Pauline: Hi Nik and Sarah,

Talking once a week like this has the advantage of creating perspective. The Cadman affair and NAFTA-gate are fading quickly in the "hot news" coverage, while the tawdry Spitzer story out of New York dominated even the Canadian media over the last few days.

Despite the Canadian fascination with the story, I cannot imagine such a political sex scandal happening in Canada.

Not because our call girls would be less expensive (I have no knowledge of that market). And not because it is hard to imagine our leading politicians as sex addicts (even though it is).

But simply because I think that attitudes towards sexual transgression are less judgmental in Canada — certainly in Quebec — than in the U.S.

Am I wrong, Nik? How do these things play in B.C., Sarah?

Sarah: Well, as I'm sure you know, anything goes in B.C. This province is basically one large swingers' club!

I think, though, that while Canadians might be less judgemental, we would still pounce upon an opportunity such as this to grill and humiliate a politician who has built a reputation on being a solid moral citizen. It is just too tempting.

I do think that Spitzer might have done better had he played the pity card. This worked well in B.C. when, after getting arrested for drunk driving, premier Gordon Campbell cried, "But I have a disease!"

After that the media was putty in his hands. They commended him for his humility. Or perhaps Spitzer should have used the Conservative tactic, deny, deny deny.

Pauline: Or the Liberal tactic: Don't show up for the vote!

You know, there is an interesting contrast here. The prime minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, was in the news — for the wrong reasons, getting himself involved in the U.S. presidential campaign.

But two other behind-the-scenes figures in that other minority government — Quebec — were not very much, although they deserved to be.

John Parisella, a former chief of staff to Robert Bourassa and Dan Gagnier, a former senior bureaucrat in the Mulroney government, are, in my view, two consummate political pros who turned around the ship in Quebec City.

Jean Charest has gone from being an unpopular premier who lost his majority in the last election to a leader confirmed by 97 per cent of his party's delegates at last week's Quebec Liberal convention.

As always in Quebec, there is not a perfect overlay with federal politics. But for my money L. Ian Macdonald nailed it last Friday in a National Post column.

Charest isn't back in majority territory yet, but I'm sure Stéphane Dion would love to have the same level of support from his party. Today's vote on his own MP's RESP bill will inevitably make the Liberals look weak once again.

Nik: Going back to your original question, Pauline, the broader problem with the NAFTA story and the Spitzer story is that they devalue politics and politicians. No wonder Canadians are so cynical.

Considering the big important issues out there like health care, the environment and the economy. Sometimes it seems as if the sideshows distract voters from what is really important.

This week the government survived another confidence vote but the question still remains: What will fill the policy agenda for the spring and fall?

What are the big legislative issues Harper wants Canadians to focus on? In the past, when the Tories introduced their five priorities/pillars, their numbers moved up because Canadians had a sense of the direction Harper wanted to take the country in.

Now, my sense is that things are moving day-to-day. Things are very short term and are more reactive than proactive with this government.

Sarah: Nik, you are absolutely right on the important issues being sacrificed.

From a Vancouver perspective the most pressing issue is probably the housing crisis. In this city the vacancy rate is less than one per cent. Between 2002-2005, homelessness increased by 235 per cent.

A homelessness count was just completed this week and we are expecting that this percentage will be even higher now. All levels of government are responsible, but the feds have not budgeted any money whatsoever for housing.

To be fair, this is part of a Liberal legacy. They virtually eliminated funds for cooperative housing about 15 years ago.

I think the Liberals operated in a fiscally conservative manner for years, but they were much more in step with Canadian values.

For instance, it was a huge victory for Vancouver when InSite was finally opened with the support of the federal government. It allowed the city to deal with drug addiction and HIV infection from a health perspective, to provide humane care to addicts.

The Conservatives would like to close it down despite all the evidence that the site helps reduce overdoses and infection.

Of course, these and other important social issues and the environment have just fallen by the wayside. I think the Liberals are too afraid of their own past record to make a real issue out of the environment or housing.

The RESP vote is not much of a rallying cause. It might make some parents happy, but as far as I know the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Canadian Federation of Students do not support the bill.

Pauline: I think all the parties are operating from a rational, objective perspective right now: Their priorities are whatever will protect their immediate electoral interests.

The interests of the rest of us are simply being ignored, hence the widespread cynicism. That's exactly why the American electorate and media are responding to Barack Obama so strongly.

He has found a way to rise above the sniping pettiness that passes for public discourse in both countries at this time. Can we do that? I don't see any sign of it right now, but wouldn't it be nice to hear it here: Yes we can!

Sarah: Yes we can!

Well, I certainly hope we can. I don't see this happening here yet. All of the major politicians seem very tired to me.

They don't have the energy or the fearlessness required to do more than respond to what is immediately in front of them. As Nik asked, "what will fill the policy agenda for the spring and fall?"

I find it interesting that the Conservatives seem to be content to remain where they are in the polls. Do they care if they have public support for their policies or do they just think the public is too fatigued to go to the polls?

Nik: I think we are moving towards a watershed — away from divisive negative politics to aspirational ones.

In the old paradigm, pioneered under the Republicans, voters were divided and "hot button/wedge issues" were crafted to influence voting behaviour. This added to the negativism in our political discourse.

I think we are approaching a tipping point on the negativity front and that there is an opportunity for more positive "unification politics."

The U.S. is leading the way. John McCain, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are all trying to generate a broad-based appeal to voters.

In my experience as a researcher, voters are very practical and are less and less ideological. There are no right- or left-wing solutions to the environment or health care or even job creation. Just practical solutions.

I would hazard to say that the federal leader who could pull together a positive, aspirational message about the future will have the upper hand in the next election.

Instead of focusing on what is wrong or who is responsible for the problems we face, Canadians are more interested in what together we can do to make Canada a better place to live.