Liberal set to drop nuclear bomb

[Harare]

If there really is any "bomb" - it would appear to me that Paul M doesn't have much faith in it's effectiveness based on his body language. Maybe it's just me but as each day goes by it seems to me that he's more desperate and stumbles and stutters or loses his train of thought more often.

What do you think ?

[stignasty]

If there really is any "bomb" - it would appear to me that Paul M doesn't have much faith in it's effectiveness based on his body language. Maybe it's just me but as each day goes by it seems to me that he's more desperate and stumbles and stutters or loses his train of thought more often.

What do you think ?

I think you made a four sentence post with each of the conservative daily talking points in it. Congratulations.

[geoffrey]

If there really is any "bomb" - it would appear to me that Paul M doesn't have much faith in it's effectiveness based on his body language. Maybe it's just me but as each day goes by it seems to me that he's more desperate and stumbles and stutters or loses his train of thought more often.

What do you think ?

I think you made a four sentence post with each of the conservative daily talking points in it. Congratulations.

Three sentences... and I've yet to hear any of those as talking points.

[stignasty]

Sorry about the mis-count. It's been a long day. I have to make all the money I can before my services are cut to afford icebreakers. Anyway, getting it all accomplished in three sentences is even more spectacular.

Desperate - If I only had a dollar for each time I've heard a conservative pundit use this gem.

"Stammer" seems to be the word I hear in the media, but stutter will do.

Indecisive - "doesn't have much faith in its effectiveness."

"Loses his train of thought."

Is "it might be only me" turning into the new "some people say?"

Btw, having lived with a stammer, I resent people using it as a point of derision.

Stuttering is essentially neurogenic (neuropathological rather than mental) in origin, and is generally not a problem with the physical production of speech sounds (see Voice disorders) or putting thoughts into words (see Dyslexia, Cluttering). Stuttering does not affect intelligence, and apart from their speech problem, people who stutter are normal. Anxiety, low confidence, nervousness, and stress therefore do not cause stuttering, although they often worsen it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stammer

[geoffrey]

Sorry about the mis-count. It's been a long day. I have to make all the money I can before my services are cut to afford icebreakers. Anyway, getting it all accomplished in three sentences is even more spectacular.

Desperate - If I only had a dollar for each time I've heard a conservative pundit use this gem.

"Stammer" seems to be the word I hear in the media, but stutter will do.

Indecisive - "doesn't have much faith in its effectiveness."

"Loses his train of thought."

Is "it might be only me" turning into the new "some people say?"

Btw, having lived with a stammer, I resent people using it as a point of derision.

Stuttering is essentially neurogenic (neuropathological rather than mental) in origin, and is generally not a problem with the physical production of speech sounds (see Voice disorders) or putting thoughts into words (see Dyslexia, Cluttering). Stuttering does not affect intelligence, and apart from their speech problem, people who stutter are normal. Anxiety, low confidence, nervousness, and stress therefore do not cause stuttering, although they often worsen it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stammer

Nothing wrong with stuttering or anything like that.

Just when it starts when he makes big campaign statements, and I've never noticed it before.

[Harare]

Hey Stigy, I am not a politician or journalist or a member of any political party. I am however an observer and in my opinion he has been stumbling and stuttering MORE than he used to. So if you'd keep that word MORE in mind I think you'd acknowledge no derision - some of my best friends stutter - in my observation.

So why don't you offer your opinion on this question instead.

ps Harper looked much more nervous during the last election IMO.

[kimmy]

If there really is any "bomb" - it would appear to me that Paul M doesn't have much faith in it's effectiveness based on his body language. Maybe it's just me but as each day goes by it seems to me that he's more desperate and stumbles and stutters or loses his train of thought more often.

What do you think ?

I think you made a four sentence post with each of the conservative daily talking points in it. Congratulations.

Is it now a "talking point" to point out that our Prime Minister looks frantic and stammers whenever he's asked a question nowadays? Did you notice how much he stammered under questioning from Mansbridge during their fireside chat last week? Did you notice his wild hand-gestures during the 2nd english debate?

(Before somebody accuses me of picking on a handicapped guy, I should point out that Prime Minister Martin did not exhibit a speech impediment or spastic movement before the election started. It seems to be a recent development, and stress related one might guess.)

It seems to me that one should be allowed to point out the obvious without being accused of getting the information from "talking points".

It would also seem to me that people who've been snickering non-stop about Stephen Harper's "fake smile" have no business complaining about how Paul Martin's body-language is now being interpretted.

Even the CBC has picked up on it, if you visit the editorial cartoons on the election section of their website.

-k

[kimmy]

On the topic of the supposed "nuclear bomb" ...I would have to think that if the Liberals had anything good, they'd have used before now.

I suspect this will be the Liberal equivalent of the Gurmant Grewal tape... something long on innuendo and lacking in substance. The timing-- 6 days before the election-- suggests to me something that will have some shock value but won't stand up to much scrutiny. That would be my guess, at least. I could be wrong, of course. We'll find out soon if there's anything to this.

-k

[betsy]

I have to note, media shouldn't lean toward any party but I have to saw that the CTV seems to be pro-Conservative. It seems that most of the commentators that Duffy has on are pro-Conservative, there are some pro-Liberal and once in a blue moon, pro-NDP. And Robert Fife, he positively glows when he is talking about Harper and the Conservatives. I think that the media should be neutral and provide all parties with equal opportunites but I don't see this. Conservatives are always blasting the CBC for being pro-Liberal (and I agree this does comes across sometimes) but the CTV can't be more pro-Conservative unless Stephen Harper, himself was the main news anchor.

The promo for the ConservaTiVe news that just ran started with a soundbite of Harper saying something ambiguous like "choose good over evil" and then Lloyd Robertson voicing over something like "The Conservatives push to bring freedom to the Maritimes." There was no other mention of any other political party. Go Big Blue!!

I can't believe the left is complaining about CTV being pro-right wing.

The left need look no further than CBC and the Globe and Mail, two of the most leftist anti-CPC outlets in this country. And I shouldn't forget the Toronto Sun, what with Sheila Copps writing her "daddy dearest" letters about the Martin Liberals and her seemingly unabashedly pro-NDP views.

If CTV is as unabashedly pro-CPC as CBC and the Globe and Mail are, we might actually has some biased journalism in Canada...go CTV go!!!

Even the CBC sounded pro-Conservative last Friday!

But it was because they had no control over it.

They were interviewing people on the 6 oclock news segment (radio) and asking who they'd vote for. CBC was having a hard time finding pro-Liberal. Out of all those people, only one was voting for the Liberal.

I think M Duffy is finding it hard to locate any pro-Liberals among the media too? Either they are very much against that party....or are choosing to remain quiet and distance themselves.

[betsy]

Stignasty,

Warren Kinsella just did an interesting review of the biases of various journalists and news organizations. I note that he described English CBC radio as "objective".

This morning, on local Montreal CBC radio, I listened to a 15 minute interview with Pierre Pettigrew that was fawning and sympathetic. No hardball questions about anything at all, even about his potential defeat. Then, in the afternoon, there were two interviews with Morgenthaler in which he said that he suspected Harper would take away women's right to have an abortion. Then, just before 6 pm, there was an interview with Christian Bourque of Leger Marketing that went into detail about why polls are inaccurate and they consistently underestimate Liberal support.

This is not a scientific sample, and I may be looking for bias. OTOH, may be the CBC is not objective. And if it is not, then it is leading its listeners down a garden path.

If you say something is true, that doesn't make it true. The longer you believe the falsehood, the more shocking the eventual realization of truth. The Left too often believes that if it keeps repeating a slogan, the slogan will convince people, change them and then the slogan will come true. The Soviet Union was founded on such nonsense. It doesn't work.

The CBC is not dangerous. But it's too often irritating and just a big waste of time.

And a big waste of taxpayers money! I say if they can't give straightforward non-biased journalism...then they should finance their own station. I don't think it fair that we finance Liberal commercials.

[hiti]

Hows about those upstanding, moral, honest, filled with integrity Harper Cons, eh?

Candidates get a bad name

Fake monikers on phony election ballot have scent of scandal, Earl McRae writes

By EARL MCRAE, OTTAWA SUN

Tue, January 17, 2006

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Election/2006/...397618-sun.html

This is a shocker: Tory John Baird's political opponents in the riding of Ottawa West-Nepean have suddenly quit to be replaced by a bunch of wannabes we've never heard of.

Bye-bye to Lee Farnworth of the Liberals, Marlene Rivier of the NDP, Neil Adair of the Green Party, Randy Bens of the Canadian Action Party, and Independent John Pacheco.

I have the startling proof in my hand. A card dropped into my mailbox. From the Conservative Party of Canada. Signed by Stephen Harper and John Baird.

The printed words at the top telling me: "Earl, this election your vote is critical. Please do not wait until Jan. 23rd to vote. Stand up for Accountability. Stand up for Canada. Vote Conservative."

"Earl?"

[scribblet]

Hows about those upstanding, moral, honest, filled with integrity Harper Cons, eh?

Candidates get a bad name

Fake monikers on phony election ballot have scent of scandal, Earl McRae writes

By EARL MCRAE, OTTAWA SUN

Tue, January 17, 2006

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Election/2006/...397618-sun.html

This is a shocker: Tory John Baird's political opponents in the riding of Ottawa West-Nepean have suddenly quit to be replaced by a bunch of wannabes we've never heard of.

Bye-bye to Lee Farnworth of the Liberals, Marlene Rivier of the NDP, Neil Adair of the Green Party, Randy Bens of the Canadian Action Party, and Independent John Pacheco.

I have the startling proof in my hand. A card dropped into my mailbox. From the Conservative Party of Canada. Signed by Stephen Harper and John Baird.

The printed words at the top telling me: "Earl, this election your vote is critical. Please do not wait until Jan. 23rd to vote. Stand up for Accountability. Stand up for Canada. Vote Conservative."

"Earl?"

Get real, those cards are simply sent out by CIMS, the computer system that the CPC uses to track supporters. Obviously at one point, Earl told the CPC he was a supporter and was entered in the system.

Those cards are sent to everybody across the country (in the ridings that can afford it) and the names of the "opponents" are just made up names that appear on all the postcards.

If he's seriously trying to pass this off as a scandal the MSM is getting pretty desperate to stick mud on the CPC.

The Liberals have lost so much credibility that they will have a hard time making anything up that will be believed. When people stop believing Liberal lies, you know that they are in trouble. Its all they ever had going for them.

[Leafless]

betsy

It is now Tue. Jan.17/2006, 11:37A.M. EST and no sign of any bomb.

I think the only bomb is the one between M.Duffy's ears.

He can't believe the Liberals are going down the tube.

He was also a B.Mulroney die hard. One of the last who could not believe Mr.Mulroney was politically finished. Remember those swollen watery eyes.

[SamStranger]

Hmmm.... Very Interesting. I dont think anything at this point will change the outcome of the election. Stephen Harper has enough momentum to continue campagning after he wins!

Let the Liberals "Drop a Bomb" because its gonna blow up over themselves.

[kimmy]

Hows about those upstanding, moral, honest, filled with integrity Harper Cons, eh?

Candidates get a bad name

Fake monikers on phony election ballot have scent of scandal, Earl McRae writes

By EARL MCRAE, OTTAWA SUN

Tue, January 17, 2006

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Election/2006/...397618-sun.html

What's your concern here?

That the mock-ballot that came as part of the Conservative candidate's advertising material does not make mention of the opponent's names?

So? I don't think a candidate is under any obligation to mention his opponents in his advertising.

I mean, if you'd found evidence that Conservatives in Ottawa West/Nepean had managed to switch the Elections Canada ballots with ballots that have a big color photo of John Baird, list fictional opponents sans party affiliation, and already have an X in the box by Baird's name, I think that yes, you'd have found a bigtime scandal. As it happens, though, I think you've mistaken a humor column for the real thing.

-kimmy

{man, if this is the Liberals' "nuclear bomb", they're in bigger trouble than I thought. }

[scribblet]

Hows about those upstanding, moral, honest, filled with integrity Harper Cons, eh?

Candidates get a bad name

Fake monikers on phony election ballot have scent of scandal, Earl McRae writes

By EARL MCRAE, OTTAWA SUN

Tue, January 17, 2006

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Election/2006/...397618-sun.html

What's your concern here?

That the mock-ballot that came as part of the Conservative candidate's advertising material does not make mention of the opponent's names?

So? I don't think a candidate is under any obligation to mention his opponents in his advertising.

I mean, if you'd found evidence that Conservatives in Ottawa West/Nepean had managed to switch the Elections Canada ballots with ballots that have a big color photo of John Baird, list fictional opponents sans party affiliation, and already have an X in the box by Baird's name, I think that yes, you'd have found a bigtime scandal. As it happens, though, I think you've mistaken a humor column for the real thing.

-kimmy

{man, if this is the Liberals' "nuclear bomb", they're in bigger trouble than I thought. }

Its grasping at straws, making a mountain out of a molehill - well actually a non existent molehill.

[shoop]

Well said scriblett.

The one question I do have is - What has happened to the Sun newspaper chain?

Between this and trying to scare people with misleading headlines in the Toronto Sun i.e. "Harper muses about majority." when that was far too early. Do they just instinctively want to attack the party in power?

Its grasping at straws, making a mountain out of a molehill - well actually a non existent molehill.

[August1991]

Hows about those upstanding, moral, honest, filled with integrity Harper Cons, eh?

Candidates get a bad name

Fake monikers on phony election ballot have scent of scandal, Earl McRae writes

By EARL MCRAE, OTTAWA SUN

Tue, January 17, 2006

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Election/2006/...397618-sun.html

-kimmy

{man, if this is the Liberals' "nuclear bomb", they're in bigger trouble than I thought. }

I think this was the "nuclear bomb" CTV referred to:

The Liberal war room got things rolling, circulating a CD of controversial comments by a British Columbia Conservative candidate. Among other things, Darrel Reid, the Tory hopeful in Richmond riding, once compared Canada to Nazi Germany, warning that Christians could face imprisonment for speaking out against homosexuality.

Kinsella (and others) have said that the Liberals made a serious error in attacking Harper when they went negative instead of all the dinosaurs/whackos in the Tory caucus.

The problem is that that strategy wouldn't have worked. There are alot of dinosaurs/whackos in the Liberal caucus too:

Among the Liberal quotes dug up by the Conservative war room: Kitchener-Waterloo MP Andrew Telegdi compared Canada to Nazi Germany in 2001 while criticizing immigration law that allows politicians to determine whether a person can become a citizen. "Canada is acting like a Nazi-style regime ... That's what Hitler used to do,'' Telegdi said....

Kinsella may feel mighty proud right now but I think his form of tactics won't work in the future. And that's all Kinsella is, pure tactics.

[kimmy]

Well, if this is indeed what the hype is about, then it's not a bomb in the "Fat Man and Little Boy" sense, but it does seem likely to bomb in the "Adventures of Pluto Nash" sense.

I think that if there was a window of opportunity where this sort of stuff would have worked, I think that window is now closed.

I think the problem the Liberal campaign team faces is that now that many voters seem to have decided on change, the "same-old same-old" is not going to lure them back. If anything, this might have an opposite effect: you can scare somebody away from trying something... but once they've made up their mind to do it, telling them "you'll be sorry!" can galvanize their resolve.

-k

[betsy]

Liberal new ad aired on Mike Duffy. It was "touching", as Duffy described it (to the objections of Anne McLellan who insists it was not "touching"...but rather, positive).

It showed a humble Paul Martin.

Is this dah bomb?

[shoop]

Just saw it on the Liberal Web site.

Hmmmm, not terrible ... I guess.

Don't really know how many votes it will swing this late in the game. Maybe Kinsella is right and it is an ad helped to protect the few ridings the Liberals have left.

Liberal new ad aired on Mike Duffy. It was "touching", as Duffy described it (to the objections of Anne McLellan who insists it was not "touching"...but rather, positive).

It showed a humble Paul Martin.

Is this dah bomb?

[Boru]

I can't believe the left is complaining about CTV being pro-right wing.

The left need look no further than CBC and the Globe and Mail, two of the most leftist anti-CPC outlets in this country. And I shouldn't forget the Toronto Sun, what with Sheila Copps writing her "daddy dearest" letters about the Martin Liberals and her seemingly unabashedly pro-NDP views.

If CTV is as unabashedly pro-CPC as CBC and the Globe and Mail are, we might actually has some biased journalism in Canada...go CTV go!!!

The Globe and Mail have basically endorsed Haper and the Conservatives and CBC may be considered pro-Liberal but I would never consider it pro-NDP...Larry Zolf could never be called pro-NDP. You might hear more about the NDP on CBC because the CTV at times doesn't even talk about the NDP, like they didn't exist. Often when Craig Oliver is asked about how he sees the election, he won't even mention the NDP unless someone asks him specifically about them.

And regards to columnists, Sheila Copps might have some NDP sympathies but she can't touch the many, many pro-Conservatives columnists out there, such as Ezra Levant, Paul Jackson, Peter Worthington, Charles Adler, Tom Brodbeck and on and on and on, when it comes to spin.

My apologies...

There was a time when the Globe and Mail was pro-Liberal and proud of it. If that has changed, good.

CBC is without a doubt a network of the Liberals and NDP. If Harper will be coming on, that is good.

Of course. Any media outlet endorsing anything other than Conservative is the devil...

Any newspaper ever touched by the Asper family is decided Conservative before even examining the issues. Since that covers a good deal of Canada's media, Conservative supporters cannot complain about the slimmer number od media sources that advocate the Liberals.

[shoop]

The complaint is that the CBC is the only broadcaster that receives taxpayer funding. They should be neutral.

Here is a great quote from Warren Kinsella about the CBC.

Like the Star (and unlike CBC Radio’s national office and the Don Newman group), the CBC’s Ottawa English news bureau has become so egregiously, effusively pro-Martin that it should have been declared as a leadership campaign expense. Every political assistant, MP and Minister knew about the regular phone calls between a certain lobby firm and the likes of Peter Mansbridge and Keith Boag – to complain about stories, to manipulate coverage, to chastise certain reporters (ask Mark Kelley or Terry Milewski). Among the Tories, Grits and Dippers I know, there is a wide consensus that Boag will now be lucky to get his calls returned, let alone receive a perfunctory “hello” in Parliament’s hallways. Someone of Milewski’s stature would be a huge asset, but – if what I have heard about a scalding email now making the rounds is true – he has no interest in joining the weakest CBC-TV Ottawa bureau in decades. As one wag recently told me: “Even CBC Radio’s ‘Promo Girl’ would do a better job than Boag.”

[geoffrey]

Of course. Any media outlet endorsing anything other than Conservative is the devil...

Any newspaper ever touched by the Asper family is decided Conservative before even examining the issues. Since that covers a good deal of Canada's media, Conservative supporters cannot complain about the slimmer number od media sources that advocate the Liberals.

Aspers are Liberals, get your story straight. The National Post was only really conservative under Mr. Black.

And there is nothing wrong with a Liberal media outlet, in fact, I welcome it. Not funded by taxpayers though.

Publicly funded TV is dangerous, no matter how long the arms length its operatthd at is. I shouldn't have to pay for Liberal TV just because its not commericially viable.

[Boru]

Of course. Any media outlet endorsing anything other than Conservative is the devil...

Any newspaper ever touched by the Asper family is decided Conservative before even examining the issues. Since that covers a good deal of Canada's media, Conservative supporters cannot complain about the slimmer number od media sources that advocate the Liberals.

Aspers are Liberals, get your story straight. The National Post was only really conservative under Mr. Black.

And there is nothing wrong with a Liberal media outlet, in fact, I welcome it. Not funded by taxpayers though.

Publicly funded TV is dangerous, no matter how long the arms length its operatthd at is. I shouldn't have to pay for Liberal TV just because its not commericially viable.

You get your story straight. The great and legendary Izzy Asper was a proud Conservative, and he went as far as to fire editorialists who ventured too far left of his own positions.