CPC Campaign Strategy: Fear, Fear and More Fear

[fellowtraveller]

I have an exercise in civics for everybody: count the number of times that Micheal Ignatieff says the word coalition voluntarily in the next election campaign.

My guess would be zero at the very most.

His handlers will have had that word surgically removed from his skull.

[jdobbin]

His handlers will have had that word surgically removed from his skull.

Let's see how many times Harper mentions majority.

[Riverwind]

You can be for it or against it, but to view it as illegitimate is just horrible education. To have the governing party disseminating said information is even yet more despicable. There's no excuse for it.

You make the mistake of assuming that lack of knowledge of the rules is the reason for opposition. Many people are perfectly aware of the rules yet feel the coalition and emerson's defection is wrong and are not legitimate. There is nothing dispicable about having ethical standards that require more than simply 'follwing the rules'.

[Riverwind]

Who needs to campaign if there's no election? You can just as easily base a campaign on the merits of a coalition after the fact.

Sure. That option is always on the table because the rules allow it but you can bet that the political opposition is going to make the case that the action was illegitimate.

Such a move would be similar to the HST move in BC. I suspect that the BC liberals had not thought seriously about the idea so saying they 'had no plans' was the truth at the time. But once they got in with a comfortable majority and a ballooning deficit things changed. Yet that does not stop many coalition supporters from accusing the BC liberals of fraud because 'they did not mention it during the campaign'.

The reality in our society today is legitimacy has been reduced to a question of whether someone likes the outcome. If they like it is legitimate - otherwises it is illegitimate. Conservatives are just as guilty of this opportunism as Libs and NDP.

[nicky10013]

You make the mistake of assuming that lack of knowledge of the rules is the reason for opposition. Many people are perfectly aware of the rules yet feel the coalition and emerson's defection is wrong and are not legitimate. There is nothing dispicable about having ethical standards that require more than simply 'follwing the rules'.

You mistook my post. I never said it wasn't alright to hate the coalition for the players involved and not "legitimate" because they don't like the parties involved. What IS wrong is that they actually think this is a practice not constitutionally allowed. Furthermore, what's worse, is that the government seemed to be (and it seems like they will be) pushing that definition hard. I remember "illegal coup" being everywhere during the crisis. That is lower than most parties have ventured. It shows the complete disdain which Harper shows for our parliamentary process. In the end, even THAT is not that bad. I'm not going to agree with him but it would engender respect that he can stand behind his position. However, he just chooses to spread complete lies instead. Utter garbage.

[noahbody]

So no chance that he isn't going to use words like separatist and socialist in a campaign. Okay. Gotcha.

What part of "Not saying the war room won't go for it," did you not understand?

So you very much believe Harper wants Parliament to work. Any evidence of that?

From his secretly recorded words, it's clear he doesn't want an election. From the Liberal response, it's clear they don't have a good reason to force one. Being the self-proclaimed natural governing party, doesn't cut it.

As far as making parliament work, the surplus package and everything the Liberals have supported are examples. It's hard for Ignatieff to make the case parliament isn't working when he's been supporting bills left and right.

[ironstone]

Jack Layton as a Minister in a coalition government?Scares the hell out of me

[jdobbin]

What part of "Not saying the war room won't go for it," did you not understand?

The fact that he has said these things before in public means I don't believe they will be limited to keeping it behind closed doors. What part of that don't you understand?

From his secretly recorded words, it's clear he doesn't want an election. From the Liberal response, it's clear they don't have a good reason to force one. Being the self-proclaimed natural governing party, doesn't cut it.

As far as making parliament work, the surplus package and everything the Liberals have supported are examples. It's hard for Ignatieff to make the case parliament isn't working when he's been supporting bills left and right.

If he doesn't want an election perhaps he should be working with Parliament a lot closer. Screaming coward and promising not to call an election before term limits would help. We have seen that Harper can't and won't stop doing that.

Edited September 11, 2009 by jdobbin

[noahbody]

The fact that he has said these things before in public means I don't believe

And that's speculation.

We have seen that Harper can't and won't stop doing that.

So it that.

[jdobbin]

And that's speculation.

As I said, Harper made these remarks in the last few week. That wasn't speculation.

Edited September 11, 2009 by jdobbin

[eyeball]

The point I am trying to make is that we need to decide who to vote for based on what they are saying. It is all we have to judge them with.

What about judging them by their actions, or inactions as is usually the case?

Edited September 11, 2009 by eyeball

[capricorn]

I have an exercise in civics for everybody: count the number of times that Micheal Ignatieff says the word coalition voluntarily in the next election campaign.

My guess would be zero at the very most.

His handlers will have had that word surgically removed from his skull.

The media will not let Ignatieff forget about the coalition. Especially after the leaked Harper tape who cautions that should the Conservatives stay in a minority, the coalition is a very strong possibility. Just yesterday, Ignatieff had difficulty saying no to a coalition.

When asked about forming a coalition, Ignatieff noted that he snuffed out the one opposition parties had formed last year.

"I think I made it very clear by my behaviour last January in relation to coalition politics," he said.

"I didn’t think it was in the national interest. I could be standing here as prime minister of Canada, but I turned it down."

When pressed again whether he was amenable to an informal governing arrangement with the other parties, Ignatieff sidestepped the question.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1141913.html

His non-answer to the straightforward question guarantees it will be raised again and again. This will a go a long way in keeping the ghost of a coalition in the minds of voters throughout an election campaign.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The media will not let Ignatieff forget about the coalition. Especially after the leaked Harper tape who cautions that should the Conservatives stay in a minority, the coalition is a very strong possibility. Just yesterday, Ignatieff had difficulty saying no to a coalition.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1141913.html

His non-answer to the straightforward question guarantees it will be raised again and again. This will a go a long way in keeping the ghost of a coalition in the minds of voters throughout an election campaign.

This suggests that in fact the idea is not dead. It also suggests that Iggy does not wish to discuss this in public at this point. I will go further and suggest that there is some reason for him to not make it public.

I would of course favour a public coalition that would serve to put any elected government in a majority position simply because a majority can act, and a minority cannot.

[Molly]

His non-answer to the straightforward question guarantees it will be raised again and again. This will a go a long way in keeping the ghost of a coalition in the minds of voters throughout an election campaign.

Straw man. It's a rhetorical question that only the dishonest or the absurdly hubris-ridden would give a yes or no answer to. If you have any question as to its being on the list of the possible.... it is. You know that. I know that. Everyone else knows that.

But of course, the Conservatives have actually proceeded to flog it in ad after ad- it's not a question any more, and it must be costing them a fortune- as a given, which it is not. You, I and everyone else knows that, too.

Which basically means that the Conservatives are spending a fortune on ads that do more to make themselves out as liars, alarmists, cads.... than they do to actually harm Ignatieff.

I sincerely hope they continue to flog it right to voting day!

[capricorn]

I sincerely hope they continue to flog it right to voting day!

Me too.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Just keep in mind that Iggy is smarter than many give him credit for. This may seem a little tinfoil hatish to some , but I actually think that Iggy plans to use Harper against Harper.

[Molly]

Yep. Let the very unlikeable personality reveal itself as still being very unlikeable.

Dion felt the need to react to the baiting. Ignatieff, I think, has the poise to just raise a disapproving eyebrow at 'the squalling brat', without becoming flustered by it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yep. Let the very unlikeable personality reveal itself as still being very unlikeable.

Dion felt the need to react to the baiting. Ignatieff, I think, has the poise to just raise a disapproving eyebrow at 'the squalling brat', without becoming flustered by it.

I think you are right Molly. Harper may or may not realize this, its hard to say because there hasn't been very much public interaction with them yet but that is about to change. If Harper is smart he will avoid the confrontation to the extent possible because Iggy will hand him his head in any intellectual gunfight.

[noahbody]

As I said, Harper made these remarks in the last few week. That wasn't speculation.

Yes, what happened in the past isn't speculation. Ignatieff did support the coalition. If I apply your way of thinking, it is a certainty he will again.

Can we do better with Jack Layton in Cabinet? I don't think so.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes, what happened in the past isn't speculation. Ignatieff did support the coalition. If I apply your way of thinking, it is a certainty he will again.

Can we do better with Jack Layton in Cabinet? I don't think so.

Iggy did support the coalition concept as an MP, but not as a leader. There is a difference.

[jdobbin]

Yes, what happened in the past isn't speculation. Ignatieff did support the coalition. If I apply your way of thinking, it is a certainty he will again.

Except that he has categorically ruled it out today. So, you can have an opinion that he is lying but then I could say the same thing about Harper and abortion and the death penalty.

[noahbody]

Iggy did support the coalition concept as an MP, but not as a leader. There is a difference.

Iggy, Dion and Rae ran as a team.

[jdobbin]

Iggy, Dion and Rae ran as a team.

Really? All three as leader?

[fellowtraveller]

Let's see how many times Harper mentions majority.

Many times, I'd guess.

Though not as many times as he'll say 'coaltion of socialists and separatists".

Why wouldn't Harper speak of a majority both privately and publicly?

I know the CBC and your buds over at Liberal Party Battle Control Room are trying to make much of the secret video, but why wouldn;'t both Harper and Ignatieff try and exhort the troops into getting a majority?

Isn't that their wholly public goal every election?

The alternative is to proclaim "I intend to lose".

[fellowtraveller]

I sincerely hope they continue to flog it right to voting day!

Me too.

Those photos of a grinning Idiot, Socialist and Separatist shaking hands are pure gold.