Conservative attack ads

jdobbin · July 8, 2009

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?

I am thinking about the cost. I don't believe it is cheaper housing people in super prisons. It costs a lot in terms of security and I don't believe it helps in rehabilitation for those who eventually will be released.

normanchateau · July 8, 2009

I don't know anything about Harper's religion.

Now you do.

"About two decades ago, Harper shifted away from the mainline Protestant denominations of his father and began finding a home in the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, which has about 2.5 million members and 14,000 congregations worldwide. One fifth of its members live in North America, with Alberta a Canadian hotbed.

Since Harper moved in 2003 to Ottawa, he has been attending the capital city's Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, called East Gate, under the guidance of Pastor Bill Buitenwerf."

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...96-76f3db32808e

Smallc · July 9, 2009

You don't like truth?

The truth according to him, and you it seems. But any truth that lies in such generalization is always wrong.

ToadBrother · July 9, 2009

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.

I find it equally impossible of Harper, a man who appears to only possess the emotions his spin doctors have prosthetically attached to him.

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.

And what precise theories has Harper gained that aren't of the ivory tower variety? Where's his connection to the average Canadian?

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.

No one needs to be awed, but academia is rather important, rather more important in my view than some guy who has basically sucked at the teat of a particularly political movement his entire life. If being one of us is so damned important, then I'd like to see Harper down on the street earning a proper living, trying to keep his family afloat on EI during the hard times, managing a mortgage and day care.

But that's not the direction Harper took, and I don't necessarily hold it against him. What I do find peculiar is the extreme hypocrisy of condemning Iggy for his ivory towers, but make-believing that Harper hasn't spent his life in his own. If Iggy is too detached from the day-to-day of Canadian reality to run this country, then so is Harper.

Keepitsimple · July 9, 2009

I find it equally impossible of Harper, a man who appears to only possess the emotions his spin doctors have prosthetically attached to him.
And what precise theories has Harper gained that aren't of the ivory tower variety? Where's his connection to the average Canadian?

No one needs to be awed, but academia is rather important, rather more important in my view than some guy who has basically sucked at the teat of a particularly political movement his entire life. If being one of us is so damned important, then I'd like to see Harper down on the street earning a proper living, trying to keep his family afloat on EI during the hard times, managing a mortgage and day care.

But that's not the direction Harper took, and I don't necessarily hold it against him. What I do find peculiar is the extreme hypocrisy of condemning Iggy for his ivory towers, but make-believing that Harper hasn't spent his life in his own. If Iggy is too detached from the day-to-day of Canadian reality to run this country, then so is Harper.

You're really missing a lot of the basics. Harper grew up in Leaside (Toronto) - just a regular house - his father was an accountant. He doesn't have money or priviledge or royalty in his background. His kids go to Public School. In a broad respect, Harper has an academic background but he long ago dedicated himself to politics - not for power - but to make a contribution to Canada and try to change some of the imbalances that he saw in politics. It's important to recognize that he had no grand plan to become Prime Minister - he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. I cannot fault Mr. Ignatieff for being an academic and intellectual - he seems to have been good at it - but I CAN find fault with him not dedicating himself to Canada at some point other than age 60 with a promise from the Liberal back-room boys to become leader and then PM. The man is clearly out of touch......only a die-hard partisan could think otherwise.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Keepitsimple

Smallc · July 9, 2009

I don't understand why any of that matters. We're all different. Characterizing someone as an average Joe or as an elitist based on whether or not they watch the game and drink beer is just silly.

Smallc · July 9, 2009

The man is clearly out of touch......only a die-hard partisan could think otherwise.

Since about the same amount of people like Harper as like Ignatieff, they must be in the same boat.

ToadBrother · July 9, 2009

You're really missing a lot of the basics. Harper grew up in Leaside (Toronto) - just a regular house - his father was an accountant. He doesn't have money or priviledge or royalty in his background. His kids go to Public School. In a broad respect, Harper has an academic background but he long ago dedicated himself to politics - not for power - but to make a contribution to Canada and try to change some of the imbalances that he saw in politics. It's important to recognize that he had no grand plan to become Prime Minister - he just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

I've never been particularly interested in or convinced of the cereal box version of Stephen Harper's life, though it's laughable to see his dedicated worshipers repeat it as if it were some sort of sacred scripture.

I cannot fault Mr. Ignatieff for being an academic and intellectual - he seems to have been good at it - but I CAN find fault with him not dedicating himself to Canada at some point other than age 60 with a promise from the Liberal back-room boys to become leader and then PM. The man is clearly out of touch......only a die-hard partisan could think otherwise.

So let me get this straight. If a guy dedicates the first part of his life to academic pursuits, he's not a good Canadian, but if a guy dedicates himself to being a professional political hack who twice, mind you, stabbed his mentors in the back, somehow he's Jesus Hallelujah Christ on a Crutch?

I'll be blunt. Harper doesn't give a g*ddamn about you, me or anyone else. He's like Chretien, a guy who just loves the game. Whether it's in the back rooms or out front, he's not in it to do anyone any favors. Now maybe Iggy's of the same sort, though I think the guy is considerably brighter than Harper, but probably not possessed of the precise formulation of Machiavellian character traits. Still, despite all of that, he stands a reasonable chance of becoming the next Prime Minister, which suggests that Harper may have extended himself into realms for which he is not well suited. His successes for the last few years have been largely because his opponents have been, to put it bluntly, utterly inept. Against Iggy, evil anti-Canadian academic monster mind, there seems to be an even match. Iggy's biggest problem is that he's not nearly so willing to take chances. Of course, Harper's fault is that he's too willing to take chances, and only, in the end, his own party's anger finally brought him back under control.

But please, spare me the "Harper never wanted to be Prime Minister" B.S. That's the sort of self-mythologizing that politicians all too often partake of. Iggy is lauded as an intellectual superbrain who returned to Canada to save it from the forces of darkness, and Harper is lauded as some sort of modern Cincanattus, unwillingly returning to the political ring.

Argus · July 9, 2009

Now you do.

Clearly the point evaded you. I don't know anything about his religion, or what Dion's was, or what Ignatieff's is, and I DON'T CARE unless they start wearing funny clothes and acting wierd in public.

And if Harper were a Liberal YOU WOULD'NT CARE either.

Argus · July 9, 2009

And what precise theories has Harper gained that aren't of the ivory tower variety? Where's his connection to the average Canadian?

There is some substance to the suggestion that politicians can be divorced from everyday realities, as well. But I think that this is far less the case than for the ivory tower types. After all, politicians, even PMs, have to get re-elected. They have to involve themselves in the nitty gritty of constituency work, of meeting with every manner of group from the home riding, eating lunches and dinners with them and listening to their problems. Who does a Harvard or Oxford university professor meet with but elite, pampered, rich students, and other professors?

Argus · July 9, 2009

I don't understand why any of that matters. We're all different. Characterizing someone as an average Joe or as an elitist based on whether or not they watch the game and drink beer is just silly.

It only matters in terms of whether you think the potential leader relates to the problems of the everyday citizen, and thus might apply himself more intensively to those problems.

Of course, this in itself is a modern concept. Previously, government wasn't supposed to do anything about your problems. It was there to look after the larger picture; roads and rail, ports and soldiers and hospitals and the like.

Smallc · July 9, 2009

It only matters in terms of whether you think the potential leader relates to the problems of the everyday citizen, and thus might apply himself more intensively to those problems.

But again, that has nothing to do with what they personally spend their time doing. I don't drink and I think that sports are a waste of time, yet I'm not an 'elite'. Whatever that means.

capricorn · July 9, 2009

Smallc, you don't have to be a drinker to understand that saying a chap is the sort who would be comfortable sharing a beer with you. It is a metaphor for someone who can connect with the common person.

Main Entry: met·a·phor

1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money) ; broadly : figurative language — compare simile2: an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : symbol 2

Smallc · July 9, 2009

You're right, but I don't either see Michael Ignatieff or Stephen Harper as common people, nor do I think that I should. They are well educated men who have have spent their lives differently from most people. That doesn't mean that they can't understand the country or the problems of the rest of us. On the contrary, because of their perspectives, they may be better equipped. I don't buy this elitist....junk.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Smallc

ToadBrother · July 9, 2009

There is some substance to the suggestion that politicians can be divorced from everyday realities, as well. But I think that this is far less the case than for the ivory tower types. After all, politicians, even PMs, have to get re-elected. They have to involve themselves in the nitty gritty of constituency work, of meeting with every manner of group from the home riding, eating lunches and dinners with them and listening to their problems. Who does a Harvard or Oxford university professor meet with but elite, pampered, rich students, and other professors?

Oh come on, there are pictures of Iggy at pancake breakfasts, shaking hands with Joe and Jane Averages, and so on and so on and so on. You're really stretching now, mainly because I suspect you know very damned well that Harper is just as much in an ivory tower as Iggy.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 9, 2009

I would love to see a real peoples representative get the top job. I want someone who has had to live like most folks to govern them. I want a team player.

I have had enough of the lawyers running this country.

ToadBrother · July 9, 2009

You're right, but I don't either see Michael Ignatieff or Stephen Harper as common people, nor do I think that I should. They are well educated men who have have spent their lives differently from most people. That doesn't mean that they can't understand the country or the problems of the rest of us. On the contrary, because of their perspectives, they may be better equipped. I don't buy this elitist....junk.

The problem is that the Conservatives frequently attack Iggy as an "ivory tower academic" while trying to foist this image on everyone that Harper is some sort of everyman.

As I've said repeatedly, I wish there were more academics in Parliament. I wish there were some nuclear physicists, and then maybe the Feds would have more intelligently dealt with Chalk River. I wish there biologists, and maybe we wouldn't have the irony of a Creationist controlling Federal science funding. I wish there were more engineers, surgeons, psychiatrists, historians, Arabic scholars, Chinese scholars, geologists, climatologists, telecommunications and IT professionals, and so on. Can you imagine actually having people with a vote on legislation who had some inkling as to what it was about?

Edited July 9, 2009 by ToadBrother

Jerry J. Fortin · July 9, 2009

The problem is that the Conservatives frequently attack Iggy as an "ivory tower academic" while trying to foist this image on everyone that Harper is some sort of everyman.
As I've said repeatedly, I wish there were more academics in Parliament. I wish there were some nuclear physicists, and then maybe the Feds would have more intelligently dealt with Chalk River. I wish there biologists, and maybe we wouldn't have the irony of a Creationist controlling Federal science funding. I wish there were more engineers, surgeons, psychiatrists, historians, Arabic scholars, Chinese scholars, geologists, climatologists, telecommunications and IT professionals, and so on. Can you imagine actually having people with a vote on legislation who had some inkling as to what it was about?

All true, yet where is the working class? Are they unfit to represent?

Bonam · July 9, 2009

As I've said repeatedly, I wish there were more academics in Parliament. I wish there were some nuclear physicists, and then maybe the Feds would have more intelligently dealt with Chalk River. I wish there biologists, and maybe we wouldn't have the irony of a Creationist controlling Federal science funding. I wish there were more engineers, surgeons, psychiatrists, historians, Arabic scholars, Chinese scholars, geologists, climatologists, telecommunications and IT professionals, and so on. Can you imagine actually having people with a vote on legislation who had some inkling as to what it was about?

People with an education in something that is actually useful wouldn't bother with politics. Why become a politician, have your right to privacy abrogated, your entire life made a toy for the media, your every mistake criticized and laughed at, your salary criticized despite already being low, etc? An engineer or nuclear physicist or most of the other professions you mentioned can easily find a much better, less stressful, more lucrative, and more satisfying career.

ToadBrother · July 9, 2009

All true, yet where is the working class? Are they unfit to represent?

Nope, have some of them there too. But please, oh please, spare us the self-indulgent self-appointed political class.

Dave_ON · July 9, 2009

All true, yet where is the working class? Are they unfit to represent?

Sadly the average Joe couldn't afford politics. It's an expensive game and if you want to join one of the big two you have to have a substantial nest egg built up to do it. That is why politics is rife with the "well to do".

Argus · July 9, 2009

Oh come on, there are pictures of Iggy at pancake breakfasts, shaking hands with Joe and Jane Averages, and so on and so on and so on.

Yeah, over the last couple of years since he remembered there was something up here other than snow and indians. Harper has been doing it since he was about sixteen.

Which reminds me of another problem with Iggy; He has never been in charge of ANYTHING. Does he even have management skills? Is he a decision maker? Is he able to referee between conflicting arguments and enforce discipline on his caucus?

No experience in politics

No experience in management

Damned little experience in Canada

Ivory tower intellectual all his life.

I am not filled with confidence here.

I am not writing him off here because, let's face it, the bar is pretty low, and he could surprise. I just haven't seen anything surprising thus far.

Smallc · July 9, 2009

No experience in politics
No experience in management

Damned little experience in Canada

Ivory tower intellectual all his life.

Why don't you just change your name to Conservative Talking Head? It would save us all a lot of reading.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Smallc

Argus · July 9, 2009

Why don't you just change your name to Conservative Talking Head? It would save us all a lot of reading.

You could change yours to Empty Head and save the effort of writing.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Argus

ToadBrother · July 9, 2009

Yeah, over the last couple of years since he remembered there was something up here other than snow and indians. Harper has been doing it since he was about sixteen.
Which reminds me of another problem with Iggy; He has never been in charge of ANYTHING. Does he even have management skills? Is he a decision maker? Is he able to referee between conflicting arguments and enforce discipline on his caucus?

No experience in politics

No experience in management

Damned little experience in Canada

Ivory tower intellectual all his life.

I am not filled with confidence here.

I am not writing him off here because, let's face it, the bar is pretty low, and he could surprise. I just haven't seen anything surprising thus far.

Could you keep track of your arguments here? First you claim he's an ivory tower academic too detached from everyday reality to lead the country. Then, when you're reminded that Harper is hardly in a better position, you say a few words about how you think Harper would drink beer, and claim that Iggy only hangs around equally detached people. Then when I point out that Iggy's been doing all that baby kissing that's expected of politicians, suddenly it's "Yeah, but he's only been doing it for a couple of years".

Where does this line of reasoning end? So far I think we've established the neither Harper nor Iggy really have much personal experience in what it's like to be Joe Canuck and both have lived in fairly isolated ivory towers.

What I'd like explained is why, for all of that, Harper still seems so damned stiff and awkward when he actually does have to mingle, and why Iggy seems so much more at ease. I suspect it's because Iggy's been a lot of places, had to deal with a lot of people, and just fundamentally has better people skills. Harper, on the other hand, has hung around a navel-gazing political clique, is used to people who sort of genetically agree with his world view, and finds having to justify himself to be both dull and disconcerting.

The only good thing about either one of them is that they're not Jack Layton.