Liberal Campaigns

[Cartman]

I have never voted Liberal in any election and I highly doubt that I ever will. Having said that, in several threads on this forum, people keep saying how they stole elections using scare tactics. If this is the case, then all opposition parties and politicians are really stupid to keep losing the same way over and over. What mystical knowledge do the Liberals possess to continuously claim the hearts and minds of Canadians? Is the opposition too stupid or too moral to use these tactics themselves?

Let's face it, the Liberals have generally represented what Canadians want in government while the oppositions generally have not. If fear is the main motivator, then fine, let it be said that they are better at calming people than are the oppositions. The NDP and the Conservatives have both tried to move to the centre and it has not worked. The Cons. have even tried several makeovers but it is the "same shit, different pile" as far as most Canadians as concerned. As much as I do not like it, we should acknolwedge that the Liberals (with all of their obvious flaws) have generally represented Canadians' views and we should stop whining about how they steal elections. Unfortunately, they win them.

[Big Blue Machine]

I think it was terrible that the Liberals won the election on a campaign of fear against Mr. Harper. I think we should ban negative adversting.

[August1991]

Do you want to see how the Liberal Party operates? Look at this:

Dateline: 12/14/98

It's official. Canadian Finance Minister Paul Martin has rejected the proposed mergers of the Royal Bank with the Bank of Montreal and CIBC with the Toronto-Dominion Bank.

Canada Online

Now look who the Liberals get to discredit Copps and where he is now working. I wonder why this guy would step up so swiftly and get involved?

"I was familiar with every single word that was in every single document of every single page of that budget document," Don Drummond, former assistant deputy minister of fiscal policy in the Finance Department, told the Canadian Press....

But Drummond, now the chief economist of TD Bank, said overhauling the act was simply never discussed.

"I have no idea what she's talking about," he said.

CBC Story

------

More closely related to the use of Liberal attack ads in the last few days of the campaign, I posted this from Kinsella's 2 July 2004 blog:

After every campaign, I have written elsewhere, people, pundits and prognosticators inevitably complain that the election just held was "the most negative ever," and they decry so-called "negative" political advertising, saying that it demeans our democracy, suppresses turnout, and all of that sort of thing.  Following election 2004, they're all saying it all again.

But you know what, folks?  It isn't so.  Here's the thing: "going neg," to use the parlance of the trade, works. It works. The guys who eked out the narrow victory, here, were the ones who flooded the system with "negative" advertising, and were able to shift six per cent of the vote in the last four days.  Some folks may not approve of that, and they may not like it.  But it's a fact.

I don't know when the next federal campaign is going to take place.  But I do know this: next time, the Tories and the NDP aren't going to be as restrained as they were this time around.  If they want to win, they're going to have to get tougher with their messaging. A lot tougher.

At the outset of the last campaign, Harper said that a non-Liberal vote was not unCanadian but then he let that argument slide. That was a mistake.

In the next campaign, Harper has to play a hard nationalist card. Harper has to wrap himself in the flag. He must even go as far as claiming that the Liberals have hijacked Canada to no good. IMV, English-Canadians desperately need to feel good about themselves.

I have always liked this clip from the 1988 free trade debate.

The Liberals succeed because they present themselves as "Canada". Mulroney was right when he said to Turner: "You do not have a monopoly on patriotism. And I resent the fact of your implication that only you are Canadian."

[Big Blue Machine]

I think Harper should have said "They (The Liberals and NDP) rap themselves up in an Canadian flag in the hopes that you won't notice that they're naked underneath".

Mulroney said that during the free trade election of 88.

[Cartman]

A great clip that I will never forget August. I also remember the Liberal ad where they erased the Canada-US border when crying about free trade. Now that was blatant.

But, if fear is the important variable, then why did it not work for Turner against Mulroney? IMO, Mulroney was successful because he presented substance (even if I did not like the substance) with free trade deals while the Liberals had only fear to offer. Harper is no Mulroney in terms of charisma or substance and I wonder if it would be effective for the Cons. to try and tout patriotism when they offer neo-liberal policies. It seems to me that Harper would be best served by a clear, unique and salient economic agenda rather than the old cut taxes platform which we already had with the Liberals.

You don't have to convince me that the Liberals have got corruption (and dishonesty in general) down to a fine art; preaching to the choir there.

[caesar]

Mulroney had charisma and substance???????? Gee wonder how I missed it??? Harper is just got nothing to offer and would align us with the present USA policies which most Canadians disagree with strongly. I didn't need any Liberal campaign to tell me that Harper would put us on a road we didn't want to travel.

[August1991]

Mulroney had charisma and substance???????? Gee wonder how I missed it??? Harper is just got nothing to offer and would align us with the present USA policies which most Canadians disagree with strongly.

I feel very sorry, Caesar, that you don't understand what "Canada" is all about.

You seem to be English Canadian. So I suggest that you start with Grant's "Lament for a Nation". Then, since you seem to have a generous spirit, I suggest you go with Leandre Bergeron's "Small History" (in translation).

Want to go professional? Try Dafoe's history of Laurier.

Despite what foreigners say, Canada is an intriguing country. Canada's challenge is two languages. Few other places manage it.

Sometimes, our writers make it good. Peter Newman's 'Renegade in Power' is fun to read. Crosbie's 'No Holds Barred' is excellent. Trudeau's 'Deux Innocents en Chine' and his 'Le Fédéralisme et les Canadiens français' are good too - I asked him to sign my copy. He did, in of all places, Camrose Alberta. But that was a long time ago.

[kimmy]

If this is the case, then all opposition parties and politicians are really stupid to keep losing the same way over and over. What mystical knowledge do the Liberals possess to continuously claim the hearts and minds of Canadians? Is the opposition too stupid or too moral to use these tactics themselves?

One of the most basic human instincts is fear and mistrust of the unknown.

Why is it easy to convince Canadians that Harper and friends are scary? Because by and large Canadians don't know Harper well enough to say otherwise.

Why aren't the same tactics as effective for the Liberals' opponents? Because Canadians know them too well. Canadians know that the Liberals will lie, cheat, and steal, but also know that they're at least not going to corkscrew the country into the ground or make scary changes.

Given the choice between the comfort of familiarity or the fear of the unknown, people have decided that a little grift isn't such a steep price to pay for comfort. Overall things in Canada aren't that bad. They might have to get a lot worse before people decide to risk change.

-kimmy

[caesar]

It was not fear of the unknown that stopped us for voting for him. It was his actions and words that made us not want to travel that path. We did not want to align ourselves with the Bush regime and their illegal unwise invasion of Iraq. Harper had no business going to the USA and apologizing for Canada not joining the USA in that illegal invasion.

[August1991]

A great clip that I will never forget August.

I remember the debate, as you probably do. These two guys were debating their country. They were both honest (at the time, people thought they were angling for votes) but in fact Mulroney was certainly honest and Turner, well, he suddenly discovered a truth.

One of the most basic human instincts is fear and mistrust of the unknown.

Kimmy, it ain't so simple. People afraid? Yes.

I admire Mulroney because he had the courage to tell the truth as he saw it. He wanted to change things. First, he wanted to solve Canada's problems (US trade, taxes, French/English). Second, he wanted to make the Conservatives a Canadian "doable" and Canada a democracy. He almost achieved it all.

Then, Chretien almost lost everything and purely by chance (vote tallies), Chretien is a winner and Parizeau a frustrated loser.

The CBC believes all is fine in the world.

In 1995, by 20,000 votes, Canada avoided ugly negotiations. Has this problem gone away? (It was a freak occurrence, like an earthquake.)

In 2001, two large buildings collapsed in NYC. Can we pretend this never happened? (It was a freak occurrence, like an earthquake.)

The CBC is clueless.

In August 1991, Gorbachov flew from the Crimea to Moscow and everything appeared normal. It wasn't. The Soviet Union disapeared in December 1991. Still, people were clueless.

So, what is my sobriquet? August1991?

[Guest eureka]

The arguments presented so far are convincing me that all the brains are on the Liberal side. That does not surprise me since Conservatism by its nature is not receptive to ideas.

I find the praise for Mulroney and his "honesty and truth" almost amusing. It would be truly amusing if it did not show the gullibility and naivete of so many.

The Free Trade negotiations as conducted under Mulroney, were the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on Canada. I have posted in other discussions here, some of the "truths" of those negotiations. Sylvia Ostry, since her retirement from the civil service, has said openly that the Canadian negotiators were to give the Americans what they wanted. There were no negotiations.

Yost (I may have the name slightly wrong) rge American negotiator, wrote that he had got "everything he wanted and that the Canadian economy would be inyegrated into the American within twenty years."

How can Harper wrap himself in the Canadian flag when his every "policy" is designed to weaken Canada? How can a man and a party that thinks the only difference between peoples is whether they use paper money or metal understand Canada and Canadians?

I am nnot enamoured of the antics of any of the parties. Hoever, the "Conservatives" are the worst of the bad.

[Cartman]

The arguments presented so far are convincing me that all the brains are on the Liberal side. That does not surprise me since Conservatism by its nature is not receptive to ideas.

Ouch! Burn! Eureka, I do not mind being called dumb, but please, please, please do not call me a Liberal.

I think that they represent the so-called "middle-ground" for most Canadians. Both the Cons. and the NDP leaders are considered boogey men regardless of what they say or do or whether the "middle" is actually far to the right.

[Big Blue Machine]

I agree with Cartman

[caesar]

Ouch! Burn! Eureka, I do not mind being called dumb, but please, please, please do not call me a Liberal. 

I think that they represent the so-called "middle-ground" for most Canadians. Both the Cons. and the NDP leaders are considered boogey men regardless of what they say or do or whether the "middle" is actually far to the right.

I think this is too generalized. I don't think most people even consider whether it is right or left; that is just a recent development. Former Progressive conservatives did not take this to the degree of Harper's "conservatives. Each party is influence by its leader. We have Gordon Campbell's "Liberals" here in BC. They are exreme right wing and no where near a central balanced agenda. What is wrong with a more middle of the road agenda. The middle income working man needs to get his share of tax money. Right wings gives to the rich; left wind gives to the poor; in both cases the middle income working man pays the bills.

[August1991]

Sylvia Ostry, since her retirement from the civil service, has said openly that the Canadian negotiators were to give the Americans what they wanted.

eureka, Sylvia Ostry is a smart woman. I'd like to see what she really said. (Do you have a link?)

Yost (I may have the name slightly wrong) rge American negotiator, wrote that he had got "everything he wanted and that the Canadian economy would be inyegrated into the American within twenty years."

Simon Reisman represented the Canadian government and Peter Murphy represented the US government in the initial negotiations. (It would help your credibility if you had basic facts right.)

As to the quote about being "integrated" into the US, take a look at Canada's True Nature. Do you believe this happened because of an agreement between governments signed in 1988?

How can Harper wrap himself in the Canadian flag when his every "policy" is designed to weaken Canada?

When you use the word "Canada", what do you mean exactly? Do you mean the "Canadian federal government"? Canada is one thing; the federal government something else again.

How can a man and a party that thinks the only difference between peoples is whether they use paper money or metal understand Canada and Canadians?

Hunh?

[Guest eureka]

You can probably find it by researching the names cross indexed to the negotiations. Ostry was the Canadian "negotiator" whether Reisman was also involved, I do not recall. The American who made the statements was the American negotiator whose name was something like what I posted.

I took it from newspaper reports of statements by Ostry and the report of a memo written by the American Chief negotiator - his name was something like Yost but I know that is not quite correct. I will, however, search my computer bookmarks since I have used this before and had it confirmed by others.

Your link could not be found. However, I don't think that anyone could write on Canada's true nature.

I am not sure that I would agree that "Canada is one thing, the federal government another." The federal government is the government of all Canadians and represents the views and wishes of Canadians. It does not represent regional interests where those interests are no reconcilable to the whole.

Harper is strictly a regionalist who now wishes to make allies of regionalists in other areas in order to emasculate the federal government. He is not a Canadian: he is an Albertan who pays lip service to supposed common interests in the West to further his aim of gutting government. He is, Hugo might agree to some extent, a "libertarian."

Thus, he would weaken Canada's central government - I believe he would scrap it altogether except for common defense matters. That weakens Canada: that ends the existence of Canada as a nation. A defensive league is not a nation. It has no mutual interests other than the physical survival of its parts.

My last comment should not need a "Hunh?" response. Harper has been very clear throughout his obsessed career that he considers life to be nothing more than a medium for exchanging money and a government no more than a facilitator for the exchange.

[August1991]

Eureka, maybe we don't inhabit the same universe or something.

I see a big difference between "Yost" and "Murphy".

May 1986

Simon Reisman, Chief negotiator for Canada, and Peter Murphy, the American negotiator, start negotiations.

Fina

Your link could not be found. However, I don't think that anyone could write on Canada's true nature.

Canada's True Nature shows a satellite photograph of North America at night. Did you ever study geography, eureka? Can you see the true nature of Canada? Eureka, do you have an imagination?

You can probably find it by researching the names cross indexed to the negotiations. Ostry was the Canadian "negotiator" whether Reisman was also involved, I do not recall. The American who made the statements was the American negotiator whose name was something like what I posted.

You are making the claims. I am doubting them. I am not going to look for something that I don't believe exists.

Thus, (Harper) would weaken Canada's central government - I believe he would scrap it altogether except for common defense matters. That weakens Canada: that ends the existence of Canada as a nation.

I am very, very sorry to learn that your view of Canada is limited to the activities of a relatively small group of people in Ottawa.

I am not sure that I would agree that "Canada is one thing, the federal government another." The federal government is the government of all Canadians and represents the views and wishes of Canadians. It does not represent regional interests where those interests are no reconcilable to the whole.

Canada is the history of this place, the lives of people who live and have lived here, it is the languages they speak, the novels they have written, songs sang. It is the rock and trees. Canada did not begin in 1867 and it is surely much greater than Ottawa.

No Chinese would ever say that China amounted to the government in Beijing.

My last comment should not need a "Hunh?" response. Harper has been very clear throughout his obsessed career that he considers life to be nothing more than a medium for exchanging money and a government no more than a facilitator for the exchange.

I'll change my "Hunh?" to a "WTF?". A case can be made that life is about exchanges, but many of the most important exchanges do not involve money. Are you suggesting that Harper is an ATM?

[brianw]

The federal government is the government of all Canadians and represents the views and wishes of Canadians.

Just what was the percentage of votes received in the last federal election? Was it 100%, or "all Canadians" or was it even over 50% or was it something less. Even at 50% your talking about only half of the Canadians (and the results were less than that). Who voted in the Liveral government? Quebec? Alberta? Saskatchewan? British Columbia? Or was it Ontario (where I live). How can one province represent the views of "all Canadians". Our political system is very distorted. I don't believe we (Ontarians) should be able to dictate to the rest of the country. Do you? Is Ontario the view of "all Canadians"? The federal government should only be involved in issues that cover all Canadians (with an equal representation of all provinces with each province having one and only one vote on issues) and as a mediator for disputes. They should not be "micro managing" local issues.

[caesar]

Just what was the percentage of votes received in the last federal election? Was it 100%, or "all Canadians" or was it even over 50% or was it something less

It was the majority over any other party and that is how our system works. It was not only Ontario that voted for the Liberals.

[Guest eureka]

Sylvia Ostry was the head of the department through whuch the negotiatios were passed. The American was a name more like Yuell though I can't remember whether that is exact. I can find no reference on the Internet, either. However, that shows the limitations of that source. These are facts that emerged years ago and you are the first skeptic I have encountered. I know who are listed as the Chief negotiators but they are the messengers not the decision makers.

Your poetic description of Canada does not detract from Canada's being a political entity. All the things you list sre what we have a federal government to protect. They are what makes us one nation whole. Harper would end that with his reduction of the nation to a number of economic units united only in a common interest for physical survival.

My imagination is fine. Your link worked this time and I can imagine what North America might have looked like without all the light pollution. That, however, makes no difference to what Canada is. Can you imagine Russia in the same kind of photograph? It might give a similar appearance. Does that make it any less a nation? Or Scandinavian countries; or Chile and Argentina? Consider their histories, music and poetry and whether they have a national pride or the death wish that Harper brings.

No, I do not suggest that Harper is an ATM; merely that he has the soul of an ATM. He sees human existence as a business transaction and could never appreciate your history etc.

[Guest eureka]

Brian!

It really does not matter a whit what percentage voted which way. That is just another way losing politicians play on the naivete of people. All who voted voted in a Canadian election.

All, except a small number, perhaps 5% of the Canadian population who voted for the Bloc, voted for Canada.

Sonce hard core Separitism has never been higher than 11% of Quebeckers, figure out how many voted against Canada. And, they did not vote for Harper's world. They want Canada to continue whole but without Quebec.

Talking of Ontario running everything is also just a slogan. The recent governbments are the first since the 1930's to be dominated by numbers of representtatives from Ontario. That is a good thing for Ontario to assume a dominant position in these times of stresses on the nation. It is a good thing because Ontario is the province that has always been most Canadian with the good of the nation at its core. It is the most mature, politically and socially and is not like the teenager testing the limits.

[August1991]

That is a good thing for Ontario to assume a dominant position in these times of stresses on the nation. It is a good thing because Ontario is the province that has always been most Canadian with the good of the nation at its core. It is the most mature, politically and socially and is not like the teenager testing the limits.

OMG!

eureka, you say the damndest things sometimes. Thanks for my morning smile.

[brianw]

It was not only Ontario that voted for the Liberals.

It wasn't much more than Ontario that voted for Liberals. Ontario has such a high number of seats that we almost don't need anyone else to vote.

It really does not matter a whit what percentage voted which way.

Apparently not.

That is just another way losing politicians play on the naivete of people.

You could also say it is just another way winning politicians play on the naivete of people (convince the people that it is the majority that decide).

It is a good thing because Ontario is the province that has always been most Canadian

So other provinces aren't Canadian? No wonder so many provinces are talking seperation. Ontario is Canada. What a concept.

It is the most mature,

Because it is Canada?

That is a good thing for Ontario to assume a dominant position

Is that the Alfa Male?

[caesar]

Brian

w would be talking out of the other side of his mouth if the Conservatives had won even a minority government.

At least in Canada the leader of the second place party has an important role as leader of the opposition. In the USA that leader is usually quickly forgotten and discarded.