Conservative attack ads

Argus · July 7, 2009

Harper wants power and will do and has done anything he believes to be necessary to achieve and retain that power which he desires. That is his track record, never having worked a real job for any length of time, he has instead no real concept of what it is to be the average working class kinda guy.

As opposed to, lets's see, his predecessor, Paul Martin, born to a political family, given a huge bursury by his father's sponsor and made into a wealthy man, given political positions? Or let's see, Jean Chretien, hardly worked in his life, went from law school into politics. Or how about the present Liberal leader? An ivory tower academic all his life - much like the leader of the NDP, another ivory tower academic. Neither has ever worked in any other capacity.

Oh but that doesn't matter, because they're left of centre, so it's okay, right?

Maybe you'd like to enlighten us all of the restraint of Trudeau, Chretien and Martin, who WOULDN'T do whatever it took to get power?

Average working class guy? I think the average worker could sit down and have a beer with Harper a lot easier than he could with the likes of Iganatief or Layton.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Argus

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

If you wish, but come election time I have a feeling you guys, as usual, will need a mighty high ladder to bring your campaign up from the sewers to the level the Tories will be occupying.

Speculation on your part.

There does seem to be a growing feeling that desperate ad campaigns are out of touch. Didn't work in Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia.

The Liberals would do better to counter Tory negative ads by pointing out their negativity and countering their claims. The only way the logjam will be cleared is if a party shows people why they should be elected rather than why the other guy should not.

Argus · July 7, 2009

I exist in a world where a lie is a lie. Harper (or more to the point his spindoctors) are lying. It's a dishonest, immoral tactic, and a sign of deep moral depravity.

Because he's conservative. On the other hand, when Martin or Chretien or Ignatieff or Layton lie that's just no big deal, right? In fact, you look at it as them being kinda, sort, almost right in a way, depending on how you look at it, maybe....

Argus · July 7, 2009

That goes for a lot of citizens.

The dumb ones, especially.

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

You guys must have felt that was the way to go or Ignatieff would not have brought him out of retirement.

If that is all someone like Kinsella did was negative ad campaigns, he would be rather ineffective. What we have seen in the last months is thousands of memberships growing for the Liberals and money pouring in. In two quarters more money and membership and have come in than an entire year or more.

A lot of that has come from having experienced staff in place.

Edited July 7, 2009 by jdobbin

Argus · July 7, 2009

I honestly disagree with both of those statements. Well, Joe and Jane might so think, but I do not. I've known too many who were sincere in their intentions, and who did their best to be honorable in their actions.
And my greatest fight with Harper is that I DO percieve it as much more than any who have (successfuly) gone before. Harper feels like we are living 'Animal Farm'. He lost my optimistic withholding of judgement the day he swore in his first cabinet, and my opinion of him and his followers has gone downhill from that.

If you were honest with yourself - or capable of being honest with yourself - you'd admit that there isn't one single solitary thing Harper was done you wouldn't have cheered and applauded had he been a Liberal.

Argus · July 7, 2009

Yes, yes, and yes.

You don't know anything more about them than they were Liberal. You probably get, from their names, that they were male, but that would pretty much exhaust the entirety of the political knowledge your postings have displayed this far.

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

So when they're twenty you want them in kids prison with the fourteen year olds - raping them?

Nope. I want a more segregated prison system than the general population system we have now. I don't think is a lot to ask considering we don't put women in male prisons.

Does this extend to people who commit acts of murder when they're eighteen, nineteen or twenty. Do they get to go to a special junior prison, as well?

Think it should only be people who were charged before 18 where they are serving longer sentences.

As for the rest of the prison system, I think it should be more segregated based on age, gang affiliation and danger to others.

Bonam · July 7, 2009

Isn't the unpleasantness of being confined in an environment with a variety of other unsavory individuals part of the punishment that is meant to be applied when someone is incarcerated?

Argus · July 7, 2009

You don't think that Ignatieff's work as a radio and television broadcaster counts as a job?

It rather looks to me like he was dabbling.

You don't think that Ignatieff publishing hundreds of articles and numerous books is work yet apparently accept that being a lifetime professional politician like Harper is a real job?

To be honest, I've published more articles and books than Ignatieff. But no, writing is not a full-time job, either for him or for me. On the other hand, Harper did move out west after high school to work in the oil industry in Alberta. One presumes he had to punch a clock, and say sir to someone, and probably has more in common with ordinary men -from that period alone - than any Liberal leader over the past forty years.

You might perceive the rest of my post as inane but can you describe which part of it below is untrue?
"Harper is nothing more than a professional politician who jumped from the Liberals to the Progressive Conservatives to the Reform Party,

Harper was a young liberal - in high school. I hardly think we can hold that as jumping parties when he realized how dishonest they were. He then joined the PCs', there being no other party around, but he didn't like the way Mulroney behaved, and when Reform came along he, like most other conservatives, including myself, left the PC party. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say the party left us.

who suddenly underwent a religious conversion to become a member of Preston Manning's evangelical church,

I don't know anything about Harper's religion. And I bet you know nothing whatsoever about what Stephan Dion's religious beliefs were either, and also know nothing about Ignateiff's beliefs in that area.

then joined the extremist Northern Foundation then quit the foundation when he claimed it had extremist members,

Whatever this "foundation" was or may have been, the only person who has ever even suggested he was a member was Trevor Harrison, a sociologist and "freelance journalist" whos mentioned it in a book on the reform party published by the University of Toronto Press. The fact no mainstream media, not even anti-Tory media like the Toronto Star, have bothered with it is more than ample evidence that there's nothing of substance to the claim.

then had a falling out with Preston Manning and quit the Reform Party and jumped to the National Citizens Coalition, then joined the Alliance Party, then had a falling out with Tom Flanagan, his longtime mentor. How many Canadians remember that Manning fired Harper as Finance Critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, a financial conservative with a PhD in Economics?"

As I understand it, he had a disagreement on principal with Harper over the Charlottetown Accord. So what? I understand your confusion with politicians who argue about points of principal since the politicians you admire have none. But the fact is those who actually do care about matter of substance and not merely personal advancement, do argue and disagree on issues from time to time.

Can you imagine the CPC attack ads if Ignatieff had been nothing more than a professional politician all his life like Harper?

Ignatieff remains an egotistical, arrogant (by his own admission) ivory tower intellectual who has spent most of his adult life away from Canada at university campuses peopled by the wealthy elites of the world. Your contention that he somehow or other can relate to ordinary people better than Harper can is ludicrous.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Argus

Argus · July 7, 2009

Nope. I want a more segregated prison system than the general population system we have now. I don't think is a lot to ask considering we don't put women in male prisons.
Think it should only be people who were charged before 18 where they are serving longer sentences.

Why? That makes no sense. The just turned 18 might have spent the last several years in a youth prison. He is certainly more capable of looking after himself in an adult prison than a shiny new virginal 18 year old who has never been in a prison setting before.

As for the rest of the prison system, I think it should be more segregated based on age, gang affiliation and danger to others.

They are. That's why we have different types of prison for different types of offenders. We don't put the pickpockets and credit card thieves in with the murderers and rapists.

ToadBrother · July 7, 2009

Ignatieff remains an egotistical, arrogant (by his own admission) ivory tower intellectual who has spent most of his adult life away from Canada at university campuses peopled by the wealthy elites of the world. Your contention that he somehow or other can relate to ordinary people better than Harper can is ludicrous.

And what precisely is Harper's connection to the ordinary people? He's been a political hack most of his life, by all accounts having held exactly one job beyond political think tanks and political parties. And what is wrong precisely with being an academic? Are you so allergic to anyone of learning that you'd sooner side with a political hack?

Harper knows no more of what ordinary Canadians are facing than Iggy, and at least Iggy used his degrees, and has seen something of the world.

I never realized just how fearful and hateful modern Conservatives were of academia until the last few months, but it's becoming crystal clear that the Tories are the enemies of learning, scholasticism and logic, and simply social and economic reactionaries who, oddly enough, seem to have more in common with Trotskyites than with old-style Conservatism.

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

Why? That makes no sense. The just turned 18 might have spent the last several years in a youth prison. He is certainly more capable of looking after himself in an adult prison than a shiny new virginal 18 year old who has never been in a prison setting before.

I don't believe either should be in a general population adult prison.

They are. That's why we have different types of prison for different types of offenders. We don't put the pickpockets and credit card thieves in with the murderers and rapists.

Nor do we put women together with men even if the offence is the same.

I think it should be the same with under 20 as do many people who believe that segregated prisons make for safer prisons for inmates and guards alike.

Edited July 8, 2009 by jdobbin

jbg · July 8, 2009

Too bad your a Democrat...
This site is a laugh.

http://www.republicansforignatieff.com/

I think some CPC staff have too much time on their hands.

At least it's hilariously funny. Why is it too bad I'm a Chomskyite Democrat?

capricorn · July 8, 2009

And what precisely is Harper's connection to the ordinary people?

An intense dislike for the Liberal Party.

He's been a political hack most of his life, by all accounts having held exactly one job beyond political think tanks and political parties.

What's wrong with a dedication to public service? Just like countless career public servants who stick with the public service and who, for obvious reasons, don't and should not display their political affiliations when they're on the job.

And what is wrong precisely with being an academic?

Academia operates in a rarefied atmosphere, detached from the mainstream. Doesn't mean they're bad people, they're just in a cocoon. Mainly, they lack exposure to the realities of the man on the street. They live in a world that depends on grants, hypotheses, theories, studies and lecturing others on their view of all matters.

Harper knows no more of what ordinary Canadians are facing than Iggy, and at least Iggy used his degrees, and has seen something of the world.

Iggy is an international cosmopolitan who has spent 34 years outside Canada. I think that gives Harper an edge in terms of historical knowledge of what bugs ordinary Canadians. True, Harper is not a world traveler, but his solutions to tackle Canada's challenges were hatched and rooted in Canada. In this respect, Ignatieff is in a learning curve.

I never realized just how fearful and hateful modern Conservatives were of academia until the last few months, but it's becoming crystal clear that the Tories are the enemies of learning, scholasticism and logic, and simply social and economic reactionaries who, oddly enough, seem to have more in common with Trotskyites than with old-style Conservatism.

Babble worthy of Rabble.

Smallc · July 8, 2009

An intense dislike for the Liberal Party.

That's no more ordinary than an intense dislike for the other party.

Smallc · July 8, 2009

Academia operates in a rarefied atmosphere, detached from the mainstream. Doesn't mean they're bad people, they're just in a cocoon. Mainly, they lack exposure to the realities of the man on the street. They live in a world that depends on grants, hypotheses, theories, studies and lecturing others on their view of all matters.

This appears to be babble worthy of far less than rabble.

Keepitsimple · July 8, 2009

This appears to be babble worthy of far less than rabble.

But it seems to ring generally true. I've been acquainted with many academics and they DO seem to fit that mold......not so much elitists but certainly many revel in the "big fish in a small pond" environment. It's just a natural outcome of being constantly perceived as the smartest person in the room. A friend of mine - married to a professor/assistant Dean said the only reason a professor has a body is to transport their brains to the next lecture or meeting - seems she'd like a little more attention from Mr. Actual Factual. As Argus said - all that doesn't make them bad people - they are just different and in general, really don't relate that well to mainstream Canadians.

ToadBrother · July 8, 2009

Iggy is an international cosmopolitan who has spent 34 years outside Canada. I think that gives Harper an edge in terms of historical knowledge of what bugs ordinary Canadians. True, Harper is not a world traveler, but his solutions to tackle Canada's challenges were hatched and rooted in Canada. In this respect, Ignatieff is in a learning curve.

It isn't that Harper isn't a world traveller, it's that he has no more experience as a "common" Canadian than does Iggy. Harper has held down precisely one actual non-political job in his life. He's a dedicated member of the political machine. Neither one of these men really have ever walked in an average Canadian's shoes, so, in their own ways they're both "elites", Iggy an academic elite, and Harper, a political elite. It's laughable to watch people try to make Harper look like "Joe Average", with creepy TV spots with him wearing sweaters and trying to look like Mr. Dressup.

Surely there's a place in Parliament for academics, no? Or should it just be filled with party hacks, lawyers and businessmen? As far as I'm concerned, we don't have nearly enough academics. We need more engineers, scientists, doctors and the like, people with practical experience for problems that governments face, and less Stephen Harpers, people whose sole goal is simply to be, in some way or another, a "player".

Dave_ON · July 8, 2009

And what precisely is Harper's connection to the ordinary people? He's been a political hack most of his life, by all accounts having held exactly one job beyond political think tanks and political parties. And what is wrong precisely with being an academic? Are you so allergic to anyone of learning that you'd sooner side with a political hack?
Harper knows no more of what ordinary Canadians are facing than Iggy, and at least Iggy used his degrees, and has seen something of the world.

I never realized just how fearful and hateful modern Conservatives were of academia until the last few months, but it's becoming crystal clear that the Tories are the enemies of learning, scholasticism and logic, and simply social and economic reactionaries who, oddly enough, seem to have more in common with Trotskyites than with old-style Conservatism.

Meow! I wouldn't go so far as to call them Trotskyites but I certainly agree with your assessment. I too find it quite perplexing that Ignatieff's and Dion's education levels are oft cited as handicaps. It still confuses me as to why this is the case. Historically, with a few rare and recent exceptions our PM's have been quite well educated, lawyers mostly but a Doctor, a smattering of teachers and Profs. Education broadens the mind it doesn't narrow it. The job of narrowing one’s mind lies squarely on the shoulders of generally under-educated social conservatives.

ToadBrother · July 8, 2009

Meow! I wouldn't go so far as to call them Trotskyites but I certainly agree with your assessment. I too find it quite perplexing that Ignatieff's and Dion's education levels are oft cited as handicaps. It still confuses me as to why this is the case. Historically, with a few rare and recent exceptions our PM's have been quite well educated, lawyers mostly but a Doctor, a smattering of teachers and Profs. Education broadens the mind it doesn't narrow it. The job of narrowing one’s mind lies squarely on the shoulders of generally under-educated social conservatives.

Probably the three greatest Parliamentarians in the Westminster tradition; Disraeli, Gladstone and Churchill, were all "elitists", in the respect that all three were well-educated by the standards of the time. They certainly were not "everymen" by any definition of the word.

Topaz · July 8, 2009

Argus, the only reason he quit being a Liberal was the National Energy Program Trudeau brought in, Harper felt it would hurt the oil industry and after all, his dad worked there and Harper, who worked in the mail room at Imperial Oil. He didn't agree with Murloney on economics issues so he quits and turns to the Reform Party but not before joining the National coalition. It seems all his life he keeps changing his mind on issues and he is still doing it today.

Argus · July 8, 2009

And what precisely is Harper's connection to the ordinary people? He's been a political hack most of his life, by all accounts having held exactly one job beyond political think tanks and political parties.

I don't know. But I can picture Harper sitting back, drinking a beer, and watching a hockey or football game.

I can picture Harper looking under the hood of some gruesomely overpowered car and admiring the engine.

I can picture Harper telling a bawdy, politically incorrect joke.

I find it impossible to picture any of this from Ignatieff.

And what is wrong precisely with being an academic? Are you so allergic to anyone of learning that you'd sooner side with a political hack?

An ivory tower is a great place for theories which have little real-world application, and thus stand pristine and shiny, never having been tested and disproved. People who live in ivory towers seldom have much acquaintance with the rigours of reality. The longer they live in their pristine towers, the less familiar they are with the real world. Ignatieff, and Layton, have lived in ivory towers their entire lives.

I never realized just how fearful and hateful modern Conservatives were of academia until the last few months, but it's becoming crystal clear that the Tories are the enemies of learning, scholasticism and logic,

You have it, of course, bass-ackwards, as usual. I don't have contempt for learning and education. I posess both. Therefore, I am not awed by others who have likewise gone to the trouble of writing some exams and sitting through some lectures. Some of the biggest idiots I know are univesity grads, so the fact that someone has been an academic does not particularly impress me. I don't partiucularly dismiss Ignatieff because of that, but it does make me wary that he has lived his entire live on elite foreign university campuses. And I have not yet seen or heard anything of him which causes me to think he's someone worth voting for.

Argus · July 8, 2009

I don't believe either should be in a general population adult prison.
Nor do we put women together with men even if the offence is the same.

I think it should be the same with under 20 as do many people who believe that segregated prisons make for safer prisons for inmates and guards alike.

Weren't you the one complaining about cost? You want to set up an entire new prison system just for those under twenty? And then what? Would you put the 19 year old in jail because he ran someone over while drunk in with all those hard-core street gang members? How many different kinds of prisons do you want?