherwise, know that it’s a dead issue and no matter what O’Toole says or does not say, it won’t be an election gamechanger or winner in this or any future election cycle.

          • Robert White says:

            You can’t blame the Liberal Party of Canada for Erin O’Toole’s foot & mouth disease, Ronald. The Liberals didn’t mention the ‘abortion issue’ in any of their attack ads or commentary. Erin O’Toole himself took it upon himself to stick his Conservative foot in his own mouth and PM Twinkle-socks never said peep about the issue to foment adversarial commentary on the part of the Cons.

            Every news pundit is mentioning the inappropriateness of the Con position now, and O’Toole lost the vote from women all across the land.

            Please consider voting for Singh, Ronald. He is the most professional of the lot.


          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            I will concede all my points if we get to the end of the campaign without the Trudeau Liberals bringing up abortion, either officially or via surrogates on TV. Until then, colour me skeptical.

  3. Pedant says:

    The issue of housing (which I guess ties into cost of living) figured in the Nova Scotia campaign. As with elsewhere in Canada, young people in Nova Scotia have been crushed by a never-ending housing bubble, largely manufactured by the federal Liberal government and Bank of Canada to artificially inflate the assets of the Boomer generation. The provincial PCs and NDP both had policy responses to the housing crisis (whether those responses were any good is another story), whereas the Liberals tried to defend the status quo.

    The housing crisis is emerging as a significant issue in the federal campaign, especially given Trudeau’s comments yesterday that he doesn’t think about monetary policy.

  4. Craig Chamberlain says:

    Trudeau said this election is about allowing Canadians to have their say – and yet it’s about him regaining a majority, for more of the same of what we saw from his minority government – an outcome he ignored. This election is about him being able to have his scandals, to reclaim control of committees and to block the truth from coming out, or to ride it out with his majority as we have seen with the disgraceful misconduct failures in the military. So, it’s really a “block the truth” election for Trudeau.

  5. PJH says:

    As stated, I hope the wave becomes a tidal bore, nay, a flippin’ tsunami……

  6. Mark says:

    It’s interesting how the Houston PC’s ran to the left of Rankin’s Liberals. Don’t have a clue how this portends for Trudeau and gang, but it would appear that the country is not necessarily in a right-of-centre mood.

    • Phil in London says:

      Lots of love for Chretien shared below but what he did best of all is campaign to the left and govern from the right.

      • Walter says:

        Essentially you are saying it is best to lie.

        Sadly, with Canadian voters – that is true.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:


          Respectfully, that’s politics and most people aren’t naive enough to take everything a party leader says in a campaign as a given. Nixon did it best with his Southern Strategy. Politics is absolutely an imperfect art and its practitioners are sinners seeking eventual redemption. Just one step up on the rung from lawyers.

  7. A. Voter says:

    I think the Nova Scotia provincial election showed that the NDP will regain strength in the Halifax metro area and the Conservatives will regain strength in the rural areas in that province. Nationally, 338Canada has the Liberals trending downward and polling show more Canadians think the country is headed in the wrong direction than think it is heading in the right direction. An election historian might be able to tell us what happens when the sitting party starts losing strength early in the election.

  8. You can all call me a moron or full of shit but here’s what my sixth sense is telling me: at the very least, voters are fed up with Trudeau and therefore are largely affected by Trudeau fatigue. Other voters are already way past that and landed at the combination of thorough disgust and absolute dismay. In a sense this is 1979 all over again with the caveat that Himself is no P-E-T, so he has almost no chance of coming back later with a majority as the old man did in 1980.

    • Sean says:

      I think the stronger analogy is 2006. Liberal leader throws it in on election night. No walk in the snow. No come back.

    • PJH says:

      Id like nothing better than your prognostication come to pass, but the electorate just loves to be bought with its own money, and if JT throws enough “candies” (as his father PET, liked to call them) I suspect he will still squeak out a minority…the son is not the father, and he doesnt have the coterie of highly intelligent and savvy adivsors his father did, either…..

    • Doug says:

      I look forward to the day when Trudeau and answers his true calling and appears on Dancing with the Stars and lands the lead in a second rate Obama biopic

  9. Gilbert says:

    When will the media ask JT about the dangerous virus samples shipped from Winnipeg to the Wuhan Lab? Have we been given assurances this won’t happen again? The opposition needs to make this an issue.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      They retroactively said that the PHAC had been aware before and given its consent. Liars. She shipped them without formal or informal authorization and then the researchers and students hi-tailed it right back to China.

      Just another Trudeau Liberal failure, this one having compromised Canada’s national security.

  10. Joe Calgary says:

    Warren, I can’t believe I’m saying this… Particularly as a dyed in the wool Tory, but I miss Chretien. I thought he was a bully and a crappy, opportunistic politician. After almost 20 years of profound mediocrity, I really miss him. If nothing else he was a steady hand at the wheel. I still think Martin was an idiot to call an election at the tail end of the Gomery commission when Chretien left him a majority, and three years left in a mandate, but that was for the best as it showed that beyond the numbers, Martin was an arrogant prat. Regardless, I would rather have some of the ol’ Bulldog around now than the “I’ll do everything including dropping my pants and bending over” crowd we have now.

    • Sean says:

      As a Liberal I definitely miss Chretien. However I also miss Stephen Harper and was very proud to vote for him in 2015. Felt fine voting for Scheer last time and holy crap I can’t wait to vote for O’Toole this time around.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        Everyone here knows how I felt about Harper from Day 1 as Alliance leader. No news there. For anyone to seriously suggest that O’Toole is an exact knockoff of Harper is ridiculous. Erin is pro-choice and centrally located on the right-wing spectrum. In short, a blue moderate. So once again, I urge all voters to please vote CPC and bring us the change that Canada so desperately needs. Thank you.

        • Sean says:

          I don’t think O’Toole is a knockoff of Harper at all. O’Toole has a much stronger hand to play on several fronts. But he is very cleverly borrowing some of Harper’s extremely smart campaign strategies from ’05-’06 and that’s why I’m predicting a similar result. Any comparison to Harper is a favorable one.

    • Phil in London says:

      I still feel the best election we never had would have been Chretien after his first term vs Mulroney after his first.

      I can say I never voted for either of them after first mandate but damn I miss them both in their prime.

      Seeing those two very stubborn but brilliant men toe to toe for an entire election cycle from say a year out to a year after would have been good for the country. Imagine neither with leadership convention scars and most of the troops on board.

      It is sad that I think of dream elections after scolding everyone who cheers for elections like it is hockey.

      • Walter says:

        Wholeheartedly agree.
        Mulroney after first term, Chretien after first term, and Harper after first term were very strong.
        Mulroney and Chretein faltered thereafter on ethics.
        Mulroney alone faltered on resolve to balance the books.

    • Doug says:

      I hated Chretien with a passion:
      -connection to the awful regime of Pierre Trudeau
      -waited until the last minute to do the right things on austerity and the Clarity Act
      -insincere “little guy” persona

      All that being said, he had strong leadership skills. He kept Caucus in line and had great instincts in terms of assessing risk

  11. 15 years in office is pretty good. You can’t (and shouldn’t) always have the same gang returning election after election. I suspect people in Nova Scotia just felt it was time for a change. I like Justin as a campaigner, and I think he will give a good account of himself . None of the leaders really inspire me, so I doubt much will change no matter who ends up winning.

    • Robert White says:

      Prime Minister Trudeau took us to election in the middle of a Fourth Generation Biowarfare attack on the world, and he leveraged Canada with the most structural inflation ever evidenced in the historiography of Finance Canada, & Parliament.

      He is a narcissist purchasing votes with money borrowed from future generations. In brief, he is spending his kids futures on bribing Canadians to vote for his unprofessional governance that is mired in intractable debt & deficit spending.

      I’d like to vote for the drunken sailor spendthrift Liberals if I didn’t care about taxation, and was not raised by a Chartered Accountant, but I was raised by a CA, and I do care about the misallocated tax dollars plus the malinvestments.

      As the son of a CA that worked for the federal government I, for one, cannot stomach the irresponsibility of the Liberal camp.

      The Conservatives are really no better with their laughable canard that ‘they will balance the books in ten years’.

      Vote for me and I’ll balance the books in ten years is not exactly a plan to get to balance is it.

      I’ve never heard anything as empty as that Con promise in all my life. Who in their right mind would believe anyone that claimed they would balance the books in ten years?

      Since Nixon ‘we are all Keynesians now’, eh.


      • Robert,

        I will agree with you entirely that anyone claiming to be capable of balancing the books in ten years is living out in LALA land. That aside, there’s always the argument that in periods of deflation, debt and deficits don’t matter. That view is worth what it’s worth. LOL. It’s certainly not my view.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.