Conservative attack ads

ToadBrother · July 9, 2009

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.

Oh, I agree, even for a lowly (and relatively low-paid) researcher, the idea of going into politics must hold the same kind of attraction as going to the dentist. Still, I wish we could do more to attract qualified people.

jbg · July 10, 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.

At least Harper isn't a political tourist. He's a real Canadian.

jdobbin · July 10, 2009

No experience in politics

As much as Harper did when he became leader. They both had the same amount of years as MP.

No experience in management

True. He hasn't run a private business. Harper hasn't either.

Damned little experience in Canada

Your main criticism of Liberals is that they are all tied to past misdeeds. Hard to link that to Ignatieff who was not present for any of the Chretien years.

Ivory tower intellectual all his life.

And Harper hasn't led such a life? Doesn't he consider himself a policy wonk?

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.

He certainly didn't navigate the issue of election/no election very well.

My belief is that he should have simply said that the Liberals were not ready to fight an election when Canadians expect the parties to get down to business. In other words, he should have called for a meeting with Harper early on to determine a course of action on addressing the issue.

Smallc · July 10, 2009

At least Harper isn't a political tourist. He's a real Canadian.

Yes, Harper is the awesomest guy ever and Ignatieff is a stupid tourist.

ToadBrother · July 10, 2009

At least Harper isn't a political tourist. He's a real Canadian.

What does that even mean? This looks like another variant of the "Stephen Harper likes beer, hockey and Bob & Doug". Next your going to be repeating the B.S. "Harper never wanted to be Prime Minister".

Ah well, simple arguments for simple minds. For you guys, Stephen Harper is like some sort of right wing pope.

Edited July 10, 2009 by ToadBrother

Bonam · July 10, 2009

Oh, I agree, even for a lowly (and relatively low-paid) researcher, the idea of going into politics must hold the same kind of attraction as going to the dentist. Still, I wish we could do more to attract qualified people.

A good start would be letting politicians have their privacy instead of sensationalizing every aspect of their personal lives. I'd say that having to endure every detail of your entire life being put on display for everyone to chat about is probably the biggest deterrent for most individuals.

Molly · July 10, 2009

You know, that doesn't really happen a lot, except to a handful of top dogs. Most politicians aren't really under any greater personal scrutiny than, say, business owners... like the guy who owns the big local car dealership. Most are just exactly that anonymous, even on their home turf.

The higher they climb, of course, the more intrusion there is, but a backbench MP is nobody in the grand scheme of things. Lots wouldn't be recognized by more than a few even in their home constituency. The vast majority of people can't be bothered finding out what their policies are, much less gossip about their private lives; don't know their name, much less their face and personal history.

I'm a political junky like everyone else here, but I have two spectacular occasions under my belt of spending signifigant time socializing/arguing with cabinet ministers... one provincial, one federal... in which I didn't realize their identity until told late in the conversation. Who knows whether there might have been more times, only with no buttinski around to point out identities.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Molly

Molly · July 10, 2009

Just as an additional note, though, being recognized by strangers is disconcerting/uncomfortable.

I used to do a lot of writing/speaking, and so would often have someone out of context trot up to me to strike up a conversation as though I had ever laid eyes on them before in my life.... I really hated that. Some enjoy it, but I definitely did not.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 10, 2009

Just as an additional note, though, being recognized by strangers is disconcerting/uncomfortable.
I used to do a lot of writing/speaking, and so would often have someone out of context trot up to me to strike up a conversation as though I had ever laid eyes on them before in my life.... I really hated that. Some enjoy it, but I definitely did not.

Molly, there is truth in what you say. Many folks are just like you and me, we do not seek the limelight and the trouble of public life. That is another factor in the spread of the democratic disease of apathy. It is something that must be considered.

jbg · July 11, 2009

Your main criticism of Liberals is that they are all tied to past misdeeds. Hard to link that to Ignatieff who was not present for any of the Chretien years.

Exactly. He spent most of his adult life anywhere but Canada.

jbg · July 11, 2009

Ah well, simple arguments for simple minds. For you guys, Stephen Harper is like some sort of right wing pope.

Look at my description under my screen name. I am a Trotskyite, Chomsky-ite leftwinger.

Argus · July 11, 2009

You know, that doesn't really happen a lot, except to a handful of top dogs. Most politicians aren't really under any greater personal scrutiny than, say, business owners... like the guy who owns the big local car dealership. Most are just exactly that anonymous, even on their home turf.

A backbench MPP from the Alberta legislature gave a little speech to a junior high graduating class and made national headlines. I don't think that'd happen to your local car dealer.

Molly · July 11, 2009

But neither was that an intrusion into his private life.

Generally, when you stand at a podium and orate, it's considered a public airing of your POV.

Argus · July 11, 2009

But neither was that an intrusion into his private life.
Generally, when you stand at a podium and orate, it's considered a public airing of your POV.

And is that why Tom Lukiwski's 16 year old video became a national story?

Molly · July 11, 2009

LOL

No. That became a national story because he was fool enough to say some jackass-stupid things to a camera, then leave the tape behind for political opponents to find! He may as well have delivered it 'in a plain brown wrapper'.

That wasn't an intrusion into his private life! That was self-inflicted wounds!

Argus · July 11, 2009

LOL
No. That became a national story because he was fool enough to say some jackass-stupid things to a camera, then leave the tape behind for political opponents to find! He may as well have delivered it 'in a plain brown wrapper'.

That wasn't an intrusion into his private life! That was self-inflicted wounds!

You're missing the point. When you're an MP, ANYTHING you do, in private life or not, which can be used in some way to embarrass your party, is coast to coast news. That draws a level of scrutiny which you cannot simply dismiss by comparing them to used car dealers.

Molly · July 12, 2009

Hardly. I'm not missing the point, but outright disagreeing with it.

For those who enter politics, that which they do publicly is very public... but their private lives are, for the most part, left quite private.

They do not have to deal with groupies and paparazzi; their private files are not rifled; they have discreet affairs that are not commented upon. Their sicko brother-in-law is never mentioned, and the only way we'd know if they have tattoos and appendectomy scars is if they choose to display them. Unless they start dragging their spouses and children up onto the podium, no one cares much whether those others exist. They have only, really, to answer for the opinions they publicly express.

Both of the samples you brought up were clear examples of the publicly stated opinion, and the less-publicly held one being in apparent disagreement, indicating outright mendacity-- which is something the public has a right to know about and to consider.

The worst recent case of intrusion was that of Ruby Dhalla, but frankly, love her or hate her, was justified because it spoke directly to her integrity.

Those who are not misrepresenting themselves, and who are not among the tiny handful of top dogs, have little to be concerned about.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Molly

Jerry J. Fortin · July 12, 2009

Hardly. I'm not missing the point, but outright disagreeing with it.
For those who enter politics, that which they do publicly is very public... but their private lives are, for the most part, left quite private.

They do not have to deal with groupies and paparazzi; their private files are not rifled; they have discreet affairs that are not commented upon. Their sicko brother-in-law is never mentioned, and the only way we'd know if they have tattoos and appendectomy scars is if they choose to display them. Unless they start dragging their spouses and children up onto the podium, no one cares much whether those others exist. They have only, really, to answer for the opinions they publicly express.

Both of the samples you brought up were clear examples of the publicly stated opinion, and the less-publicly held one being in apparent disagreement, indicating outright mendacity-- which is something the public has a right to know about and to consider.

The worst recent case of intrusion was that of Ruby Dhalla, but frankly, love her or hate her, was justified because it spoke directly to her integrity.

Those who are not misrepresenting themselves, and who are not among the tiny handful of top dogs, have little to be concerned about.

The Americanization of politics in this nation will lead to even further public scrutiny into private lives of representatives. That may not be a bad thing.

Molly · July 12, 2009

I think it would be a bad thing.

That general attitude of respect allows us to have the services of folks who are not pathological glory-seekers.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Molly

bush_cheney2004 · July 12, 2009

I think it would be a bad thing.
That general attitude of respect allows us to have the services of folks who are not pathological glory-seekers.

Really?...then that would rule out Michael Ignatieff for sure, as he not only worships America, but gloriously crows about same at every opportunity.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 12, 2009

Really?...then that would rule out Michael Ignatieff for sure, as he not only worships America, but gloriously crows about same at every opportunity.

As any well thinking candidate for office should. Making an enemy out of a friend is not a right or sane act, especially at the international level of politics.

bush_cheney2004 · July 12, 2009

As any well thinking candidate for office should. Making an enemy out of a friend is not a right or sane act, especially at the international level of politics.

Didn't seem to bother party leaders in the least while vying for PM Harper's job.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 12, 2009

Didn't seem to bother party leaders in the least while vying for PM Harper's job.

Of course not. You need to keep in mind that in this nation, our economic health is very reliant on our marketing strategies with America. Most citizens know and understand this, so they will not knowing support anything that would serve to detract from our economic viability. That is why Layton will NEVER become PM. They are openly protectionist and anti-American.

bush_cheney2004 · July 12, 2009

Of course not. You need to keep in mind that in this nation, our economic health is very reliant on our marketing strategies with America. Most citizens know and understand this, so they will not knowing support anything that would serve to detract from our economic viability. That is why Layton will NEVER become PM. They are openly protectionist and anti-American.

It's not just Layton.....the Canadian dynamic is to get nervous about being too close or too far from the Americans. I am still amazed at just how pervasive this behaviour is, and applaud any member that articulates a domestic (or even international) point without constantly using America for a crutch.

Now that "Bush" is gone, we shall see how the next round of campaign ads invoke different American bogeymen.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 12, 2009

It's not just Layton.....the Canadian dynamic is to get nervous about being too close or too far from the Americans. I am still amazed at just how pervasive this behaviour is, and applaud any member that articulates a domestic (or even international) point without constantly using America for a crutch.
Now that "Bush" is gone, we shall see how the next round of campaign ads invoke different American bogeymen.

There is no American bogeyman! America is little more than a corporate empire bent on profits. Once you get by that reality America is easy to understand. Canadians don't really care one way or the other about America, aside from the fact that they continue to purchase goods and services from Canada in the same consistent manner.

Bush was and is an idiot, always has been and always will be. Obama is an unknown in political terms, a variable that we need to solve for. He was against free trade, now he seems to be for it. He was against "dirty" Alberta oil, no he seems to be for it.