Conservative attack ads

[ironstone]

The Liberal platform is very basic and simple.Anything they say during an election campaign can be dismissed outright.This party has a long record of lying to Canadians over the years.Remember the Red Book?You may find it in the fiction section if you look.The Liberal Party of Canada really stands for one thing and one thing only,the Liberal Party of Canada.

As for the Tory attack ads,they are third rate compared to the lasting legacy of what is perhaps the most successful attack campaign of all time.And that would be the Liberal attacks against Harper,that mud certainly stuck like glue.How many times have you heard a voter say Harper is just too "scary"?Where the hell do you think this idiotic thinking comes from?At one time,the Liberals were going to run an ad telling Canadians that Harper would send troops into Quebec!Wasn't there an ad with a gun barrel pointing at tv viewers?

Spare me the crocodile tears.

[Smallc]

There are websites devoted to broken Conservative promises...I'm not saying Liberals have kept all of their promises, but Conservatives certainly can't get on a high horse when it comes to promises.

[myata]

Fixed election dates, anybody?

[Oleg Bach]

There are websites devoted to broken Conservative promises...I'm not saying Liberals have kept all of their promises, but Conservatives certainly can't get on a high horse when it comes to promises.

I would rather have a broken conservative promise - that a promise kept by the liberals that consists of a promise to continue to poison society with one more misconstrude experiment.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would rather they simply not promise us anything at all.

[Smallc]

I would rather they simply not promise us anything at all.

I agree, they shouldn't promise. Sometimes, I think that they break the promises intentionally, and sometimes I think it's because the promises have to be borken. Either way, politicians shouldn't be in the business of making promises.

[myata]

And then, there're promises that didn't have to be made, didn't have to be broken, and were broken still. Like, fixed election dates.

[Bryan]

And then, there're promises that didn't have to be made, didn't have to be broken, and were broken still. Like, fixed election dates.

No promise was broken on fixed election dates.

[myata]

Of course not. It happened on exact same date as promised (scheduled, etc - all for the sake of no less than Greater Accountability). Our great champtions of openness transparency and unbroken promises.

[Smallc]

No promise was broken on fixed election dates.

No laws were broken...but promises? Never did he say...we won't have an election until this date....unless I feel like I can win a majority.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Weasel talk, he intended that there would be no election called until the mandate expired 5 years hence.

[jdobbin]

No promise was broken on fixed election dates.

There is no such thing as fixed election dates in Canada.

[Topaz]

No matter what you think of the Liberal party, it was the Tories that ended up with TWO members standing after an election! Maybe someone of you can't remember the election after the Mulroney era, but I do, even though I had voted for him twice, the third time the Tories were gone! Even though some within the Tories would same its not the same party(what is the differences) the same activities seem to be played by the inexperience, immature members of this party. Now the deficeit will in the higher , probably doubled, since it Flaherty as minister, the rest of Canada will learn like Ontario did, about a lawyer playing finance minister!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The PM, our first female, went down hard in utter defeat. It was an exercise in Canadian politics where we come out in droves to vote against something. I don't think that will be Harpers fate though. I would venture to say that he has lost Quebec, and is losing Ontario. The Atlantic provinces will likely not support him in anything more than minority numbers. The west will continue to support him, but it will not be enough to sustain him. He will retain his seat, but resign as leader, then resign as an MP to pursue more lucrative efforts.

[Wild Bill]

The PM, our first female, went down hard in utter defeat. It was an exercise in Canadian politics where we come out in droves to vote against something. I don't think that will be Harpers fate though. I would venture to say that he has lost Quebec, and is losing Ontario. The Atlantic provinces will likely not support him in anything more than minority numbers. The west will continue to support him, but it will not be enough to sustain him. He will retain his seat, but resign as leader, then resign as an MP to pursue more lucrative efforts.

Yep! Nothing will change. We either have a western party that can't please the East or an Eastern Party that can't please the West.

I'm beginning to believe that the peoples involved are so different that it may be impossible to please everybody. Perhaps Canada should break up! This situation has been going on for decades, with no signs of changing.

A party that can't field a reasonable number of seats in all regions of the country cannot possibly be said to be a truly national party. This is a failure of both the Tories and the Liberals.

[capricorn]

Yep! Nothing will change. We either have a western party that can't please the East or an Eastern Party that can't please the West.

...and neither can please Quebec.

[waldo]

...and neither can please Quebec.

are divisive wedges helpful?

historically, there has been a federal party that Quebec has responded to... if one accepts the polls of today, it is most apparent the fortunes of that Liberal party are again on a significant rise within Quebec. On the other hand, the Conservatives are polling dead last... even the NDP now polls better than the Conservatives in Quebec. So, perhaps your comment might better read as, "apparently, the Harper Conservatives can't please Quebec".

[Leafless]

On the other hand, the Conservatives are polling dead last... even the NDP now polls better than the Conservatives in Quebec.

Political polls are not exclusive to Quebec.

Meanwhile, a new poll suggests the Liberals' steady surge in public support under Ignatieff's leadership has levelled off.

The latest survey, conducted for Canwest News Service and Global National, shows the Harper Conservatives have edged up two percentage points in recent weeks, to capture a slim lead with 35 per cent support.

The Liberals, while significantly ahead of their showing under former leader Stephane Dion, have dropped three points to 33 per cent support of decided voters.

Ontario is responsible for the slight reversal of fortunes for the two lead parties, according to the telephone poll of 1,000 adults, conducted May 20-24 by Ipsos Reid.

Pollster Darrell Bricker attributed the Conservative climb in Canada's most populous province --where the party captured 39 per cent support to the Liberals' 37 per cent -- to a slightly improving economy.

The NDP garnered 14 per cent of support among decided voters nationally.

The Green party and Bloc Québécois held steady at eight and nine per cent respectively.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Liberal+...0047/story.html

[capricorn]

are divisive wedges helpful?

You mean like the sponsorship scandal?

historically, there has been a federal party that Quebec has responded to...

Until the Bloc Quebecois came along.

So, perhaps your comment might better read as, "apparently, the Harper Conservatives can't please Quebec".

I don't think so. You forget that the Liberals dropped to 14 seats in Quebec in the last election. Wow! Quebecers not too pleased with the Liberals.

[Smallc]

Until the Bloc Quebecois came along.

The Bloc doesn't get a majority of the vote...their vote just happens to be more efficient. The Liberals are polling above the Bloc right now and the Conservatives were before the last election. It is said that many people simply vote for the Bloc because it's Quebecs party, and they fight for their interests...something that isn't untrue.

[Leafless]

The Bloc doesn't get a majority of the vote...their vote just happens to be more efficient. The Liberals are polling above the Bloc right now and the Conservatives were before the last election. It is said that many people simply vote for the Bloc because it's Quebecs party, and they fight for their interests...something that isn't untrue.

A separatist part acting as a volatile buffer party and with Quebecers actually voting for it does not say much for the integrity of Quebecers nor their mentality nor their desire to be an integral part of Canada.

This proves the separatist mentality in Quebec is alive and well.

[Peter F]

A separatist part acting as a volatile buffer party and with Quebecers actually voting for it does not say much for the integrity of Quebecers nor their mentality nor their desire to be an integral part of Canada.

This proves the separatist mentality in Quebec is alive and well.

Nobody's said much for your mentality or integrity lately either. Separatist mentality alive and well in Quebec? Who knew?

[waldo]

You mean like the sponsorship scandal?

no - the divisive wedge was your assertion that no federal party, the east or west party references you made, could please Quebec. Historically, that's not been the case - ergo, your assertion is wrong.

Until the Bloc Quebecois came along.

and now you completely contradict yourself by agreeing with my suggestion, as I stated, "historically, there has been a federal party that Quebec has responded to....... that is to say, agreeing to the point where you state, "the Bloc Quebecois came along". Yes, the BQ - thanks to Conservatives/Mulroney we now have the BQ.

I don't think so. You forget that the Liberals dropped to 14 seats in Quebec in the last election. Wow! Quebecers not too pleased with the Liberals.

you're mistaken. At this point, with the polls reading as they are in Quebec, it is most apparent that the Liberals are on the rise (at the expense of the BQ... and at the expense of the Conservatives who are polling dead last behind the NDP). So, certainly, I will agree with you and acknowledge that the Harper Conservatives have been unable to please Quebec.

[capricorn]

no - the divisive wedge was your assertion that no federal party, the east or west party references you made, could please Quebec. Historically, that's not been the case - ergo, your assertion is wrong.

Do you have a reading problem? I was not presenting a historical review of the Liberals in Quebec. I was referring to the recent gradual erosion of the number of seats they hold in la belle province. To any right thinking person, that is an indication that the Liberals are not pleasing Quebecers. ergo, you see what you want in order to post what you think are informed partisan quips.

that is to say, agreeing to the point where you state, "the Bloc Quebecois came along".

You're arguing that I'm right while trying to disagree with my point.

you're mistaken. At this point, with the polls reading as they are in Quebec, it is most apparent that the Liberals are on the rise (at the expense of the BQ... and at the expense of the Conservatives who are polling dead last behind the NDP). So, certainly, I will agree with you and acknowledge that the Harper Conservatives have been unable to please Quebec.

It's getting more and more difficult to decipher your convoluted logic. Open a window and let some oxygen enter the basement.

[waldo]

Do you have a reading problem? I was not presenting a historical review of the Liberals in Quebec. I was referring to the recent gradual erosion of the number of seats they hold in la belle province. To any right thinking person, that is an indication that the Liberals are not pleasing Quebecers. ergo, you see what you want in order to post what you think are informed partisan quips.

do you have a comprehension problem?... surely you don't want to read the actual quote-by-quote flow, do you? You responded to the suggestion (by another poster) that neither a Western or an Eastern party can please Quebec... which has no point to offer other than to suggest Quebec can't be pleased; which is a divisive assertion particularly as it's false given the historical Liberal attachments.

You're arguing that I'm right while trying to disagree with my point.

again, you struggle... I highlight the historical Liberal attachment to the province of Quebec and you acknowledge it (i.e. agree with it) by stating it existed up until, as you stated, "the Bloc Quebecois came along". Your words. I'm not arguing you're right about anything... other than you're right in agreeing with the point I made.

It's getting more and more difficult to decipher your convoluted logic. Open a window and let some oxygen enter the basement.

apparently you are challenged by discussion across multiple posts and obviously can't follow the flow sequence unless it's pointedly laid out for you... this is the point in flow sequence where you actually speak to the, as you state, "gradual erosion of seats". Of course, I counter by highlighting the recent poll trends that show a significant Liberal rise in Quebec... at the expense of the BQ and the Conservatives... and, of course, I make certain to point out, once again, that the Conservatives are polling dead last, even behind the NDP.