Conservative attack ads

[myata]

For once, I applaud the PM. I mean, the guy just wouldn't go without a bang! What ingenuity! And courage!

Now, by all sings in the full recovery mode from the December's affair (when in a swift masterstroke, Mr Harper has accomplished that no PM has done before, ie. "prorogue" the Parliament on the occasion of his own little partisan tricks while the country was looking for leadership facing economic downturn), maybe he'll make another bold move, e.g. by actually introducing that gun registry (which in the view of any true social conservative is the root cause and primary source of all the problems in this country, along with leftie judges, and same sex marriage) bill in the Parliament?

No? Why not? Let's go Stephen, let's go Stephen!

[Molly]

Fair enough, Bill.... but it remains that the Conservative track record is:

Disinclusion, nastiness (gratuitous, even self-destructive nastiness, in fact)... and a long, long, long list of 'firmly held principles', thrown under the bus, disavowed the very millisecond they became even faintly inconvenient.

You can 'believe Harper when he speaks', or accept August's assertion that 'English Canadians' do... but this 'English' Canadian thinks he's so full of crap that it's running out of his ears.

I don't want to do business with salesmen who are vindictive, mendacious snakes with a 'bill of goods' on offer, who, even in the unlikely event that they keep their promises, are offering stuff I really don't want anyway...

Keepitsimple mistakes me. I'm not by any means committed to the Liberal party; I'm just really intensely disenchanted with Harper and the Conservative party he heads.

[jdobbin]

Really?

Harper can go often to such a well. Unlike Chretien, Harper doesn't have a reputation for building hotels in his riding with government money.

Yes, please tell me when Ignatieff did that. Is Harper going to run against Chretien?

At least Ignatieff isn't being questioned for very questionable business dealings like he is today? Wasn't Mulroney one of the founders of the present Conservative party and an adviser to Harper?

English Canadians believe Harper when he speaks. They don't, for example, believe Ruby Dhalla.

How do you make such over the top statements? On what basis? You seem to have a disdain for women and I don't know where it comes from. Some of the comments I have seen you made in regards to women make me think that you don't have a very high opinion of them.

As I posted above, the Liberal Party treats Stephane Dion the same way that Ruby Dhalla treated her nannies. "If you can help me, I love and respect you." Well, where is Dion now?

You have no idea what happened in that home but love to travel through the gutter with a smear campaign. No Parliamentary committee is capable of finding out the truth there but your dislike of Dhalla takes precedence. Do you really not like women that much? Is that where this comes from?

[Wild Bill]

Fair enough, Bill.... but it remains that the Conservative track record is:

Disinclusion, nastiness (gratuitous, even self-destructive nastiness, in fact)... and a long, long, long list of 'firmly held principles', thrown under the bus, disavowed the very millisecond they became even faintly inconvenient.

You can 'believe Harper when he speaks', or accept August's assertion that 'English Canadians' do... but this 'English' Canadian thinks he's so full of crap that it's running out of his ears.

I don't want to do business with salesmen who are vindictive, mendacious snakes with a 'bill of goods' on offer, who, even in the unlikely event that they keep their promises, are offering stuff I really don't want anyway...

Keepitsimple mistakes me. I'm not by any means committed to the Liberal party; I'm just really intensely disenchanted with Harper and the Conservative party he heads.

Interesting viewpoint. I'll agree that Harper is a control freak who rules his party like a dictator.

That's why he reminds me so much of Chretien!

[DFCaper]

Interesting viewpoint. I'll agree that Harper is a control freak who rules his party like a dictator.

That's why he reminds me so much of Chretien!

Hehe.. I agree... Except Harper plays mean and Chretien played stupid.

I think it's a terrible way to try and make parliament work for the conservatives to start these ads. And people care more about not having an election soon then the difference between these two guys. Harper already in the last election proved he can't win a majority, and now he again reminding Canadians that he cannot lead parliament with a minority. I also doubt 99+% of Canadians can relate to either of these guys either way.

Harper made Dion so pathetic with his ads, that he was able to bring the liberals together faster than I ever imagined. "We aren't Dion" was a strong rallying cry for the whole party. I have no doubt that Harper would have won the last election even without the ads against Dion.

I never been an Iggy fan, but Harper continuously disappoints me. When will the CPC get rid of him so I can happily vote for them!!!

[Wild Bill]

I never been an Iggy fan, but Harper continuously disappoints me. When will the CPC get rid of him so I can happily vote for them!!!

Don't get your hopes up! Sooner or later Harper will be replaced. Sooner or later Ingnatief will be replaced. Yet somehow the choices perpetually seem just as poor.

I've said it many times before. I'd vote for a dead dog if he were any different that what we always seem to get offered!

Edited May 14, 2009 by Wild Bill

[daniel]

This Conservative government puts more effort in attacking opponents and critics than governing. Take a look at there economic statement in November before the Coalition situation forced him to actually address the economy. During the six weeks between the election and the economic statement they did nothing - and then he runs to the GG to perogue stating they needed more time.

[myata]

No, I think he's finally decided to self-destruct. Harpers' way to exit, with bang and loud music.

I never make political predictions, but I have this hunch the the elections may not be far away.

[Moonbox]

No, I think he's finally decided to self-destruct. Harpers' way to exit, with bang and loud music.

I never make political predictions, but I have this hunch the the elections may not be far away.

Myata I missed you. Have you been away? Maybe I'm just not paying attention.

Anyways, if Harper knows what's good for him, HE WILL get himself out of power. I was saying he should have bailed and left the mess to the Liberals back in December, so that he could blame THEM instead of the other way around for the world financial meltdown. Oh well.

[Leafless]

This Conservative government puts more effort in attacking opponents and critics than governing.

And Iggy's comeback is with a super lame statement.

"On a day when we've got record bankruptcies, (when) we've got unemployment skyrocketing, all this government can think of doing is running attack ads on me," he said. "This is the old style of politics. We are in the middle of a serious economic crisis. This government needs to grow up and do its job properly."

This coming from a Liberal, "this government needs to grow up", sure.

I wonder if Iggy thought about the past responsible performance of the Liberano's. Think sponsership scandal for a single item.

But Mr. Harper's intelligent reply to Iggy's immediate concerns was accurately expressed.

"The proposal is that a Canadian could work 45 days and collect employment insurance for a year. That would be the system in every region in perpetuity. That would do nothing for the economy or for the recession today," Harper told the House of Commons in response to a question from Ignatieff.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/T...3917/story.html

[jdobbin]

But Mr. Harper's intelligent reply to Iggy's immediate concerns was accurately expressed.

The Liberals didn't make any proposals that would reduce the eligibility from 19 to 50 weeks. It is a lie that Harper made and is repeated here. There is no increase in payroll tax and the measure on 360 hours is a temporary one to respond quickly to the crisis.

Edited May 15, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

Anyways, if Harper knows what's good for him, HE WILL get himself out of power.

Of course, he's only hanging out there for the sake of us, poor and neglected, who'd have to go nowhere without his firm but gentle guiding hand. Like that last time when he's been so preoccupied with guiding us into his majority, that did not notice the minor issues with the economy (quelle triffle!).

And he's doing it, people, despite a host of (occasionally, self inflicted) great obstacles, and challenges, like trampling, no overcoming his own, adopted for no less than holy transparency and responsibility, fixed election dates, or perogueing, whatever in December, when he thought that he had a spiritual majority, even though the actual count in the House told him otherwise.

A true martir on the altar of holy Democracy. Perhaps her very spirit, incarnate.

[Leafless]

The Liberals didn't make any proposals that would reduce the eligibility from 19 to 50 weeks. It is a lie that Harper made and is repeated here. There is no increase in payroll tax and the measure on 360 hours is a temporary one to respond quickly to the crisis.

If it is a lie, then why did Human Resource Minister Diane Finley repeat it again;

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal proposal is to have Canadians work for 360 hours to collect EI benefits. It works out to 45 days. What goes along with that would have to be a dramatic increase in payroll taxes,” she ventured.

“That payroll tax increase would kill jobs and small business. We are trying to protect jobs and help Canadian workers keep their jobs. That is why we brought in the work-sharing. That is why we froze EI premium rates. They want to tax and spend people out of their jobs, not us.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/05/14/the-com...u-hate-shamwow/

Edited May 15, 2009 by Leafless

[Smallc]

If it is a lie, then why did Human Resource Minister Diane Finley repeat it again

because a party would never lie about the platform of an opposing party.

[waldo]

national unity be damned... Harper - the great divider!

Harper's tactics play straight into the hands of separatists

It is unprecedented for a sitting Canadian prime minister to approve – as Stephen Harper did this week – French-language attack ads that depict a fellow federalist leader as hostile to Quebec.

For as long as there has been a vibrant sovereignty movement, such a tactic has been deemed too potentially corrosive for the national fabric to be used to score points in a partisan game.

In the larger unity picture, the notion of a prime minister launching an advertising campaign to fuel a nationalist backlash against another national party leader is the equivalent of poisoning a common well in the hope that one's neighbour will be the first to die.

Moreover, over the past two decades, the Bloc Québécois has always been the prime beneficiary of federalist divisions on Quebec.

[myata]

And he's done other, innovative, unprecedented things too:

- unprecedentally in this country's history, introduced fixed election dates, to foster Transparency and Responsibility, which his predecessors ostensibly, neglected;

- and unprecedentally broke them (making a precedent for others to follow? no, that would be against the law, the spirit if not the letter)

- unprecedentally suspended the Parliament, when majority of elected MPs would have him kicked out for his nasty partisanship in the plain view of onsetting downturn.

No, he's never at a loss to break new ground, bend rules, ignore laws, forget promises, create unholy allegiances, and so on, when it plays into his hands. And always the first one to call it on others, righteously and indignantly.

[jdobbin]

If it is a lie, then why did Human Resource Minister Diane Finley repeat it again;

She is lying because that is better than telling the truth in this case. There is no payroll tax increase. There is no permanent change to the 19 to 50 week eligibility.

[daniel]

They repeat those lies over and over again.

Lies during the coalition

1) undemocratic - all were democratically elected members of parliament;

2) Bloc is part of the coalition - they just agreed to support it for 18 months, Duceppe didn't want any of his members or himself in cabinet

3) the misrepresentation of the Parliamentary System - government is actually formed and supported by Parliamentary Members

Prior to that, the Green Shift

That it was a tax grab - it was actually a shift in taxation to provide incentives to green projects and habits at the expense of environmentally detrimental habits. The Cons did not address any of the tax incentives.

Edited May 15, 2009 by daniel

[Bryan]

These are not even attack ads. They are matter of fact statements and quotations of Ignatieff. If a Liberal supporter thinks these are attacks, it's because they know full well their emperor has no clothes, and they know Canadians are going to see Ignatieff for what he really is. The mock outrage and/or flip dismissals are a thin veil to try to disguise their horror at knowing that they've seen this movie before, and they know how it ends: with them having even less seats than they have now.

[Bryan]

--double post--

Edited May 15, 2009 by Bryan

[Oleg Bach]

What is a "Green Shift" - Is that when you send all the green to China so they can make black industrial smoke that drifts over to us to breath a month later? While we shift polluting industry to the unseen side of the world - we recyle water bottles and ride our bikes to the office under a clear blue sky -------Ha....that's silly - the globe is a closed phyical enviorn - and there is not "green" OR carbon foot pirint - How can their be when we encourage third world nations and China to pollute the other half of the planet..dellusionism at it's best - THERE IS A THING CALLED WIND AND OCEAN CURRENTS - OUR GREEN WILL COME BACK TO HAUNT US...IN TIME - IT WILL RETURN AS NOT GREEN BUT FILTHY POISIONOUS BLACK.

[waldo]

These are not even attack ads. They are matter of fact statements and quotations of Ignatieff. If a Liberal supporter thinks these are attacks, it's because they know full well their emperor has no clothes, and they know Canadians are going to see Ignatieff for what he really is. The mock outrage and/or flip dismissals are a thin veil to try to disguise their horror at knowing that they've seen this movie before, and they know how it ends: with them having even less seats than they have now.

why - of course... the blogging tories have asserted their intent to re-label them as "definition ads"... because, really... Conservatives don't attack - they just, uhhh.... "define"

apparently, the Harper Conservative downward spiral poll numbers reflect on their failure to properly "define" Ignatieff

since you're so bold with the seat predictions - care to offer comment on exactly where (what regions) the Harper Conservatives will increase their seat counts? Oh wait... perhaps you're suggesting the Liberal seat count decrease will come at the hands of the NDP/BQ/Greens... that's it, right?

[Smallc]

Anyone that thinks the Liberals have anywhere to go but up is....and was....not paying attention.

[Oleg Bach]

Iggys dated speech on American public TV - is just fine - so he's american - and we are multi - nationalists along with multi-culturalists - and Obama can not come up with a birth certificate to quality him as a legit President - seems that the whole world has gone global - all I know is keep away from my castle cos I' gone feudal.

[Molly]

These are not even attack ads. They are matter of fact statements and quotations of Ignatieff. If a Liberal supporter thinks these are attacks, it's because they know full well their emperor has no clothes, and they know Canadians are going to see Ignatieff for what he really is. The mock outrage and/or flip dismissals are a thin veil to try to disguise their horror at knowing that they've seen this movie before, and they know how it ends: with them having even less seats than they have now.

Good luck with that theory. I spend some time in another forum, and just read a conversation between two who are definitely small-c, and habitually large-C conservatives. They described those ads, and the inspiration to run them as 'pretty pathetic', and expressed disgust that their government is too busy 'playing the game' to govern. It would be a tough pull for either of them to vote Liberal, but I'd be willing to bet that neither of them will vote Conservative without some serious personnel change and attitude adjustment, either.

If it makes Tories stay home from elections, then I say, run 'em. Run more of 'em!