New Liberal Ads

[nicky10013]

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

[Jerry J. Fortin]

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

Nice! There will be hell to pay over this.

[nicky10013]

I don't like negative politics but when you have a guy like Harper running the show, there isn't much positive. At least they stick to his policies and not attempt character assassination.

[blueblood]

Sounds like the Liberals brought a knife to a gun fight.

How big is that war chest the tories have at their disposal?

[nicky10013]

Sounds like the Liberals brought a knife to a gun fight.

How big is that war chest the tories have at their disposal?

Sometimes money doesn't matter. EG, Liberals, 2006.

[nicky10013]

The Conservative response.

From: Alerte-Info-Alert <[email protected]>

To: Alerte-Info-Alert <[email protected]>

Sent: Sun Jan 10 13:19:26 2010

Subject: Ignatieff Liberals Renew Attack on Canadian Soldiers

Michael Ignatieff, unseen in Canada until Thursday night, when he arrived on a flight from Europe after an extended vacation, has launched a small-budget ad campaign intended to distract attention from his lengthy absence.

The ad campaign renews the Ignatieff Liberals' claim about a "coverup" of "torture" of Taliban prisoners. Mr. Ignatieff persists in this attack even though the allegation that torture was covered up represents a direct attack on the men and women of Canada's Armed Forces.

The Ignatieff Liberals like to pretend that their wild allegation bypasses the soldiers who captured and handed over Taliban prisoners -- but that's just not logical.

The rest of Mr. Ignatieff's ad campaign is more of the same -- idle chatter that is out of touch with the real priorities of Canadians -- including Canadians' number one priority, the economy.

Our Government is hard at work and remains hard at work on the things that matter to Canadians, in particular the economy. This includes completing implementation of our Economic Action Plan, returning to balanced budgets once the economy has recovered, and building a strong economy for the future.

Edited January 10, 2010 by nicky10013

[blueblood]

Sometimes money doesn't matter. EG, Liberals, 2006.

It's mattered for the past 4 years, and the tories are proving to be exceedingly efficient at it.

How is the Liberal leadership campaign debt going. It seems that they can finally afford a proper video camera this time!

[nicky10013]

It's mattered for the past 4 years, and the tories are proving to be exceedingly efficient at it.

How is the Liberal leadership campaign debt going. It seems that they can finally afford a proper video camera this time!

The Liberals have come a long way. Ever since Ignatieff took over they've recieved month on month more money than the Conservatives. The Liberals will never be able to overtake the Conservative war chest but in the end as long as you can operate from week to week in a campaign, who cares? It's not like that money is going to come in handy. How many millions were left over from the last campaign?

[blueblood]

The Liberals have come a long way. Ever since Ignatieff took over they've recieved month on month more money than the Conservatives. The Liberals will never be able to overtake the Conservative war chest but in the end as long as you can operate from week to week in a campaign, who cares? It's not like that money is going to come in handy. How many millions were left over from the last campaign?

So have the tories.

Significantly more than the Liberals!

More money spent on marketing always generates better returns. Case in point Dion/Ignatieff vs. Harper last year.

[ToadBrother]

Sounds like the Liberals brought a knife to a gun fight.

How big is that war chest the tories have at their disposal?

Ah yes, modern democracy, the politics of the chequebook.

[nicky10013]

So have the tories.

Significantly more than the Liberals!

More money spent on marketing always generates better returns. Case in point Dion/Ignatieff vs. Harper last year.

The Liberals don't need to spend money attacking the credibility of Stephen Harper. We've already seen twice that 65% of Canadians don't want him to do the job.

[blueblood]

The Liberals don't need to spend money attacking the credibility of Stephen Harper. We've already seen twice that 65% of Canadians don't want him to do the job.

And close to 80% don't want Ignatieff/Dion for the job!

[nicky10013]

And close to 80% don't want Ignatieff/Dion for the job!

Dion, definitely. Ignatieff, we'll see. Polls only matter after the writ has been dropped. NOTHING is a sure bet in politics.

[capricorn]

The links in the OP don't work on my computer. Anyway, I had found them earlier today on another site and listened to them twice.

The words that stood out are "Afghan detainees", "cover up", "secret" and "something to hide". This is somewhat reminiscent of the "scary" Harper ads put out earlier by the Liberals, complete with ominous music. There is also a veiled attempt at comparing Harper to dictatorships seen in unnamed, unsavoury countries.

I'm supposing the reaction will range from being afraid of what's in store for the country at the hands of the evil Harper and laughter.

I guess if played often enough, the ads could sway some people away from the Conservatives.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Dion, definitely. Ignatieff, we'll see. Polls only matter after the writ has been dropped. NOTHING is a sure bet in politics.

There you go! A spot on posting! Nice job!

[g_bambino]

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

Another interesting take in the Globe and Mail, from Norman Spector:

In their ad, the Liberals are accusing Mr. Harper of a cover-up... Peter Donolo[ ]knows the truth on that point — and all about cover-ups — having been Jean Chrétien's director of communications when the little guy from Shawinigan shut down the Somalia inquiry investigating the torture of Somali civilians, including one who was shot in the back.

Compared to that unprecedented action by the Chrétien government, Mr. Harper's decision to postpone opposition questioning on Afghan detainees that will inevitably come with a new session — while deplorable — looks almost benign.

I can't believe that even the pundits are becoming rational and making sense...

[blueblood]

Another interesting take in the Globe and Mail, from Norman Spector:

I can't believe that even the pundits are becoming rational and making sense...

And on top of it we have Ignatieff who puts it in writing and published the fact that he thinks torture is acceptable.

[nicky10013]

Another interesting take in the Globe and Mail, from Norman Spector:

I can't believe that even the pundits are becoming rational and making sense...

No it doesn't, it's just the conservatives trying to change the channel. It's more of "well, the Liberals did it, too so what we're doing is no less bad." The Liberals of 20 years ago aren't the Liberals of today.

[blueblood]

No it doesn't, it's just the conservatives trying to change the channel. It's more of "well, the Liberals did it, too so what we're doing is no less bad." The Liberals of 20 years ago aren't the Liberals of today.

That's right the Liberals of today are much worse, they just go and publish works saying that they find torture acceptable.

Thanks for that gem Iggy!!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's right the Liberals of today are much worse, they just go and publish works saying that they find torture acceptable.

Thanks for that gem Iggy!!

That isn't actually an accurate summary of his opinion is it?

[capricorn]

That isn't actually an accurate summary of his opinion is it?

Some say his opinion on torture is "nuanced". But you can make up your own mind by reading his words.

To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/magazine/lesser-evils.html?pagewanted=1

That's a tad more extreme than allegations that an Afghan detainee was hit with a shoe, by Afghans in an Afghan prison.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Some say his opinion on torture is "nuanced". But you can make up your own mind by reading his words.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/magazine/lesser-evils.html?pagewanted=1

That's a tad more extreme than allegations that an Afghan detainee was hit with a shoe, by Afghans in an Afghan prison.

But those words still don't prove he is in favour of torture at all. That would be an interpretation in a non-literal sense designed to well position ones ass on a fence without looking like you will fall in either direction when the wind blows. It is a political statement designed to preclude being compelled to take one stand or another. To say that it implies torture is a fabrication to say the least.

[punked]

That isn't actually an accurate summary of his opinion is it?

This is from Iggy's publisher in 2003 the write up he approved about his book lessor of evils

Ignatieff argues that we must not shrink from the use of violence--that far from undermining liberal democracy, force can be necessary for its survival. But its use must be measured, not a program of torture and revenge. And we must not fool ourselves that whatever we do in the name of freedom and democracy is good. We may need to kill to fight the greater evil of terrorism, but we must never pretend that doing so is anything better than a lesser evil.

In making this case, Ignatieff traces the modern history of terrorism and counter-terrorism, from the nihilists of Czarist Russia and the militias of Weimar Germany to the IRA and the unprecedented menace of Al Qaeda, with its suicidal agents bent on mass destruction. He shows how the most potent response to terror has been force, decisive and direct, but--just as important--restrained. The public scrutiny and political ethics that motivate restraint also give democracy its strongest weapon: the moral power to endure when the furies of vengeance and hatred are spent.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7578.html

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ignatieff argues that we must not shrink from the use of violence--that far from undermining liberal democracy, force can be necessary for its survival. But its use must be measured, not a program of torture and revenge.

All I read from that is that he does not support torture. What do you get out of it? I mean the first part is speaking about international politics and the need for military intervention at some times, the second part is relevant after the first is taken into consideration. Once we undertake military operations, they should not be used to torture and seek revenge upon those we wage war upon.

[g_bambino]

No it doesn't, it's just the conservatives trying to change the channel. It's more of "well, the Liberals did it, too so what we're doing is no less bad."

Er, you evidently missed the part where he said, while criticising the Liberals, that this prorogation was "deplorable". You seem to like calling out hypocricy where you see it (which is fine), but are selective in what you see.