GWiz Posted March 6, 2011 Author Report Posted March 6, 2011 I think what the Toadster is getting at is the usual sanctimonious drivel the Liberal Party uses as a scare tactic about voting for the Dips is a vote for the Cons... Perhaps...Just perhaps...It's up to the Liberal Party to give the voting populous something...ANYTHING...To vote for???? Surprise, surprise, I totally agree that the Liberals have to be in a position to be a viable alternative to the CONS... Having said that, just watch, look and listen to what the Dips do in any upcoming election, they take bashing Liberals and mostly ignoring the GOVERNMENT as an art form... In my riding, in the last election, it was a 2 way race between CON Joy Smith and the NDP because Dion screwed up and there was no Liberal candidate in my riding... I voted Green... Joy Smith trounced the NDP candidate... There are 4 Winnipeg Federal ridings that are NOT traditionally CON ridings that went to CONS courtesy of the NDP... Once in of course it's harder to unseat them because of the "name recognition" factor if nothing else... Truth be told it doesn't matter much to me anymore... What will be will be and Canada will have to live with whatever comes out of the next election... They will DESERVE whatever it is they get... "Some people are so heavenly minded they're no earthly good." Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Jack Weber Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 Surprise, surprise, I totally agree that the Liberals have to be in a position to be a viable alternative to the CONS... Having said that, just watch, look and listen to what the Dips do in any upcoming election, they take bashing Liberals and mostly ignoring the GOVERNMENT as an art form... In my riding, in the last election, it was a 2 way race between CON Joy Smith and the NDP because Dion screwed up and there was no Liberal candidate in my riding... I voted Green... Joy Smith trounced the NDP candidate... There are 4 Winnipeg Federal ridings that are NOT traditionally CON ridings that went to CONS courtesy of the NDP... Once in of course it's harder to unseat them because of the "name recognition" factor if nothing else... Truth be told it doesn't matter much to me anymore... What will be will be and Canada will have to live with whatever comes out of the next election... They will DESERVE whatever it is they get... "Some people are so heavenly minded they're no earthly good." I don't disagree that we will get what we deserve if this country ends up (sadly0 with a Refor..er...Conservative majority... However,when Layton says that the current version of the Liberal party and the Conservative party do a sort of dance together,as if they are opposed,even though they seem to agree with each other...It's awfully hard to deny that... I highly doubt if there was a Liberal government under Mr.Ignatieff,that we would see a whole lot different than what we have now... I don't deny Layton is an oppotunist that's in love with his own mind,and he's is'nt a patch on Ed Broadbent or Tommy Douglas,but he is'nt wrong about the nature of the other two parties and their symbiotic relationship... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
bloodyminded Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) I think what the Toadster is getting at is the usual sanctimonious drivel the Liberal Party uses as a scare tactic about voting for the Dips is a vote for the Cons... Perhaps...Just perhaps...It's up to the Liberal Party to give the voting populous something...ANYTHING...To vote for???? Exactly so. It's as if voting NDP is a terrible thing to do, because it keeps the "Natural" governing party out, and so we all have a responsibility to vote Liberal. We can all think of good reasons not to vote NDP (or anyone else); but this is not one of them. At any rate, whatever the faults of the NDP, the Liberals' weaknesses and failures cannot be laid at the feet of the smaller party. Hell, these guys can't even choose a goddamn leader anymore! Edited March 6, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
cybercoma Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 MPs on both sides of the aisle all too often abuse their office staff and equipment for political ends. This is too much of the pot calling the kettle black.ToadBro, it doesn't matter that they all do it. They're all wrong. Quote
nicky10013 Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 I don't disagree that we will get what we deserve if this country ends up (sadly0 with a Refor..er...Conservative majority... However,when Layton says that the current version of the Liberal party and the Conservative party do a sort of dance together,as if they are opposed,even though they seem to agree with each other...It's awfully hard to deny that... I highly doubt if there was a Liberal government under Mr.Ignatieff,that we would see a whole lot different than what we have now... I don't deny Layton is an oppotunist that's in love with his own mind,and he's is'nt a patch on Ed Broadbent or Tommy Douglas,but he is'nt wrong about the nature of the other two parties and their symbiotic relationship... If we're talking about the old PCs I would probably agree with that. The guys running the new CPC are all reform and pretty much hate every institution Canada was founded on. That's why they have no problem flouting our election laws, suspending parliament etc. etc. etc. because they simply don't believe in the legitimacy of our institutions. They want to turn us into some copy of the way the US is governed. Though, lately the desperation to keep themselves in power has also helped the way they've "governed" our country. I was reading in the Globe and Mail the other day an article by Jeffrey Simpson about "previous quotes and beliefs." That Harper is attacking Ignatieff on things he said 10-20 years ago regarding Canada. He commented that the Liberals could do the exact same thing. He listed pretty much all the big ones and all of them were pretty poisonous in terms of the loathing of Canada as it is. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/what-if-stephen-harpers-previous-views-were-used-against-him/article1930774/ Quote
cybercoma Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 Heaven forbid! EVERY NDP vote brings us closer to another "Harper Government" when they "slide through" between Liberals and the NDP just like the last few elections... Shame on you for even suggesting it... 1/3 of the VOTERS RULING OVER 2/3 of the VOTERS is NEVER a good thing... Not even to teach Canadians a lesson... Shame on you for suggesting that people ought to vote strategically. I was being tongue-in-cheek about the NDP. Nevertheless, people ought to vote for the party whose policies best represent the Canada that they want to see. Strategic voting is nothing more than whoring out the democratic process and it would never happen if we could come to terms on a way to fix our broken first-past-the-post anachronistic system. IMO, the Liberal Party actually no longer has a place in politics. They serve no other purpose than political pragmatism. They latch onto the issue du jour and take the stance that will get them the most votes. A fair strategy and a democratic one, but if you don't know where your party is going to stand on issues because they're too pragmatic, then I don't believe there's any point in voting for them. Solid lines need to be drawn between these parties and a solid vision needs to stand out in their platforms. Voters ought to be picking the candidates from the party whose vision most closely represents the ideals, values, and future that they see for Canada. This is all off topic though. We probably shouldn't discuss it here. Quote
jbg Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 However,when Layton says that the current version of the Liberal party and the Conservative party do a sort of dance together,as if they are opposed,even though they seem to agree with each other...It's awfully hard to deny that...That has to be the case unless you want an election every six weeks or so. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 IMO, the Liberal Party actually no longer has a place in politics. They serve no other purpose than political pragmatism. They latch onto the issue du jour and take the stance that will get them the most votes. A fair strategy and a democratic one, but if you don't know where your party is going to stand on issues because they're too pragmatic, then I don't believe there's any point in voting for them. Solid lines need to be drawn between these parties and a solid vision needs to stand out in their platforms. Voters ought to be picking the candidates from the party whose vision most closely represents the ideals, values, and future that they see for Canada.I agree that the right question in my mind is if the Liberal Party has a reason to exist. In England, when Labour, roughly the best analog to the NDP formed, the Liberal Party's lifetime as a real factor (other than as a minority government or coalition partner) was short indeed. The Liberal Party of Canada is, in many peoples' view, more a non-ideological "brokerage party" (link to editorial article describing them, excerpts below) than a modern political party. The NDP and CPC fall closer to the model of modern, belief-centered parties. Unlike their supposed analogues, the Democrats in the United States or Great Britain's Labor Party, Canada's Liberals are not a party built around certain policies and principles. They are instead what political scientists call a brokerage party, similar to the old Italian Christian Democrats or India's Congress Party: a political entity without fixed principles or policies that exploits the power of the central state to bribe or bully incompatible constituencies to join together to share the spoils of government. As countries modernize, they tend to leave brokerage parties behind. Very belatedly, that moment of maturity may now be arriving in Canada. Americans may lose their illusions about my native country; Canadians will gain true multiparty democracy and accountability in government. It's an exchange that is long past due. Thus, you're right, the Liberal Party no longer needs to exist. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
cybercoma Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 Thus, you're right, the Liberal Party no longer needs to exist. The problem is that they weren't a brokerage party until the NDP started taking seats in the House. They have historical relevance and our ageing population is not going to turn their back on them. People don't see or don't care that they're ideologically bankrupt and have no place of their own. Too many people still consider the NDP a fringe group, rather than actual competition in the House. Unlike the Liberals, they have a vision that runs counter to the Conservatives. They would actually be the more appropriate official opposition. Some people are afraid of this idea because they believe it will lead to political gridlock. IMO, it leads to a more thorough examination of the issues, as they affect ALL Canadians, not just the power-brokers. But, as Canadians, people are opposed to arguments. Our apologetic (apathetic) nature coerces us into avoiding conflict even in government where its necessary. Quote
capricorn Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 I was reading in the Globe and Mail the other day an article by Jeffrey Simpson about "previous quotes and beliefs." That Harper is attacking Ignatieff on things he said 10-20 years ago regarding Canada. He commented that the Liberals could do the exact same thing. He listed pretty much all the big ones and all of them were pretty poisonous in terms of the loathing of Canada as it is. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/what-if-stephen-harpers-previous-views-were-used-against-him/article1930774/ The Liberals are resisting spending on expensive attack ads to counter the ads launched by Harper and the Conservatives. Can't blame them because they have to save their bucks to fund the next election campaign and Ignatieff's ongoing Liberal express tours. T-shirts with nebulous slogans made in Nicaragua don't pack a punch in this media driven world. Liberals owe a debt to commentators like Simpson for providing free advertising of the sort they'd like to, and should, produce themselves. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
jbg Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 The problem is that they weren't a brokerage party until the NDP started taking seats in the House. ************ They would actually be the more appropriate official opposition. Some people are afraid of this idea because they believe it will lead to political gridlock. IMO, it leads to a more thorough examination of the issues, as they affect ALL Canadians, not just the power-brokers. But, as Canadians, people are opposed to arguments. Our apologetic (apathetic) nature coerces us into avoiding conflict even in government where its necessary.Aren't we talking almost fifty (50) years if you count the CCF? Or longer? And do tell how Mackenzie King wasn't a brokereage-type leader? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Wild Bill Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 The problem is that they weren't a brokerage party until the NDP started taking seats in the House. They have historical relevance and our ageing population is not going to turn their back on them. People don't see or don't care that they're ideologically bankrupt and have no place of their own. Too many people still consider the NDP a fringe group, rather than actual competition in the House. Unlike the Liberals, they have a vision that runs counter to the Conservatives. They would actually be the more appropriate official opposition. Some people are afraid of this idea because they believe it will lead to political gridlock. IMO, it leads to a more thorough examination of the issues, as they affect ALL Canadians, not just the power-brokers. But, as Canadians, people are opposed to arguments. Our apologetic (apathetic) nature coerces us into avoiding conflict even in government where its necessary. Quite right, CyberC! A lot of people underestimate the inertia of many Canadian voters. I'm reminded of my late, Italian-Canadian father-in-law. He had been very interested in the politics of his new country and had been a life-long Liberal. His reasoning was very simple. He came to Canada in the early 50's. Economically, things were great until Diefenbaker came to power and we went into a recession. So to him, it was quite simple. Liberals meant good times and Tories meant bad! He was a fervent liberal when I married into his family and holiday dinners sparked much political debate. We didn't change each other's minds but we had a lot of fun. Then came AdScam. It broke my father-in-law's heart. After that, he just didn't want to talk politics at all. I felt sorry for him. He had built his political beliefs more as a faith than I did. The fact that I had switched parties a few times over the years just amazed him! This left him more emotionally vulnerable to the Liberal scandal that it would have left me if I were in his shoes. Anyhow, there are still many voters in this country who have always voted for one party and always will. That's their right and any political observer or party campaigner had best account for them in their calculations. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wild Bill Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) Perhaps...Just perhaps...It's up to the Liberal Party to give the voting populous something...ANYTHING...To vote for???? Isn't it odd that someone like me, who is constantly accused of being a Tory shill, finds so much agreement so often with a labour guy like you, Jack? Hell, we even agree that the Ti-Cats are the greatest! What do you think about disco music? Edited March 6, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Keepitsimple Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) I was reading in the Globe and Mail the other day an article by Jeffrey Simpson about "previous quotes and beliefs." That Harper is attacking Ignatieff on things he said 10-20 years ago regarding Canada. He commented that the Liberals could do the exact same thing. He listed pretty much all the big ones and all of them were pretty poisonous in terms of the loathing of Canada as it is. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/what-if-stephen-harpers-previous-views-were-used-against-him/article1930774/ Maybe the Liberals maybe COULD get some mileage out of that. I doubt it - it's a lttle late in the game. In reality though, there's a big difference between Harper and Ignatieff. Harper was IN Canada to evolve his thinking. Harper has been IN politics to evolve his politics. Harper's original positions were formulated against the backdrop of a Liberal centralist philosophy that split the country East and West and almost lost Quebec, trampling on areas of Provincial juristictions. Gilles Duceppe called the Liberal Government "Father Knows Best" - a patronizing attitude that belittled the Western provinces. Is it any wonder that the Reform Party's slogan was "The West Wants In". Now that Harper is Prime Minister, he is trying to serve ALL of Canada....because his vision has always been that of one country. It shouldn't be too surprising that slowly but surely, Conservatives are winning the New Canadian vote, the women's vote, more and more of the Urban vote.....heck - even Toronto is starting to listen. Ignatieff WASN'T HERE. He didn't (and doesn't) know diddly about Canada or it's politics. There is no "evolution" of thought. He can't compare yesterday with today. That's why the party is bereft of policies and shifting in the wind. The party has no leader - no rudder...because HE WASN'T HERE. Edited March 6, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
CANADIEN Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 Maybe the Liberals maybe COULD get some mileage out of that. I doubt it - it's a lttle late in the game. In reality though, there's a big difference between Harper and Ignatieff. Harper was IN Canada to evolve his thinking. Harper has been IN politics to evolve his politics. Harper's original positions were formulated against the backdrop of a Liberal centralist philosophy that split the country East and West and almost lost Quebec, trampling on areas of Provincial juristictions. Gilles Duceppe called the Liberal Government "Father Knows Best" - a patronizing attitude that belittled the Western provinces. Is it any wonder that the Reform Party's slogan was "The West Wants In". Now that Harper is Prime Minister, he is trying to serve ALL of Canada....because his vision has always been that of one country. It shouldn't be too surprising that slowly but surely, Conservatives are winning the New Canadian vote, the women's vote, more and more of the Urban vote.....heck - even Toronto is starting to listen. Ignatieff WASN'T HERE. He didn't (and doesn't) know diddly about Canada or it's politics. There is no "evolution" of thought. He can't compare yesterday with today. That's why the party is bereft of policies and shifting in the wind. The party has no leader - no rudder...because HE WASN'T HERE. Nice try. If Ignatieff past opinions he no longer holds are relevant, so are Harper's. Quote
WIP Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 There's only one thing left to do then. Vote NDP and give them a chance to show their form of corruption and pick from the best of the worst in subsequent elections. No, they should get their feet held to the fire for how they handle environment issues. The Americans have gone through something similar in the last two years, as a majority were motivated by the desire to vote for the least bad of the two options, and hope he would be a real progressive in spite of the millions he has collected in campaign donations...and the possibility that he will have very lucrative deferred rewards to cash in after he is out of office, like most other politicians. Anyway, the situation on the left in America today is a fight between those who buy this "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" crap and are demanding that everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 line up and do the same in spite of how he has almost completely betrayed their interests, or the real progressives who are called disloyal and enablers for the right, because they say out loud that supporting Democrats who won't work for their interests is not worth their money or time, and instead are waging the ideological battle of what a real progressive government should be all about. So, the NDP here claims to be the party that represents the common peoples' interests; but if they compromise it away, or govern incompetently like the Bob Rae NDP Government in Ontario, the supporters have to call them out on it rather than blindly supporting them as the authoritarian rightwingers do for their leaders. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
bloodyminded Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 No, they should get their feet held to the fire for how they handle environment issues. The Americans have gone through something similar in the last two years, as a majority were motivated by the desire to vote for the least bad of the two options, and hope he would be a real progressive in spite of the millions he has collected in campaign donations...and the possibility that he will have very lucrative deferred rewards to cash in after he is out of office, like most other politicians. Anyway, the situation on the left in America today is a fight between those who buy this "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" crap and are demanding that everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 line up and do the same in spite of how he has almost completely betrayed their interests, or the real progressives who are called disloyal and enablers for the right, because they say out loud that supporting Democrats who won't work for their interests is not worth their money or time, and instead are waging the ideological battle of what a real progressive government should be all about. So, the NDP here claims to be the party that represents the common peoples' interests; but if they compromise it away, or govern incompetently like the Bob Rae NDP Government in Ontario, the supporters have to call them out on it rather than blindly supporting them as the authoritarian rightwingers do for their leaders. Well said! Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
WIP Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 Heaven forbid! EVERY NDP vote brings us closer to another "Harper Government" when they "slide through" between Liberals and the NDP just like the last few elections... Shame on you for even suggesting it... 1/3 of the VOTERS RULING OVER 2/3 of the VOTERS is NEVER a good thing... Not even to teach Canadians a lesson... In the parliamentary system, strategic voting has to be considered riding by riding. Where you live, it may come down to a matter of either a Conservative or Liberal getting elected, and if you decide that it's worth supporting a Liberal, so be it. Where I am, I'm in one of a small number of strong NDP niches in this country, which has an MP with a long reputation as a good constituency rep in both provincial and federal politics. It's worth noting that Dave Christopherson was one of the few NDP MPP's in Rae's Government who didn't bail out, and actually won re-election. So, for me voting Green is a matter of making sure the Green Party gets enough of the overall share of the vote to maintain their status and be capable of advocating environment issues in Ottawa. If it gets close, I would almost certainly vote NDP to keep the Libs and the Cons from taking the riding. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 If we're talking about the old PCs I would probably agree with that. The guys running the new CPC are all reform and pretty much hate every institution Canada was founded on. That's why they have no problem flouting our election laws, suspending parliament etc. etc. etc. because they simply don't believe in the legitimacy of our institutions. They want to turn us into some copy of the way the US is governed. Though, lately the desperation to keep themselves in power has also helped the way they've "governed" our country. I was reading in the Globe and Mail the other day an article by Jeffrey Simpson about "previous quotes and beliefs." That Harper is attacking Ignatieff on things he said 10-20 years ago regarding Canada. He commented that the Liberals could do the exact same thing. He listed pretty much all the big ones and all of them were pretty poisonous in terms of the loathing of Canada as it is. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/what-if-stephen-harpers-previous-views-were-used-against-him/article1930774/ The new Conservatives are whole different animal than the old Progressive Conservative Party. For most of the past few decades we actually had two centrist parties in Ottawa -- the only distinct difference was regarding federal/provincial powers, with the Libs being the centralist party, and the Tories wanting more powers given back to the provinces. Now, what we have with Harper is the northern branch of the Republican Party. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 I agree that the right question in my mind is if the Liberal Party has a reason to exist. In England, when Labour, roughly the best analog to the NDP formed, the Liberal Party's lifetime as a real factor (other than as a minority government or coalition partner) was short indeed. The Liberal Party of Canada is, in many peoples' view, more a non-ideological "brokerage party" (link to editorial article describing them, excerpts below) than a modern political party. The NDP and CPC fall closer to the model of modern, belief-centered parties. Unlike their supposed analogues, the Democrats in the United States or Great Britain's Labor Party, Canada's Liberals are not a party built around certain policies and principles. They are instead what political scientists call a brokerage party, similar to the old Italian Christian Democrats or India's Congress Party: a political entity without fixed principles or policies that exploits the power of the central state to bribe or bully incompatible constituencies to join together to share the spoils of government. As countries modernize, they tend to leave brokerage parties behind. Very belatedly, that moment of maturity may now be arriving in Canada. Americans may lose their illusions about my native country; Canadians will gain true multiparty democracy and accountability in government. It's an exchange that is long past due. Thus, you're right, the Liberal Party no longer needs to exist. I kind of touched on this in the previous post -- we have only had a conservative party in the ideological sense of the term since the creation of this new unified Conservative Party. That's why the Liberals are in a precarious situation now; they are caught in the middle, trying to find a space between left and right, like the Liberal Party of England. Personally, I hope the situation remains with multiple parties, rather than the American system of two party duopoly. When it becomes established that only two parties can win an election, the two strongest have a strong incentive to collaborate for mutual advantage, and shut out third party challenges...which is exactly what the Republicans and Democrats have done in the U.S. system. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Jack Weber Posted March 6, 2011 Report Posted March 6, 2011 Isn't it odd that someone like me, who is constantly accused of being a Tory shill, finds so much agreement so often with a labour guy like you, Jack? Hell, we even agree that the Ti-Cats are the greatest! What do you think about disco music? The Cats rule!!! And it saus here that the home opener at Ivor Wyne Stadium this year is on July 1st against... The MOSQUITO RIDDLED SCUM FROM WINNIPEG!!!! The BLEW BUMMERS!!!! Disco sucks...Permanently!!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Bryan Posted March 7, 2011 Report Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Nice try. If Ignatieff past opinions he no longer holds are relevant, so are Harper's. If they were both unproven candidates, that would probably be true as far as campaign strategy goes. The problem is, the basis of the "attack" is fear of the unknown in the electorate. The Reform = scary game worked for the Liberals because Reform had yet to be in a position to prove or disprove the allegations, or to show distance from previous remarks. Even once Harper was PM, that still worked for a little while. Now that he's been PM for over five years, we know what we've got, and fear of what he MIGHT do (even with a majority), has diminished greatly. Ignatieff, on the other hand, has got nothing but the things he's said in the past. For the right now, there's nothing there to judge other than the inability to track what he means from one day to the next. If the entire next election was fought based on nothing but previous quotes by Ignatieff and Harper, Harper will win big because we've all heard the old stuff, and already know him. Ignatieff is the question, and the question will always lose the battle of the mudslingers. Edited March 7, 2011 by Bryan Quote
Molly Posted March 7, 2011 Report Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) YOU KILLED KENNEY .... YOU BASTARDS Sooo.... wiping my coffee off the monitor.... Good'un. Edited March 7, 2011 by Molly Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
GWiz Posted March 7, 2011 Author Report Posted March 7, 2011 Is Jim Flaherty the first great Conservative finance minister? - "Who knows: posterity may one day bestow on him the title of the first great Conservative finance minister. But let's not forget: Canadians are in a good mood right now because our resource sector is humming, based on orders from the emerging Asian giants. And it's the Liberals who put the country's finances on a sound footing and who prevented a financial crisis by not letting the banks overreach. Just don't expect any Conservative finance minister to admit it." - Rather well put I thought... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.