Smear tactics in Ottawa

[kuzadd]

Now I understand why the self-acclaimed conservatives resort to this.

Just taking orders?

Compeled to imitate, for lack of originilaty?

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/425516

quick, attack the newspaper as 'leftwing"!!! or left, the left, whatever other nonsense one can conjure.

Just how low are Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives prepared to stoop to get the better of their political critics? Pretty low, it would appear.

When Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion criticized the government for misleading Parliament on Canadian troops handing over Afghan detainees, Harper retorted: "I can understand the passion (the Liberals) feel for Taliban prisoners. I just wish occasionally they would show the same passion for Canadian soldiers."

More recently Harper, who has been criticized for being reflexively pro-Israel, accused unnamed Members of Parliament of being "willing to cater to" anti-Israel sentiment that is thinly veiled anti-Semitism. As Liberal Bob Rae pointed out, that was a "blanket smear."

"Eyeball, do you really hate the West that much? Yet, you yourself are a complete product of the West. It is as if you hate yourself."

that's a common one!

be critical of western government policies and you are a "hater of the west, a self-hating westerner".

I can't help but wonder what the hell that actually means?

As if our policies are all so perfect and uncontroversial, it is laughable, but rather then actually speak on them or face reality, we get a common smear!

Another one, criticize Israel's human rights record.

Anti-semite or anti-semetic, actually some posters use that one rather heavily.

Again rather then face documented facts, reduce yourself to a name caller.

Another one cited in this article

"terrorist supporter"

these accusations are all so chimerical, that no one could possibly take them seriously, except for the people who actually stoop to using them.

Oh yeah, myself, accused of being a muslim, lol!!!

That's another one.

Are you a muslim, are you sitting in a mosque somewhere??

Just being accused of being muslim, in such a bigotted society, where every muslim is a 'terrorist", is an attempt at smear.

So much for discussion eh?

Those people should ask themselves, how low they are willing to go , to prevent themselves from using their thinking skills, instead of their silencing, attacking and smearing skills.

How low will you go?

How low will you go?

Lower now?

Lower?

lower?

Edited May 15, 2008 by kuzadd

[White Doors]

This is from like 6 months ago. Keep up Kuzadd.

[kuzadd]

Smear tactics in Ottawa

it's from today!

May 15, 2008 04:30 AM

come again?

[White Doors]

Smear tactics in Ottawa

it's from today!

May 15, 2008 04:30 AM

come again?

The article is from today, the 'smear' was from a few months ago.

And here I thought you were a self proclaimed 'critical reader' and could resist being spoon fed propoganda?

sucker.

[Shakeyhands]

The article is from today, the 'smear' was from a few months ago.

And here I thought you were a self proclaimed 'critical reader' and could resist being spoon fed propoganda?

sucker.

LOL.... You seem to be doing exactly what he/she is talking about.

[kuzadd]

The article is from today, the 'smear' was from a few months ago.

And here I thought you were a self proclaimed 'critical reader' and could resist being spoon fed propoganda?

sucker.

how about you read the piece as it actually cites a number of smears, two from within the past two weeks

read the article and keep up.

More recently Harper, who has been criticized for being reflexively pro-Israel, accused unnamed Members of Parliament of being "willing to cater to" anti-Israel sentiment that is thinly veiled anti-Semitism. As Liberal Bob Rae pointed out, that was a "blanket smear."

Now Tory MP Jason Kenney has dropped the bar another notch in a nasty exchange with Sen. Roméo Dallaire.

This recent smear from Jason Kenney was reported on just a few days ago, not months.

Sucker? From a poster is not even up to date on the most recent news , nor has bothered to read this article in it's entiretly.

But hey there it is Sucker right away with the name calling. Thanks for helping to make the point!

Edited May 15, 2008 by kuzadd

[buffycat]

how about you read the piece as it actually cites a number of smears, two from within the past two weeks

read the article and keep up.

This recent smear from Jason Kenney was reported on just a few days ago, not months.

Sucker? From a poster is not even up to date on the most recent news , nor has bothered to read this article in it's entiretly.

But hey there it is Sucker right away with the name calling. Thanks for helping to make the point!

LOL Kuzadd - LOOK who you are talking to. White Doors is pretty much a poster boy for drive by smears!!

WRT the name calling and juvenille behaviour of our parliamentarians - well that's just par for the course, isn't it? They think they are being 'humourous' perhaps, but really all it does is reflect badly upon those making the ridiculous comments.

The 'smear' of anti-semite, I hope, is losing it's edge and will begin to backfire. These days, throwing out that particular insult and character assassination usually ends up with a 'rolling of the eyes' response from most.

Times are changing.

edited to add:

The Conservatives discredit themselves with such tactics.

This from your Star article - though I would include anyone who uses these tactics discredit themselves - not just these imposter Conservatives!! And I DO mean imposters!! (IOW they are NOT real 'old school' Conservatives - they are different animal, defined by big government, big corporation and their 'screw the little guy' attitude.

Edited May 15, 2008 by buffycat

[White Doors]

The 'smear' of anti-semite, I hope, is losing it's edge and will begin to backfire. These days, throwing out that particular insult and character assassination usually ends up with a 'rolling of the eyes' response from most.

Or so you hope. I imagine you get called that quite often judging by your consistent anti-semitism demonstrated here.

[Fortunata]

The CPC can go lower I'm quite sure. They have dug to new unseen depths already and don't seem to inclined to quit.

A Conservative told me this week that Harper likes to supply attack lines to cabinet ministers and has been known to chide them after Question Period if they miss an obvious opening to slam a Liberal.

http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/

Such a classy guy as Steve is, he'll find a way

... and the herd follows.

[Michael Bluth]

WRT the name calling and juvenille behaviour of our parliamentarians - well that's just par for the course, isn't it?

Can't go as low as the behaviour of some of the posters here. For example the juvenile behaviour of people who continue to call the PM 'Steve' despite his publicly stated preference for Stephen?

Such a classy guy as Steve is, he'll find a way

Or how about Shakeyhand sending me a pm to 'simmer down' on the use of 'Steph' Dion, yet says nothing about Fortunata using Steve?

To question the behaviour of one side than behave in a childish and/or with a double-standard. Well that doesn't really get you anywhere and leaves your cries for better behaviour ringing pretty hollow. Oh well, thankfully Steph has pretty much guaranteed he'll never be PM with this ill-advised carbon tax scheme.

[fellowtraveller]

quick, attack the newspaper as 'leftwing"!!! or left, the left, whatever other nonsense one can conjure.

How interesting, and amusing that you would feel obliged to preface your links, excerpts and comments with this uber -defensive sentence defending your source.

Do you think the Toronto Star is something less than objective?

[Fortunata]

Can't go as low as the behaviour of some of the posters here. For example the juvenile behaviour of people who continue to call the PM 'Steve' despite his publicly stated preference for Stephen?

Or how about Shakeyhand sending me a pm to 'simmer down' on the use of 'Steph' Dion, yet says nothing about Fortunata using Steve?

To question the behaviour of one side than behave in a childish and/or with a double-standard. Well that doesn't really get you anywhere and leaves your cries for better behaviour ringing pretty hollow. Oh well, thankfully Steph has pretty much guaranteed he'll never be PM with this ill-advised carbon tax scheme.

You're a funny guy MB even if you don't mean to be.

Steve was the name he ran under his first time around. Oh my ... is that a flip flop or is he just being pretentious now calling himself Steven?

[kuzadd]

How interesting, and amusing that you would feel obliged to preface your links, excerpts and comments with this uber -defensive sentence defending your source.

Do you think the Toronto Star is something less than objective?

It's not "uberdefensive", smearing anything or anyone, takes away from the actual issue being discussed.

When an issue that actually requires, thoughtful meaningful discussion is reduced to smear, and is then therefore avoided and the attention is moved to pointless labelling, that proves nothing and means nothing, resolves nothing. But, always brings on pointless bickering, which then keeps the viscious circle going and going.

Lost on you completely isn't it?

Edited May 15, 2008 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

Or so you hope. I imagine you get called that quite often judging by your consistent anti-semitism demonstrated here.

and there is the smear again!

Aptly demonstrated.

[kuzadd]

LOL Kuzadd - LOOK who you are talking to. White Doors is pretty much a poster boy for drive by smears!!

WRT the name calling and juvenille behaviour of our parliamentarians - well that's just par for the course, isn't it? They think they are being 'humourous' perhaps, but really all it does is reflect badly upon those making the ridiculous comments.

The 'smear' of anti-semite, I hope, is losing it's edge and will begin to backfire. These days, throwing out that particular insult and character assassination usually ends up with a 'rolling of the eyes' response from most.

Times are changing.

edited to add:

This from your Star article - though I would include anyone who uses these tactics discredit themselves - not just these imposter Conservatives!! And I DO mean imposters!! (IOW they are NOT real 'old school' Conservatives - they are different animal, defined by big government, big corporation and their 'screw the little guy' attitude.

Of course people who chose to do this , especially repeatedly discredit themselves.

Cause what do they have, except smear?

[guyser]

Can't go as low as the behaviour of some of the posters here. For example the juvenile behaviour of people who continue to call the PM 'Steve' despite his publicly stated preference for Stephen?

Yes that is so much lower than say...

"More recently Harper,... , accused unnamed Members of Parliament of being "willing to cater to" anti-Israel sentiment that is thinly veiled anti-Semitism"

Yes, that is so high brow of our pmsh.

Pretty fair attempt to deflect from steve.

[Argus]

Funny, a commentator on the morning news was talking about smears too - from the Liberal Party. He was talking about how they have been using parliamentary immunity to smear people in the House, but then when questioned outside will prevaricate and dodge in order to not say the same slanderous statements where they do not enjoy immunity.

The other parties have done the same thing in the past, he said, but not to the same extent as these Liberals.

But of course, one would not hear such a complaint from the Star - or from you.

[Shakeyhands]

Can't go as low as the behaviour of some of the posters here. For example the juvenile behaviour of people who continue to call the PM 'Steve' despite his publicly stated preference for Stephen?

Or how about Shakeyhand sending me a pm to 'simmer down' on the use of 'Steph' Dion, yet says nothing about Fortunata using Steve?

To question the behaviour of one side than behave in a childish and/or with a double-standard. Well that doesn't really get you anywhere and leaves your cries for better behaviour ringing pretty hollow. Oh well, thankfully Steph has pretty much guaranteed he'll never be PM with this ill-advised carbon tax scheme.

Can hardly believe this MB, I've only been nice to you, respectful, and this is how I am repayed? How do you know what I said to Fortunata or not? No one has been using Steve or Steph for a while now, or so I had thought. I suppose if one member does that excuses you then? If you think it makes the debate better to call Stephane Steph, well hell go ahead, it doesn't bother me in the least, where as Steve apparently sends you off your seat.

Bottom line is we should all try being a little more mature.

I've noticed the general tone on the board has gone down the last week or so. Can't imagine why.

Smear, smear away, if it makes you feel better.

[Topaz]

No one would have to smear anyone in the House if the government would JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION when asked. I would like to see new rules put into place. The seating gov't HAS to answer honestly when asked. No reversing the question, no smearing, belittling , just answer the freakin question!!!

[Michael Bluth]

Can hardly believe this MB, I've only been nice to you, respectful, and this is how I am repayed? How do you know what I said to Fortunata or not? No one has been using Steve or Steph for a while now, or so I had thought.

What can't you believe? You told me to simmer down and not use Steph. I did ... until I saw Fortunata using Steve. I emailed you letting you know that the 'truce', as you called it, had been broken. Having received that email how could you think that Steve wasn't being used? Don't kid yourself with how respectful you have been to me. How is telling me what to do and ignoring my pm respectful?

I'll respectfully ask you, did you say anything to Fortunata?

If you think it makes the debate better to call Stephane Steph, well hell go ahead, it doesn't bother me in the least, where as Steve apparently sends you off your seat.

It bothered you enough to send me a pm ordering me to simmer down...

Bottom line is we should all try being a little more mature.

Absolutely agreed. I have no problem observing a truce with respect to personal names, but won't let it be one-sided.

Smear, smear away, if it makes you feel better.

Always respectful? Really....

Steve was the name he ran under his first time around. Oh my ... is that a flip flop or is he just being pretentious now calling himself Steven?

That was 20 years ago. He changed his mind. He has stated publicly since than that he prefers to be called Stephen. Ignoring his wishes is just childish.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Michael Bluth

[Shakeyhands]

What can't you believe? You told me to simmer down and not use Steph. I did ... until I saw Fortunata using Steve. I emailed you letting you know that the 'truce', as you called it, had been broken. Having received that email how could you think that Steve wasn't being used? Don't kid yourself with how respectful you have been to me. How is telling me what to do and ignoring my pm respectful?

I'll respectfully ask you, did you say anything to Fortunata?

It bothered you enough to send me a pm ordering me to simmer down...

Absolutely agreed. I have no problem observing a truce with respect to personal names, but won't let it be one-sided.

Always respectful? Really....

That was 20 years ago. He changed his mind. He has stated publicly since than that he prefers to be called Stephen. Ignoring his wishes is just childish.

I'm done with you Bluth, but I will say the Simmer down part of the PM was in jest, sorry you missed that.

[jdobbin]

Funny, a commentator on the morning news was talking about smears too - from the Liberal Party. He was talking about how they have been using parliamentary immunity to smear people in the House, but then when questioned outside will prevaricate and dodge in order to not say the same slanderous statements where they do not enjoy immunity.

The other parties have done the same thing in the past, he said, but not to the same extent as these Liberals.

But of course, one would not hear such a complaint from the Star - or from you.

Not to the same extent as the Liberals?

The Tories are using trash talk in areas of Parliament that have been used for anything but in the last months.

Conservative MPs have taken to taunting Liberal Leader Stephane Dion every time he's about to skate on to Parliament's centre ice. They use members' statements - which precede question period in the House of Commons each day - to indulge in psychological warfare apparently aimed at putting Dion off his game just as he's about to rise to ask the first question of the day.

For example, St. Catharines Tory MP Rick Dykstra used his final statement Tuesday to accuse Dion of planning to spend billions, hike taxes and push the country into deficit.

"One person wants to bring this country and our economy to its knees," Dykstra thundered in conclusion. "Who is that? It is the person who is about to stand up."

The bookish Dion has never seemed comfortable with the hyper-partisan cut and thrust of question period.

Being hectored by a Tory backbencher before each day's performance "can't help but have some effect," said political scientist David Docherty of Wilfrid Laurier University.

The Tories must think it works. They've been employing the tactic steadily since about the beginning of April.

Members' statements are intended to give MPs a chance to speak on any issue that strikes their fancy. Frequently, MPs showcase local worthies or special events in their ridings or expound on causes close to their hearts.

While they also frequently take partisan shots at political rivals, the Tories are unique in their systematic use of the final statement each day to knee-cap a party leader. Indeed, it often appears they're following a script.

The Harper government has taken knee-capping to a fine art.

Edited May 16, 2008 by jdobbin

[BubberMiley]

That was 20 years ago. He changed his mind. He has stated publicly since than that he prefers to be called Stephen. Ignoring his wishes is just childish.

As hilarious as it is that the only comparable justification to some of the atrocious insults the Conservatives have been throwing lately is their calling Harper "Steve," it appears you're pretty much alone in taking offence to it.

Harper's opinion on the subject is much more casual: ""I'm normally called Stephen … but a few people, close friends of my mine, do call me Steve."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/07/12/harper-steve.html

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Stop the childishness.

Focuss on the political discussion and refrain from the personal attacks.

[August1991]

I'll quote you, kuzadd:

be critical of western government policies and you are a "hater of the west, a self-hating westerner".

I can't help but wonder what the hell that actually means?

As if our policies are all so perfect and uncontroversial, it is laughable, but rather then actually speak on them or face reality, we get a common smear!

Since I accused eyeball of "hating her/himself" (I suspect eyeball is a he but I'll be politically correct), I guess I should respond.

Call the Harper government a "regime". Call it "extreme right-wing". Call it what ever you like. But I would hope that people on the left appreciate the fundamental right that allow us to call whomever whatever we want. In the early 21st century, not yet post-post modern, it's worth stepping back a bit and asking ourselves where did this right come from and who truly defends it?

As accountants say, what's the bottom line? I think that's been lost in the shuffle.

-----

Drive by smear? This is how David Herle, also published in the Toronto Star today, described the Conservative Party:

First, the Liberals can continue to concertedly position themselves to exploit a Conservative party stationed too far right on the political spectrum for many Canadians.

Toronto Star

"Too far right"?

This is the same David Herle who dreamed up the "guns in our streets" campaign. Because of David Herle, Paul Martin has been writing memoirs in a farmhouse in the Eastern Townships rather than negotiating a G-20 from a Challenger.

I can understand why David Herle might indulge a drive-by smear. I'm a little more confused about why The Toronto Star in an editorial would get involved.

Everybody,

Stop the childishness.

Focuss on the political discussion and refrain from the personal attacks.

Point taken, Charles. I think the notetakers' phrase is "a full and frank exchange of views ensued".

In general, no one posting here knows the personal situation of anyone else. Some posters may be alone in a small basement apartment, others have many friends and a Lexus parked in the underground garage. Since we don't know, let's leave the personal aside.

Edited May 16, 2008 by August1991