New Liberal Ad

[JerrySeinfeld]

CUE: EVIL MUSIC

OPENING SHOT: A TORONTO STREET AT NIGHT; A CAT SCREAMS; A FLOCK OF PIGEONS SCARES AWAY.....

DARK VOICED MAN: AND YOU thought Stephen Harper was just some radical gay-hating neocon?

THINK AGAIN! This man is ....<wait for it - CUE: MILITARY DRUM MARCH> HITLER WITH A RANCH!!!!

VIDEO CLIP: Albertans in cowboy hats marching through the streets of Toronto, citing Bible scripture with guns in holsters, gleefully tossing grenades into public hospitals and tearing down borders with the U.S.

DURING MONTAGE VOICE OVER:

That's right.

Conservatives.

With conviction.

Bringing accountability.

To Government.

In Canada.

We did not make this up.

[mar]

CUE: SOMBER MUSIC

The blurred screen gradually sharp focuses on a line of coffins draped in the Canadian flag.

VOICEOVER:

If Stephen Harper had been Prime Minister in 2003 he would have sent Canadian troops to Iraq. Now he says he was misled by the intelligence.

Mr. Cretien was not misled, Mr. McCallum was not misled, Liberal, NDP and Bloc MP's were not misled. The majority of the Canadian pubblic was not misled.

Either Mr. Harper has poorer judgement than the majority of the public or he was willing to sacrifice the lives of our sons and daughters, husbands and wives in the Canadian military to ingratiate himself with George Bush.

Do we really want Stephen Harper answering the phone the next time Mr. Bush calls?

(unlike your ad, everything in mine is true)

[Wilber]

CUE: SOMBER MUSIC

The blurred screen gradually sharp focuses on a line of coffins draped in the Canadian flag.

VOICEOVER:

If Stephen Harper had been Prime Minister in 2003 he would have sent Canadian troops to Iraq. Now he says he was misled by the intelligence.

Mr. Cretien was not misled, Mr. McCallum was not misled, Liberal, NDP and Bloc MP's were not misled. The majority of the Canadian pubblic was not misled.

Either Mr. Harper has poorer judgement than the majority of the public or he was willing to sacfrifice the lives of our sons and daughters, husbands and wives in the Canadian military to ingratiate himself with George Bush.

Do we really want Stephen Harper answering the phone the next time Mr. Bush calls?

(unlike your ad, everything in mine is true)

One thing I have never been able to sort out in my mind is how much of that opposition was due to "good judgement" (seems to me Martin was in favour at the time) and how much was due to plain old Anti Americanism, particularly when it comes to many of the comments made by Liberal party operatives at the time.

It's a continuing dilemma that many Canadians face. The desire to do what is right versus the desire to do what the Americans don't.

[Hydraboss]

<played to Pink Floyd's "Money">

Stephen Harper said he wants to put Canadians with money in their wallets back on the streets of our cities.

Canadian cities.

Wallets with money.

In our cities.

Canadian cities.

People with money.

In Canada.

We're not making this up.

Choose your denominations.

[mar]

One thing I have never been able to sort out in my mind is how much of that opposition was due to "good judgement" (seems to me Martin was in favour at the time) and how much was due to plain old Anti Americanism, particularly when it comes to many of the comments made by Liberal party operatives at the time.

It's a continuing dilemma that many Canadians face. The desire to do what is right versus the desire to do what the Americans don't.

I think we tend to forget already that it wasn't that tough a call and one made by France, Germany and many other countries. The U.N. did not support the invasion. Tony Blair insisted on taking it back to the U.N. where the resolution failed and then joined with Bush in saying that the several year old resolution supported it so nothing further was needed (so why did he insist on trying to get a new resolution?). The U.N. disagreed.

There was ample suspicion long before March that the intelligence was cooked (or sexed up in the Brit tabloids' phrase). I would assume Cretien, etc. (including Harper) had received some assessment of this from sources in Canadian military intelligence. You had Hans Blick and the former U.S. head of the weapons inspectors (dismissed by Bush) both saying Saddaam had little or nothing left in his arsenal. Colin Powell subsequently disavowed much of what was in his presentation to the U.N.

So I don't think it was a tough call except in that immense pressure was brought to bear by the U.S. to bribe, blackmail or extort countries into joining the "coalition."

I think this should be a huge election question and Mr. Harper's DEC-11 explanation that he was misled by the intelligence does not make it any better as it is simply an admission that he was wrong (and included no apology to the Canadian people for apologising on our behalf for not going to Iraq). The Conservative party is now also saying Harper really didn't want to send troops just "support" the invasion. NOTHING in Hansard or Mr. Harper's statements outside the House support this creative re-interpretation.

So again it comes down to two options:

1) His judgement on international affairs can't be trusted to the point of being dangerous.

2) He would have sacrificed the lives of Canadian troops, AGAINST the will of the majority of the Canadian people and WITHOUT U.N. approval in order to curry favour with the Bush administration.

The first makes him a fool, the second much worse.

[mar]

At the risk of my double posting here, Hydraboss (apologies). ALL official statistics show that Canaidn's incomes have gone up and their taxes have dropped since the Liberals took power from the Mulrooney Conservatives. Plus the deficit was reduced substantially.

AND this occurred in a time when conservative opposition was innefective and in shambles as the PC/Reform/Alliance parties were born and died so you can't argue that the Liberals were forced into this.

So what are the Conservatives offering that we don't already have? More money for the rich? WOW! There's something that just inspires me to vote Conservative! I go to bed each night crying at the injustice of people paying 7% GST when they buy their new Mercedes or Porsche.

[Wilber]

"2) He would have sacrificed the lives of Canadian troops, AGAINST the will of the majority of the Canadian people and WITHOUT U.N. approval in order to curry favour with the Bush administration."

Possibly, but we also know that what people say when they are in opposition (their job is to argue an alternative view) and what they do when confronted with popular opinion while in power is not always the same.

I think that is also the case with much of Harpers perceived "scary scary". If he likes power and wants to keep it, he will listen to the public.

[mar]

"2) He would have sacrificed the lives of Canadian troops, AGAINST the will of the majority of the Canadian people and WITHOUT U.N. approval in order to curry favour with the Bush administration."

Possibly, but we also know that what people say when they are in opposition (their job is to argue an alternative view) and what they do when confronted with popular opinion while in power is not always the same.

I think that is also the case with much of Harpers perceived "scary scary". If he likes power and wants to keep it, he will listen to the public.

So you are saying he insulted the majority - get it, MAJORITY - of the Canadian public - in fact went on U.S. TV to apologies on our behalf for our failure to sent our personnel to be killed and injured - just to be seen to offer an alternative view or - worse - to build up brown nose points with Bush for his own benefit?

You think that's ok? You think that's someone you want in power?

If we have come to the point where its ok to attack not just the position of the majority government but the position of the people of Canada for you own political ends and then have that public say "Oh well, just politics. If he has a minority he can't do stuff like that" what in God's name are we?

Its not like he picked the wrong team for the Stanley Cup. He repeatedly, forecefully and insultingly advocated a policy that would have resulted in the certain death of Canadian citizens and damaged Canada's international reputation.

I'm sorry. Some things are not "just politics."

[Hydraboss]

At the risk of my double posting here, Hydraboss (apologies). ALL official statistics show that Canaidn's incomes have gone up and their taxes have dropped since the Liberals took power from the Mulrooney Conservatives. Plus the deficit was reduced substantially.

AND this occurred in a time when conservative opposition was innefective and in shambles as the PC/Reform/Alliance parties were born and died so you can't argue that the Liberals were forced into this.

So what are the Conservatives offering that we don't already have? More money for the rich? WOW! There's something that just inspires me to vote Conservative! I go to bed each night crying at the injustice of people paying 7% GST when they buy their new Mercedes or Porsche.

While this may or may not be accurate (I do not have numbers in front of me that support or deny this), financial necesseties of the early 90's do not hold water ten plus years later. Splitting hairs and telling half-truths is easy. Did the Lib's get rid of the deficit, yes. Did they do it partially by STEALING from the EI fund, yes. Is everything the Lib's have done criminal/corrupt/poorly motivated, of course not. What do the cpc's offer, lots that I agree with. I was screaming aloud (read: happy screams) in 1993 when JC got in. I felt betrayed by BM (I'm in Alberta) and was glad of the change.

Now it is time again.

My name is not Bob, but I am a Canadian..... No, I don't drive either of those cars, but I would like to. But let me tell you, my wife and I (by the way she's a union nurse) spend the vast majority of our GST contributions at Walmart and Canadian Tire, not the Porche dealer. Most of the guys that work for me make about 12.50/hr and guess what, they pay GST on everything too.

[Black Dog]

I like Paul Wells' suggestion:

if I was a Grit and seriously worried I was about to lose big:

BLANK BLACK SCREEN

TYPE APPEARS ACROSS SCREEN AS DEEP, URGENT VOICE READS TEXT:

"Foreign Minister Stockwell Day"

SCREEN DARKENS; RELIGHTS ON LIBERAL LOGO; BRIGHT WOMAN'S VOICE READS:

"On January 23, Vote Liberal."

[kimmy]

<played to Pink Floyd's "Money">

Stephen Harper said he wants to put Canadians with money in their wallets back on the streets of our cities.

Canadian cities.

Wallets with money.

In our cities.

Canadian cities.

People with money.

In Canada.

We're not making this up.

Choose your denominations.

This is quite excellent. Without debating the pros or cons of the opinion expressed, this is certainly the best of these parodies I have seen so far, and would probably make the best TV commercial.

-k

[Wilber]

"I'm sorry. Some things are not "just politics."

Where have you been the past month? Everything is politics.

[sage]

Mar, Mar, Mar. The Liberals have governed the last decade with an ineffective opposition?

I would suggest the only reason the Liberals balanced the budget in the first place was due to the rising power of the Reform party and their fiscal conservative agenda.

Preston Manning forced the Liberals to govern in a fiscal conservative manner. Not the other way around.

[mar]

Did the Lib's get rid of the deficit, yes. Did they do it partially by STEALING from the EI fund, yes.

My name is not Bob, but I am a Canadian..... No, I don't drive either of those cars, but I would like to. But let me tell you, my wife and I (by the way she's a union nurse) spend the vast majority of our GST contributions at Walmart and Canadian Tire, not the Porche dealer. Most of the guys that work for me make about 12.50/hr and guess what, they pay GST on everything too.

You do realize that every government since the establishment of the EI fund has treated it as an abstract concept and monies designated for the fund have always been absorbed by the federal government and the fund maintained princippaly on paper in the federal balance sheet. It may not conform to anyone's idea of the spirit of the law but it certainly conforms to the letter of it and really, is pretty much SOP for all federal and Provincial governments. Gas taxes - who older Canadians have dim memories of being promised to go entirely for roads - disappear into general government revenue as does health care money and just about everything else. The reason nobody ever changes this is that governments of all parties want the flexibility of being able to make "paper transfers" whatever they say when in opposition.

The problem with the GST cut is:

1) The benefit is unclear when you factor in provincial compensatory transfers.

2) Its advantage would be wiped out by rescinding the recent income tax break except for high income Canadians.

3) It is unclear whether the Conservatives really have any intention of passing it. They have a built in escape clause in the furor it would cause with all provinces other than, possibly, Alberta. It wouldn;t be the first time someone promised to cut GST to get elected, would it?

We all hate the GST just like everybody in Britain hates VAT and everybody in every country with a federal tax hates it.

Repeat after me:

Governments do NOT cut revenue. They claim they will cut revenue, they may find ways to shift the source of revenue from one income group to another but they will not reduce what they have to spend.

Cretien got elected on cutting the GST. Didn't happen. When I was very young, PC's in Manitoba campaigned on a promise to abolish Public Auto Insurance. They had 8 years in that government and another 8 subsequently in another PC government and gee! that government revenue stream is still there just like when the NDP put it in place over 30 years ago.

So ultimately you are voting on social policy, even if you think you're voting for tax cuts. Which group of taxpayers will benefit most? I would suggest if you think it will be you under a Conservative government, you may be mistaken.

And I don't even think this is because Liberals - and particularly Martin - are wonderful, warm people. I think it is because the Liberal voter requires at least some level of social justice in taxation and Liberal candidates who ignore that will not be elected. I think the Conservative campaign is reminiscent of recent U.S. Republican campaigns, relying principally on misdirection. If the Conservatives gain power, I wonder if you will jump for joy when they are defeated in the subsequent election too.

[Hydraboss]

mar,

"\" So ultimately you are voting on social policy, even if you think you're voting for tax cuts. Which group of taxpayers will benefit most? I would suggest if you think it will be you under a Conservative government, you may be mistaken.

And I don't even think this is because Liberals - and particularly Martin - are wonderful, warm people. I think it is because the Liberal voter requires at least some level of social justice in taxation and Liberal candidates who ignore that will not be elected. I think the Conservative campaign is reminiscent of recent U.S. Republican campaigns, relying principally on misdirection. If the Conservatives gain power, I wonder if you will jump for joy when they are defeated in the subsequent election too. "/"

And why, exactly, does it matter which taxpayers benefit most, as long as everyone does? If someone is below the minimum tax threshold, will a tax break benefit them? As for the "increasing gap between rich and poor", how do we quantify this? Paul Martin and his MP's (ALL MP's for that matter) widen the gap between them and me every time they get a raise. Where is the "evening-out" policies when that happens? This simply becomes a "percentage vs dollar amount" argument. If any government gives me an effective 95% tax break, but gives a multimillionaire a 1/2% tax break, which one of us benefits MORE?

Be careful, I'm armed with an unregistered calculator!!!

Social justice/policy/correctness - whatever you want to call it - is not inherently a liberal (small L) belief. Conservatives (small or big C) believe in it as well. There are food banks in my city, busy ones, that I don't think should be there. Now, how are you going to quote me? Are you going to say that I think food banks are bad, wrong, unecessary, or that the people using them should not be? Or are you going to assume that I think that the socio-economic policies of the current federal government has forced food banks to become a necessity? Did food banks start in 1993, or have they been around longer than that? If I support the CPC, would that make me a food-bank-using-family-hater? Or perhaps I have different ideas of how to GET RID OF THE NEED FOR THEM. If the CPC's lie/cheat/steal/f-up MY CANADA, I will be the first one to fire arrows, barbs and votes for an opposition. Can you say the same?

[Hydraboss]

p.s. - thanks everyone, this is FUN (yes, I even said thanks to liberals)

[mar]

mar,

"\" So ultimately you are voting on social policy, even if you think you're voting for tax cuts. Which group of taxpayers will benefit most? I would suggest if you think it will be you under a Conservative government, you may be mistaken.

And I don't even think this is because Liberals - and particularly Martin - are wonderful, warm people. I think it is because the Liberal voter requires at least some level of social justice in taxation and Liberal candidates who ignore that will not be elected. I think the Conservative campaign is reminiscent of recent U.S. Republican campaigns, relying principally on misdirection. If the Conservatives gain power, I wonder if you will jump for joy when they are defeated in the subsequent election too. "/"

And why, exactly, does it matter which taxpayers benefit most, as long as everyone does? If someone is below the minimum tax threshold, will a tax break benefit them? As for the "increasing gap between rich and poor", how do we quantify this? Paul Martin and his MP's (ALL MP's for that matter) widen the gap between them and me every time they get a raise. Where is the "evening-out" policies when that happens? This simply becomes a "percentage vs dollar amount" argument. If any government gives me an effective 95% tax break, but gives a multimillionaire a 1/2% tax break, which one of us benefits MORE?

Be careful, I'm armed with an unregistered calculator!!!

Social justice/policy/correctness - whatever you want to call it - is not inherently a liberal (small L) belief. Conservatives (small or big C) believe in it as well. There are food banks in my city, busy ones, that I don't think should be there. Now, how are you going to quote me? Are you going to say that I think food banks are bad, wrong, unecessary, or that the people using them should not be? Or are you going to assume that I think that the socio-economic policies of the current federal government has forced food banks to become a necessity? Did food banks start in 1993, or have they been around longer than that? If I support the CPC, would that make me a food-bank-using-family-hater? Or perhaps I have different ideas of how to GET RID OF THE NEED FOR THEM. If the CPC's lie/cheat/steal/f-up MY CANADA, I will be the first one to fire arrows, barbs and votes for an opposition. Can you say the same?

LOL good response!

I think we ultimately agree except that for me, the crucial issue in all elections is key policy issues which are seldom economic and, unless I'm wrong, you tend to vote more on economic issues.

So if I can borrow your tag line "To err is human, to forgive is to accept utter incompetence...", that little aphorism alone prevents me from voting for any party with Stephen Harper as leader because of his position (subsequently disavowed . . .sort of) on Iraq.

So yeah, they will all screw us one way or another and - re your food bank comment - I have known intelligent leftist economists who argue that raising the minimum wage has the effect of lowering overall wages (don't ask me to defend that, tho I think there is a plausible argument).

So once every election cycle, we the poor, the semi-poor, the holders of maxed-out credit cards and monstrous mortgages get told that everyone will make us richer if we only elect them. I just ignore that part of all parties' platforms.

[Hydraboss]

mar, we do agree on the preferred outcome of political policies. We just seem to have different views as to how to make these outcomes possible. You may believe that the feds can fix the problems with social policy. I believe that resources closer to the need require the funding to make more direct gains (read: financial transfers back to the people who need it).

Is Stephen the one? The only expert on that is time. Why then, the CPC? So glad you asked! If they will allow free votes on some/most/major issues, is that not a more direct link that you now have as a voter to decisions now uncontrollable in Ottawa? If free votes become the norm, does it really matter who leads the party? Dump Steve-o and SPONGE BOB FOR PRIME MINISTER!!! The people of Canada should be making the decisions that affect them, even if it is by representation only (we wouldn't all fit in the House, anyway). Someone forgot that I ELECTED THAT MP...he didn't choose me.

If the Lib's had gone to free votes, instead of whipping everyone like they're in a swinger's club (sorry, couldn't resist), maybe there would be less opposition from the people of Canada.

By the way, don't go getting all "you and me agree"-ish, you're gonna ruin all the fun. How about this for a signature line:

If there is one thing I know, it's two things. One, I don't like the government today, and B, I may not like the government tomorrow.

Catchy?.....No?

[mar]

mar, we do agree on the preferred outcome of political policies. We just seem to have different views as to how to make these outcomes possible. You may believe that the feds can fix the problems with social policy. I believe that resources closer to the need require the funding to make more direct gains (read: financial transfers back to the people who need it).

Is Stephen the one? The only expert on that is time. Why then, the CPC? So glad you asked! If they will allow free votes on some/most/major issues, is that not a more direct link that you now have as a voter to decisions now uncontrollable in Ottawa? If free votes become the norm, does it really matter who leads the party? Dump Steve-o and SPONGE BOB FOR PRIME MINISTER!!! The people of Canada should be making the decisions that affect them, even if it is by representation only (we wouldn't all fit in the House, anyway). Someone forgot that I ELECTED THAT MP...he didn't choose me.

If the Lib's had gone to free votes, instead of whipping everyone like they're in a swinger's club (sorry, couldn't resist), maybe there would be less opposition from the people of Canada.

By the way, don't go getting all "you and me agree"-ish, you're gonna ruin all the fun. How about this for a signature line:

If there is one thing I know, it's two things. One, I don't like the government today, and B, I may not like the government tomorrow.

Catchy?.....No?

LOL

I actually think the swingers' club thing is a bad example. Its something that - I dunno - maybe 90% of the Canadian population finds repellent, whether on feminist, religious, ethical or family values grounds and if we are at the point where the Supreme court saying you can't ban it means that that the 90% of us say "WOW! Guess we better join up now! The SCC says its ok!" we have problems way, way beyond anything politics can fix.

Ultimately its a protection of something most of us wouldn't mind being banned but as long as its not illegal (prostitution, underage participants, whatever) do we really want to use the hammer of the constitution to prohibit it?

Other thing is, its always fascinating that most people who spend much time looking at government can see what's wrong and you could easily fix a lot of it. For example, you could - I mean there is nothing to stop a majority government who wanted to - pass a law that ALL parliamentary votes must be free votes. Would likely be good for us, but no party will ever do it. Same with proportional representation which I think can be argues to increase the power of the voter depending on the precise formula.

One of the framers of the U.S. contitution - forget who - wanted to ban all political parties from the electoral process. He basically just didn't want then period. Now that was at a time when party politics was somewhat less entrenched and given how things have gone since then it seems unlikely it would have survived even if included, but who knows? If the U.S. consitution had banned parties would subsequent constitutional reforms in other countries have done the same?

Be a very different world if we could embody the old spirit of the village where we all got together and selected out best and brightest to lead us, rather than, as Shaw (the writer not the cable company) said: "merely, have the meager satisfaction of not voting for the candidates we dislike most."

[Hydraboss]

"\" as Shaw (the writer not the cable company) said: "merely, have the meager satisfaction of not voting for the candidates we dislike most." "/"

umm...well...uh...

"I know you are, but what am I?" (sorry, I got nothing!)

All free votes? No political party system? Free Jell-o for everyone? Political utopia!!!

Won't happen...would be nice...but won't happen. That being said, I don't think it's too far fetched to expect more from the governments we elect, regardless of stripe. Using the Constitution as a hammer? No, use it like a gondola pole...nudge the country back on track when some oddball wave moves it too far to EITHER SIDE. Supremacy of either the courts or the parliment? Not in my lifetime please. Checks and balances. Just like my bank account.

So the mental decisions begin. Hand out? Hand up? Hand in my pocket? Who's offering what? Why is it acceptable for 10% of the population to thrust their beliefs (!?!) on the other 90%? Is that 90% not made up of a bunch of other 10%'s?

I must now leave to gather my thoughts, and construct meaningless barbs that I will, no doubt, throw at unsuspecting poster's for the simple pleasure of causing confusion and small migraine-like headaches.

Good day.

[mar]

...

I must now leave to gather my thoughts, and construct meaningless barbs that I will, no doubt, throw at unsuspecting poster's for the simple pleasure of causing confusion and small migraine-like headaches.

Good day.

A real Canadian would have said "Good Day/au revoir" (and pronouced one or the other badly depending on their mother tongue).

We're Canadians! We have 2.2 children and speak 1.2 languages! (yeah, yeah, I know . . . some us speak two additional languages badly)

Kidding,

been good