Welcome, Tory partisans!
In the current example, the defences offered are as follows: 1) the ad ran in February, but isn't running now, 2) the Liberals started it, 3) the ad does not say flat out that Dion is a vendu, or even slyly suggest it, but is merely an innocent reference to house sales, and besides 4) calling a federalist politician from Quebec a vendu -- calling this particular federalist politician from Quebec, the most reviled by Quebec nationalists since Jean Chretien, a vendu -- is no big deal, or certainly nothing remotely comparable to calling him an Uncle Tom.
The first two I cannot even bring myself to bother with. (You may refresh your memory as to my opinion of Liberal attack ads here.) As to the third: the notion that such a loaded word would appear, in print, in a political attack ad -- where every word is hashed over and rehashed for any possible meanings, intended or otherwise -- next to Dion's head, in the closing seconds of the ad, without its authors being aware of its peculiar resonance for its intended audience -- francophone nationalists in Quebec -- is too ludicrous to contemplate; to suggest that this meaning would be obscured by the simple expedient of embedding it in the phrase "vendu tel quel" requires a blithe sophistry, or an automaton-like literal-mindedness, that in either case I cannot begin to fathom. But don't take my word for it: here's Bill Johnson, bilingual lifelong student of Quebec politics, author of an admiring biography of Harper ("excessively sympathetic" -- Adam Daifallah) and a sometimes over-the-top critic of Dion himself, writing in the Globe and Mail in February:
"Make no mistake, the French television assault ads targeting Stéphane Dion launched this week by the Conservative Party are astute and deadly. They are also dishonest, and set a new Canadian standard for uncivil discourse...Take, for instance, the third ad, and its sticker, Vendu Tel Quel. Traditionally, separatists have stigmatized as "vendus" -- sell-outs -- French-speaking Quebeckers such as Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien who fought separatism in Ottawa. Centring one ad on "For Sale" was not innocent..."
As for the fourth point, that there is no comparison between vendu and Uncle Tom -- a "traitor to his race," in other words -- well, let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?
It would be news to Lawrence Martin, author of Iron Man, the definitive Jean Chretien biography. In the opening pages of Vol. 2, recounting the notorious incident during the 1990 Liberal leadership race in which Paul Martin's supporters chanted "vendu" and "Judas" at Jean Chretien, he describes the former epithet as so vile that even separatist leaders would not use it (though see below).
It would be news to Aline Chretien. Interviewed by the Montreal Gazette's Terrance Wills, Mme Chretien "said it is the francophone press, not Main Street Quebecers, which has tagged him an Uncle Tom and a vendu."
It would be news to Gilles Duceppe. Standing outside the House one day (May 6, 1999, if you're scoring), the Bloc leader accused Mr. Chretien of being "a token French Canadian flat on his face before the federal government" and said he was "acting like an Uncle Tom" for refusing to allow Lucien Bouchard, then the premier of Quebec, to meet with the visiting president of Mexico, while inside the Commons various Bloc MPs shouted "vendu" at the Prime Minister. But of course, as we know, political party leaders reserve the worst insults -- vastly, incomparably worse -- for themselves, while leaving the incomparably milder insults for unnamed colleagues. Of course.
Oh, but I forgot the fifth defense: that "politics is a bloodsport," and this sort of thing just goes with the territory. Fair enough, I suppose: but doesn't anybody want to change politics any more?
4/03/2007
related
141 Comments
Thank you.
I feel like you got a lot off my chest too. Hyperbole and crazy partisanship is what turns people off politics altogether. Politics is a blood sport, but it's a sport less and less people care for, and this blind partisanship fuels the problem.
It looks like the race to the bottom continues.
Quite so. Canadian politics isn't infected with blind partisanship to the extent that American politics is, but surely this isn't a race we want to compete in.
David, inter-partisan cooperation within the halls of Congress actually occurs more frequently than compared to their Canadian counterparts.
(my long-winded reply to come shortly)
You are correct in pointing out the glaring inconsistencies with a conservative agenda appearing on a daily basis. True believers or Kool-Aid drinkers are quite willing to put up with some of the current nonsense to achieve the end game. Yes Virginia , there is a hidden agenda. With a majority the Federal government should shrink and the jurisdictions and responsibilities of the provinces would be theirs alone. If the good citizens of Quebec elect a government to provide free day care or what ever service one might imagine that will be up to them. If BC and Alberta do not that is up to them. After the big cash bumps are gone and normalized equalization kicks in taxes will have to raised by the high spending provinces from their citizens alone. Best practices and hopefully prudence should prevail.
"Fair enough, I suppose: but doesn't anybody want to change politics any more?"
As I said on another thread, we are governed by technocrats who spew venom at those who do not belong to the same partisan organization as they do. It's a problem that effects all sides. That's what this budget drove home for me: idealism is dead, and a bleak, depressing, technocratic nature rules the day.
Andrew,
stop shooting the messenger. As with your compliants about Harper "selling out" with his budget,
why not complain about statist Canada as a whole, rather than the politician who's merely trying to work within its rules. These ads are effective because Canadians as a whole make it so.
And once again, it amazes me to see a member of the MEDIA, complaining about this. Some introspection would appear to be in order.
As a PARTISAN, Harper's slanted/spun facts to fit one's position seems to be part of the role.
But our supposedly objective purveyors of fact in the media? Forget about the past Liberal attacks, how many stories in the press went happily along with the Libs ads, wondering aloud how evil Harper's secret agenda to take away all of our rights really was.
Sad to see you circling the wagons Andrew. I share my dissappointment with all of your former followers here.
You've become redundant.
I can get this stuff from the Toronto Star any day of the week.
Of course the real story of this decade will be how UNLIKE Harper actually was from what we were told he would be like from the Libs and their friends in the media. (Taking away all of our rights, eating babies, you know that sort of thing).
But Andrew et al won't go down without a fight to raise the bar after-the-fact in an attempt to say "see we told you so".
But go down they will.
Meanwhile, the elite group of non partisan "professional" journalists,
drive away the lowly partisan blogger.
That'll show him for being up front with his partisanship!
Damn partisans, eh Andrew.
http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000819.html
Oh if the rest of us partisans could only exude the neutrality present in Andrew's recent works and in the conduct of the press gallery today.
Sigh. We'll never be as good.
Steve, yes, I'd agree that American politicians are better at bipartisanship, due to structural differences between the two systems of government. But what about Americans outside of the halls of Congress? I'd say they're less pragmatic and more readily blinded by partisanship. It's almost inconceivable, for example, that the Republicans could ever suffer losses comparable to the ones suffered by the PCs in the early '90s, no matter how badly they govern. The ludicrously high incumbancy rate attests to this.
Case in point: most of the supporters Bush has left are hack Republican apologists, like Glenn Reynolds, or outright fools, like Jonah Goldberg. Even still, Bush's approval ratings won't ever sink below 30%; the Republicans could nominate anyone and he'd get at least 35% of the vote, easy. You rarely see National Review, its online counterpart, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, or the Weekly Standard, publish pieces like the ones written by AC. The kind of political culture promoted by those outlets, and FOX News, isn't interested in solving problems; they're more interested in tribal loyalties. And they're catering to a large audience that buys what they sell.
A large number of people can't see past the political party they always vote for. You can see it in this thread, the way biff equates AC with the editors of the Toronto Star. This is ridiculous, but it no doubt reflects the way a lot of people think--or, rather, don't. It's revealing that biff calls himself a "former follower" of AC. The problem with AC, for biff, is not that his arguments are bad; rather, he is failing to provide respectable rationalizations for supporting people who biff judges to be worthy of support prior to, and independent of, any analysis of their actual positions or records. I don't agree with AC all the time, but I read him because he's honest and he's consistent. All too many of his "former followers" are neither.
I could spend a day providing examples of the TO Star's blantant Liberal partisanship.
Blatant in its substance, but hidden in form, under the guise of trusted purveyors of news.
Abusing its position to advocate.
Politicians and their followers are supposed to be partisan. That's how the system works. The press is supposed to inform.
But they often don't do that. They advocate instead of informing, selecting the "right" stories to tell, or omitting or putting forth facts that fit their partisanship.
But judging from the way in which your comment stared down your nose at me, I suspect these words fell on deaf ears.
Andrew sounds every bit as partisan as those he points the finger at.
And he does so from a pedastal.
Not pretty.
ok Andrew you pretty much had it coming so here it is.
i'm not responsible for the linguistic aspect of this whole shebang. so i'll only address one thing:
politics and bloodsport
first of all, you brought up your opinion of Liberal attack ads in order to dismiss the "Liberals started it" argument i made. let's be clear that Paul Martin's 2006 attack ads were directed against a Conservative campaign that did not necessarily provoke such a tactic. the quality of the ads themselves also did not help much. whereas, if you look at the 2004 attack ads, the targets of those attack ads were acting smug, repeating AdScam too many times for my liking, and seemingly taking the ascension to the governmental throne for granted throughout the earlier parts of the election. i had my doubts about the effectiveness of the Conservative campaign throughout the course of the 2004 election, but when the results came in, i was ultimately not surprised.
this is to say that the context of give-and-take has everything to do with the appropriateness of the pursuit for a certain course of action. it's called game theory.
during Dion's earlier days as Liberal leader, Harper-Dion relations have not soured as much as they have now. but ever since the introduction of the Clean Air Act the opposition has become increasingly more vicious, as i have already said, to the point where beating them back by playing Mr. nice guy is becoming less and less feasible a solution to keep them at bay. you don't like it? fine. but don't say that causality doesn't matter.
now i was also going to say that i haven't always monotonously supported anything and everything Conservative. but unless you want to hear about these nuances (and i doubt it) i will spare you the troubles. in fact, i don't even feel like sharing these things, seeing as how your comments sections have become so infested with partisan Quebec Liberals who will likely be cheering on all of Harper's favoritisms for Quebec (IF they were done by Dion instead) but also rally behind the one Andrew Coyne (who has opposed any and all special treats for the province, a position that i'm not entirely in disagreement with, but that's another story) just so they can take cheap shots at the Conservatives. you'll have to excuse me if i feel uncomfortable engaging in critical self-introspection under such an environment.
I could be mistaken, but I don't recall any outcry when the term in question originally showed up back in February, I could be wrong of course. Presumably columnists were too busy doing other things to decry the use of the term when it first appeared, but I don't even recall any outcry coming from Quebec media either, I'll assume everyone was busy with the run-up to the election. Perhaps the outcry is limited to those who practice the art of punditry rather than plain old journalists who file a news report each day - who knows.
In the meantime, partisans are highly forgiving of the questionable tactics used by those they support and critical of any and all tactics used by those they dislike. Because of this, I wouldn't expect any partisan to do anything less than try to defend their guy's tactics, regardless of how despicable they might be.
Finally, I think this issue matters only to bona-fide political junkies. Given that most Canadians have a short attention span and have long ago disengaged from having anything more than passing interest in the shenanigans of our elected leaders, this issue doesn't register on their radar.
If AC's concern is the continuing devolution of our political system to a point where politicians will say or do anything, no matter how utterly offensive or debasing, then his outrage is warranted.
I don't hold a lot of hope for voters suddenly becoming engaged in the political process or holding their elected representatives to a higher standard. We've all become desensitized for a host of reasons. It doesn't make the offensive term any less offensive, it just means voters don't give a rat's ass anymore.
I'd like to change politics, Andrew, but I don't know how to proceed. Perhaps if you would be so kind as to propose a detailed set of goals and a plan of action toward their end then we could evaluate it, each from our own individual perspective, and then those of us who agree with your proposed goals and plan could campaign on their behalf.
Change politics, all for it...but....
What if this works?
However, I do remember why I disliked the Liberal government. It was tactical to a fault, it was cynical to a fault...which may be applicable in this case. The "chess master" (tongue in cheek) isnt being strategic right now he is being tactical.
But I also disliked the Liberal government because it was enriching itself, enriching its friends and courtiers. It was engaging in practices that were illegal and a compliant press was sitting on the sideline saying this is just how it is done (some still say that about adscam, Simpson in particular)
So AC I take your warning. I am not feeling like I got the government I expected. Some things I am ok with, the Quebec strategy isnt as much an issue for me as it is for you but that really is one to which there isnt a playbook for and on which reasonable people can reasonably disagree.
Tax policy, spending etc I am in agreement, this has been a disappointment. Income Trust, well they went back on a promise that shouldnt have been made but I think circumstances got out of hand and I am glad they acted. But yes I expected a tighter fist on spending. I do fear this goes with Minority territory.
As for these ads.....tactically smart. Maybe long term corrosive, and it doesnt matter who started it, I agree. I dont think anyone cares if the CPC succeeds in defining their opponent, thats politics, but at what cost? And that cost wont be paid immeadiately, inevitably it will in the uglier counter ad the Liberals run now or in some future election.
Vendu...it is harsh no question. Uncle Tom, ok I'll buy in and say it is in that territory. Nasty, harsh, ugly. Counterpoint though, Isnt it up to Quebecers to reject that language in their disourse? Thats not to justify, because there are equivalents that I wouldnt want to see here (including that ad in the Campbell election) Too many leaders from Quebec springs to mind....but the feedback on the ads from voters is what keeps that in place. The reaction to the "guns in our streets, in canada etc etc" was a good example.
I admit I voted CPC and I likely would today given the alternatives. The CPC hasnt stolen any money yet, the profilgacy I dont like but write off as costs of a minority (once again why I dont like proportional rep ;-> )
So yes I am disappointed but not angry, certainly not disappointed enough to change my vote or even stay home, but that isnt perpetual. It isnt at nose holding yet, the promise of a majority is a powerful inducement.
I dont expect you to change or agree, or anyone else for that matter, but I offer that as explaination and background why one memeber of the con base isnt upset yet. It has been barely a year and the memories are fresh about how bad it was, with suspicions that we dont really know how bad it was.
As well, on another level, I am happy to see that the CPC is capable of a fight, because this WAS done to them previously. And the inability to offer a credible response was indicative of the state of the party and their ability to govenrn. For Chretien it was a "what a scamp that old pol is" taking poor stock to the cleaners.....
Anyway, you keep doing what you need to do. You keep others from descending to pure bloodsport level. There is a purpose to all of this and a good reminder is always appreciated....maybe not welcome, maybe not agreed with but always appreciated.
How about this.
Instead of Jason Cherniak and Andrew Coyne flipping out over "vendu" - then looking to William Johnston and Lawrence Martin for support - it just would be ever more impressive to read about a backlash from francophone Quebecers. You know, like in La Presse or Le Soleil or yes, even Le Devoir(which we are not allowed to count because its separatist). Maybe francophone Quebeckers should make this an issue instead of having some guys from Toronto make it an issue for them? Especially if we are trying to Uncle Tomify the situation? Oh Toronto mas'sers, thanks yous for poin'ing out how nasty dem Tories be in our langgage.
Instead, we see this outrage among people who have an agenda for which this outrage happily assists.
Who's outrage only appears when it is a Tory sin. But we are the blind ones? Yes, we should all try to be more objective like Jason Cherniak.
Oh Toronto mas'sers, thanks yous for poin'ing out how nasty dem Tories be in our langgage.
Instead, we see this outrage among people who have an agenda for which this outrage happily assists.
Ouch, Andrew; you just got pwned, as the kids say.
Andrew, as one of your colleagues pointed out last week, does it not bother you that despite the rest of Canada bending over backwards for them Quebec and Quebeckers hate Canada and hate Canadians? Because it should.
All you've really done here is find a bunch of like-minded too-politically-correct-to-be-useful fellow travellers who are just as over-ethno-empathetic as you are to try and justify your hysteria. Citing 2 "Globe and Mail" columnists as justification for your outrage doesn't exactly help your argument among PC-weary conservatives. The only people you've demonstrated to be outraged at this word are PC-terrified english media such as yourself, and, to be frank, your bunch lacks the necessities to make that call.
Do we need more banned words in Canada, Andrew? Is there a poll showing clear public support for more PC chill that I am not aware of? Quebeckers are not porcelain dolls; indeed, the ADQ folks would probably think you are being far too politically correct here.
As you pointed out Andrew, the Martin supporters chanted THE WORD at a Liberal leadership convention. Or to use that all-of-a-sudden sensitive guy Paul Well's explanation of THE WORD linking your post, those Martin supporters during a Liberal leadership race labeled Chretien a "traitor to his race".
It seems like the Conservatives get the best material for their ads from Liberal leadership races.
The "Not a Leader" ad is after all nothing more than live footage from the last Liberal leadership convention showing Ignatieff skewering Dion.
Andrew, is it a coincidence that the nastiest Tory ads literally plagiarize Liberal convention material? Imitation is the best form of flattery.
Methinks Paul Well's and Andrew Coyne's outrage is somewhat misplaced.
AC you really need to take a pill. There is an old saying about the Liberals. When you have a Liberal down you don't take your foot off of his throat. That is exactly what Harper is doing and that is what needs to be done. So the budget wasn't Conservative enough for you. However, you have to admit there are elements that appeal to Conservative values. If Harper had not dealt with the fiscal imbalance he would have been crucified by you and the rest of the media. He did that but then the focus was on equalization. Not good enough. As for Quebec..it is still a province and plays a very big role in the political life of Canada. To ignore it would be suicidal. So Harper is doing what he feels he needs to do. The Liberals did it for years and exploited Quebec for all they could get out of it. The attack ads on Dion are fair whether you like them or not. The fiscal imbalance issue was a Quebec issue with the rest of the provinces piling on. Dion is bad mouthing the budget and the people of Quebec need to know what his position was on the fiscal imbalance because 80% of the spending was on the provinces. Frankly Canadians don't care what you and the rest of the media think about the political situation in Canada.They are making their own decisions based on their own information. Not what some media person says in their biased columns. Evidence of that was the Quebec provincial election where Quebecers stepped out of the box and voted differently than they had in the past. Mr. Dion will survive (maybe). Of course this will be after he asks for an apology for the umpteeth time. Sucha man! So AC go back on your meds and the strategy of the Conservative government and Mr. Harper will be revealed in the fullness of time.
Just a crazy thought, but why doesn't the public punish politicians who do this sort of thing then? Why not blame the consumers for putting up with the product?
Everyone wants the Tories to be the saints here. Sorry, but I think we all know where that road leads.
Considering these ads ran in February - where's the outcry from Quebecers on this one? Apparantly there wasn't any which assuming that the comment was interpreted as hysterically a Andrew here has taken it, actually Quebecers obviously view it as within the normal lines of political discourse or deem it accurate.
But then again I guess sell out is just going to far when the other side has accussed you of being fascists, some sort of dark menance. Not to mention the quaint nostrum that Conservatives will sell Canada down the river to those dastardly Yankees for no more than a pat on the head.
I mean really, even if you take this for what you say it is Andrew Conservatives get accussed of being traitors to Canada every election by the Liberals, so Conservatives pushed back in Quebec big deal.
And really Andrew you might want to remember that the reason The National Post sells papers is because we don't want to listen to shrill level wing drivel - I mean really we can go read Ibbitson, Salutin and co over at the Globe for that sort of non-sense. We really do expect better of you.
There is only one way to stop this kind of politics in Canada. Don't vote for a party that participates in it. Not a hard task.
The current Liberals were not involved in any of the sponsorship stuff that happened 11 years ago. That is now "OVER". What may be left of those years are retiring. To judge the new members of the party by past deeds is unfair and dishonest.
I think a term to be used for Harper is "venom". Venom poisons. Harper is poisonous.
Everytime a party participates in this childish, U.S. style full of blatants lies - the whole country should change their vote to another party. Eventually, the politics and politicians would get the message.
Canadians I would hope would want fair play. Yes, it's a bloodsport but do we need a hemmorage? When does tough fighting change to cruelty - and why is cruelty acceptable.
And we're worried about bullying in school yards and on the internet when some accept the same from a PM? What kind of family man example is that?
The federal Liberals have benefited (and the cynical would say actively encouraged) the Federalist-Separatist polarization in Quebec for a generation. It has allowed them to wrap themselves in the flag in both Quebec and in the ROC as the saviours of Canada. So forgive me if I don't share Wells' and Coyne's view that Chretien and Dion are the Patron Saints of Canadian Unity. Yes, they fought hard for Canadian unity when they had to, as have thousands of other Canadians, but the Liberals have also cynically manipulated this polarization - i.e. stoking the fires when they had to - to benefit themselves politically.
So frankly, I like seeing Harper continuing to put the boots to the Liberals - they deserve it. If Harper's only legacy is to bust up the federal Liberal monopoly on governing in this country, he'll have done a lasting service for the country. Sure, he's operating from a partisan perspective, but more voices at the federal level (left and right) can only be a good thing in the long run.
Boy, biff's an idiot, isn't he. And Charles: when Coyne links to examples of his outrage at Liberal ads, and you say he's only angry when Tories do it...well, how perfectly biff-like of you.
Andrew, now that you have a relative running in TO for the Liberals in the next election, your impartiality is question.
David Penner isn't really lighting it up here in the reasoned observations category either considering Glenn Reynolds has voted Democrat in the past and wrote this just yesterday:
"I've never felt that degree of attraction to, or affection for, Bush -- you never saw the kind of praise for him here that you once saw for him elsewhere. Mostly, I've just felt vaguely sorry for him, and hoped he'd manage to do a decent job under difficult circumstances."
he is very much in favour of the aggressive prosecution of the war on terror and that's where he aligns with administration policy but other than that the guy is hardly a doctrinaire republican.
The budget was a catastrophe and the ads are the sad demonstration that we'll do anything, as a party, to get into power. I want a party that will do most things but would draw the line at those ridiculous ads hardly suitable for a college president campaign.
Anonymous, please...she ran in the last election for the liberals as well, and I don't think too many other Liberals have Andrew on their christmas card list.
That being said, this outrage at the commercial is much ado about nothing. The Quebec voting public has passed judgement...Dion's support has tanked, and Harper's has increased since the February campaign. Clearly they don't find the ads objectionable, so the delayed outrage seems misplaced.
As the guy who posted the "bloodsport" comment, let me add my two cents.
First off, Andrew what do you mean when you talk about changing politics?
Change it how exactly? By banning tough and hard hitting ads?
That would infringe on free expression.
By one side unilaterally declaring it won't use "negative ads"?
The Tories tried that "taking a knife to a gunfight" approach in the 2004 election and they lost out to the Liberals who had no compulsion about employing "manipulative, inflammatory and tendentious" ads.
The fact is, "negative ads", if used properly, work.
And there is nothing wrong morally with using them.
Democracy, by its very nature, is a messy, rough and tumble business --- it always has been and, I suspect, it always will be.
It doesn't need to be changed.
This stuff doesn't even phase me anymore.
It's example #3478 of the Tories doing the exact sort of think they used to attack the Liberals for.
Profligate budgets, broken promises, abandoned principles, blatant pandering, winking at Quebec nationalists, inflammatory rhetoric (well, OK, THAT one they were doing BEFORE they formed a government). Either the Tories are now more Liberal than the Liberals, or it's all part of the grand "this is what you have to do to win a majority" strategy. In other words, convince voters you're Liberals, get your majority, and THEN change things. You've got to fool people into voting for you by convincing them you're not out to shake things up before you can really shake things up.
It makes some sense, but I'd say either way it's pretty distasteful. Either they've spent years telling us how terrible the Liberals were, only to immediately morph into the same monster the moment the won power, or they're just PRETENDING to be the same old same old, in order to fool people into voting for them. In other words, showing the people X, so they can win a majority in Parliament, and give the people Y.
And one wonders where all the "hidden agenda" stuff used to come from! At least back in the day, it was HIDDEN, so one could argue it didn't exist. Today, conservatives come right out and tell you what they're doing. "This is what you have to do to win a majority". "Things will change once we have a majority". "I know it looks bad, but we're forced into doing this in a minority parliament". Conservative partisans will come right out and tell you that they don't like what the Tories are doing, it's not what they really want to do, and they're only doing it to win a majority, after which they'll pull out the real plan.
The Tories are blatantly trying to get the rest of the country to vote for their "not so conservative agenda after all" agenda while simultaneously assuring their conservative supporters that they'll get around to being truly conservative once they get their majority. I for one would like to know what a vote for the Tories means. A continuation of their current policies as they promise Canadians at large, or the complete change in policy they promise their conservative followers will follow a majority win. Who are they lying too? Small-l liberals, or small-c conservatives?
I wonder sometimes if even Harper knows.
AC,
"no Quebec strategy so failed"
You really don't get it, do you.
Only you and your fellow Trudeauistes think the Quebec strategy "failed." It didn't; it brought a right-wing party to the fore in Quebec.
I'm amazed that so many people can't see that.
Paul Wells,
One thing that Stephane Dion likened Biff and me is that we "have no social conscience".
Judging from pundit reactions, we should expect to see outrage on that one a few months from now.
I agree AC...
The Conservatives should take the high road. When they do that the Liberals will try to take an even higher road. Maybe from that higher road the Liberals can see that evil Neo-Con plan PMSHarper is hiding from us lowly plebes.
Oh yeah, Harper isn't an idiot, he won't rollover and play Broke-back.
Andrew's credentials, both as a conservative and as a journalist, are above reproach. For people here to attack him on both fronts is absolutely sickening. Shows how simple-minded people can be when they attack someone who is simply pointing out (with some much-needed honest appraisal) the problems with Harper's moves post-January 23, and the ultimately harmful approach his followers have taken in apologizing for, and justifying, every mistep he takes.
Remember the Jean Chretien and Paul Martin apologists? Remember how infuriated you were when their henchmen spun, bobbed and weaved - and got away with it? Remember how they consistently undermined and manipulated the opposition, and took credit where credit was most undeservedly undue? Remember their sick smugness and cobbling together victory after victory after so shamelessly running over your leaders and candidates?
Remember how you relieved you were when Harper got in, and how he was going to do things differently? Remember how he was going to change politics in Canada, because people were tired of the approach once embraced by Mulroney, Chretien and then Martin?
People...tell me you're in for better reasons than the last guys (who, believe me, convinced everyone that they were in it for better reasons than the LAST guys). Because so far, Harper has done nothing but what the last guys have done, only more viciously. And you're cheering him the way Chretien and Martin's most rabid supporters once cheered them on.
Here's a sad bit of news for the Tory kool-aid drinkers who have attacked Coyne: for all intents and purposes, you have a Liberal government in power. And you're twisting yourselves into pretzels trying to defend it.
Looks good on you all.
I don't know about you guys, but I am really starting to feel the love in this thread of comments. :)
I said this on Cherniak's blog and will say it again here.
If Harper wants his @#$@@@ majority so bad, why would he purposely use a word that presumably is so insulting to Quebeckers. The last time I looked, he was having Charest over for slumber parties while the other Premier's stood outside in the cold, their collective noses pressed against the glass at 24 Sussex, all wishing they too could be Stephen Harper's "special friend".
(I should add, if this term is so insulting, so insidious, why then aren't Quebeckers carrying pitchforks and torches in the streets or burning Harper effigies? Just wondering, that's all.)
We got to see Paul Martin and the Libs govern from within a minority position. Now we're watching Stephen Harper.
The contrasts are, to put it mildly, staggering. Harper's has gotten more done in 14 months than the Libs did with successive majorities.
Not the least of which is with respect to rebuilding a DND that those successive Liberal majority governments gutted to the point of outright collapse.
For years the most overused supposed slur by the Liberal Left against Harper was...and still is...is that he is an "ideologue".
The pot calling the kettle black stuff.
The Liberal lefties have spent decades turning this country into a veritable nanny state. Anyone who thinks Harper is going to undo this mess within the space of a relative few months, and do so from within the context of a minority government, is, frankly, living in Disneyland.
Now we behold the specter of an environmental act contrived by obsessed leftist ideological do-gooders that will trash Canada's economy down to third world status.
And they are in the majority.
A showdown looms large.
I hope Harper kicks the everlovin' #@%$##& outta these clowns.
Andrew - where was your indignation at the Liberals under JC when they did the EXACT same kind of thing to Stockwell Day.
The media were busy out-writing each other about Day's jet ski and laughingly writing stories about this upstart political party that dared try to become a mainstream entity.
Now when that entity has overcome all the bias and scare tactics thrown at it by the opposition Liberals, helped out by the media in this country, and have actually gotten their message out to the people through other means than the press, you have decided this is not fair?
I remember how the media portrayed Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper in his early days and how they ruminated that JC and Paul Martin were going to run over these guys.
Hypocrasy at its best, Andrew although I am sure you will consider me just another "tory partisan". Well I admit, it is rather nice to see how, despite the predictions of the media, Stephen Harper has overcome the snide jokes, the published pictures of him meant to evoke laughter and the stories full of innuendo and smears against him.
So yes, I am a Tory partisan and it is kind of nice to be in front for a change.
AC, "no Quebec strategy so failed". To have even a shred of credibility, you have to back that up. The PQ is in third place, worst showing in almost 40 years, to what failure are you referring?? Duceppe isn't even going through the motions right now. The man looks thoroughly beaten.
Have you scaled Mt. Simpson? Has your opinion now been elevated to the status of revealed truth? Is the only acceptable win vs. separatism the one where Quebec submits to a strong central (Toronto centric) government?
I have another question. If we have an election, and the BQ takes the same kind of thumping the PQ did, will it be a failure just because it was not done as a result of Quebec embracing your vision of Canada?
I remember watching a post-election documentary on the final days of the 2004 federal campaign.
It featured the national press gang huddled around Scott Reid and/or Tim Murphy, who were giving them their talking points for the day.
A few minutes later, the scribes were all tittering like schoolgirls about the big 'gotcha' they would stretch into a devastating four-day cycle to seal the Conservatives' fate. I was stunned at how they weren't even bothering to hide their partisanship.
Fast forward to the present... There's nothing that rings more hollow than the press doing the 'tisk tisk' on Harper playing hardball... after they said nothing while the Liberals flung poo for years.
The only difference now is that we're doing it too. Save your phony indignation.
The bottom line is that hardball sells. Nasty works. We tried nice and we got our noses rubbed in it by the Liberals and the press.
We're playing by your rules now and it's working. Why in God's name would we stop?
gwgm, would that have been the same documentary where Don Martin ended up blubbering like a little girl when his guy, Harper, lost?
WJM: Oh good, you remember it too. Which show was it? The National? Fifth Estate? I want to try to find a copy. I don't recall the Don Martin part but if true, then he's no better than the rest of them. Outnumbered, but no better.
I don't see what the hubub is about and I'm basing this on the fact that it isn't logical for Harper to attack francophones when he's been bribing the living crap out of them so he can win a majority.
If it was a "purposeful attempt to send a disgusting message in a defensible context" I don't see how this differs one tiny bit from a similar disgusting message in a defensible context that appeared in a Liberal attack ad which "oh so cleverly" insinuated that Canadian Forces personnel are mindless drones who'd actually put the safety of Canadians at risk by using the english words:
"Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities ... Canadian cities...Soldiers with guns....in our cities.....in Canada....we did not make this up ... Choose Your Canada"
Both the Liberal and the Conservative ads are designed to leave a lasting subconscious message to anyone who views them.
I'd ask readers of this blog and anyone who is commenting to decide if there is any difference.
Wells And Coyne:
Do you guys really want comments or not?
And as if you don't have partisans from all points of the spectrum commenting.
Change politics?
How about changing journalism too?
You both jumped yesterday, you both got egg on face. Deal with it.
I'll take the Conservatives under Harper any day over the Liberals.
The Conservatives may be playing political tricks, but the Liberals were evil.
The choice is easy.
I'm a partisan Tory. I don't like the budget and I don't like all the tactics that this government has used. But I still don't think anything they've done approaches what our predecessors did. Does that leave the Harper government open to allegations that they should "set a higher standard"? Of course. But it doesn't follow from that, that all sins are equal.
And I still dispute Coyne (and Cherniak and Wells) assertion that this "vendu tel quel" is some cover for a subtle allegation that Dion is a vendu. Google "vendu tel quel" if you don't believe me. It has a very clear and obvious meaning, an no one fluent in the French language would confuse "sellout" with "sold as is". Period.
On a broader note, I've been thinking about the Tory strategy for some time now and I'm starting to wonder if we haven't entered into the political equivalent of the nuclear age - that is to say, just like nuclear weapons can't be un-invented, neither will this type of political attack.
Unless, of course, as several people have suggest above, the public demands a higher standard. But they didn't with the Liberals, so why would we expect it with the Tories?
I feel like I'm part of a team that started playing a game because the other guys were cheating. Except ultimately cheating became the norm. Now the only hope is that they at least know they're cheating, and are only looking to put themselves in a position (a majority) to stamp out the cheating.
Andrew
Just imagine the HOWLS if the Liberals released a budget, that favored Quebec. Just imagine the OUTRAGE if the Liberals subsidized Quebec's aerospace industry. Just imagine the HORROR if the Liberals allocated 110 million for the Quebec City celebrations, three times more than the province.
With each passing day, the silence of the once disgruntled Tory base reaffirms the duplicity.
Boy, biff's an idiot, isn't he. And Charles: when Coyne links to examples of his outrage at Liberal ads, and you say he's only angry when Tories do it...well, how perfectly biff-like of you.
Oh yay, Paul Wells crawls out from under his rock to give another drive-by-smear. Thanks for the participation, Paul; the grown ups will take it from here.
Andrew, what the Hell? This is a pretty stupid post. Either it's woefully naive, or woefully misinformed or woefully hypocritical. Either or, it's woeful.
Just be glad that Wells didn't dip into his well-stocked F-bomb arsenal ...
Somehow, you think that if ebnough of you merely throw enough words back at Andrew, that he will somehow be rebutted. Over and over, in the "rebuttals" I see merely rehashes of the very arguments he wrote about in the first place. Please, continue to bring up past Liberal abuses over and over again, e.g. the "soldiers in our streets" commercial. It still doesn't make it right.
Lord Kitchener's Own hit the nail on the head. There are only two possibilities: that Harper's present spend-crazy pandering to Quebec and every other target demographic will stop and be replaced with true conservatism when he's got a majority, or it will not.
If it won't stop, then all you true-blue Tories are wasting your time, for he will continue on this present course for his political life.
If, on the other hand, Harper becomes a conservative only after being elected, ceases pandering to the provinces, and starts in with the serious tax cuts and reduction of government: well then I hope you'll all be a little red-faced over all those times you shouted "no, dammit, there's no secret agenda" back at the other parties.
Myself, I don't see how it'll stop. Harper's not just in it for one election, people. You disapprove of his pandering to Quebec now: how do you think Quebecers would react if he changed course abruptly after being elected with a majority? How do you think his Quebec MPs would react? And the most telling reason is that the small-c conservatives have nowhere else to go.
Oh, but I forgot the fifth defense: that "politics is a bloodsport," and this sort of thing just goes with the territory. Fair enough, I suppose: but doesn't anybody want to change politics any more?
Andrew,
The Liberal Party has proven time and again an extremely tough beast to put down. And yes, in its present manifestation it HAS to be put down for the sake of the country.
After more than twenty years in the political trenches I have learned bitterly how corrosive tactical politics can be to one's spirit. But it came with the realization that it is a necessary function not be undertaken by the squeamish.
The price of our peace is eternal partisan wonkishness.
chill dudes . . .. tempests in teapots
must be the early switch to daylight savings.
Time for some Braino to clean out the clogs and get back to some focus on some serious politics.
There will not be an election unless Liberal support collapses and the knives are deeply sunk in Dion's back.
Harper has a stable minority, only needs one party to support his governing and is presiding over a stable ( Danny Williams excepted) country. The taxation revenue is arriving in avalanche volumes and Harper's next budget should be able to provide HUGE tax relief . . . when the tax relief happens, then election speculation and concerns about why they are running "pre-election ads" makes sense.
Hint . . . there are no pre-election times any more. Harper has figured that out and has changed the political paradigm on the Opposition parties who still think its 1957.
Let's get back on topic kiddies . . . this thread is juvenile.
I've been on AC's side regarding the fact that the budget was a sell-out. But... it was still better than anything the liberals would deliver.
And harping about attack ads is pointless - we know the libs and cons hate each other, so what's the big deal if you can see it in the ads? All I care about is what they do in government.
Up until January I'd give them high marks, and since then... not so much. In some ways they decided to jump the shark.
fred: "The taxation revenue is arriving in avalanche volumes and Harper's next budget should be able to provide HUGE tax relief . . ."
Nice thoughts, but... you are dreaming in technicolour.
Andrew, dont forget, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Harper is doing just fine, given the hostile political environment he is operating in. This CPC supporter has lots of patience, and will continue to cut Harper a lot of slack as Harper judges where, and how fast to proceed in implementing policies. The "profligate budget" that you don't like, I view as a promise kept from the December 2005 Quebec City speech wrt resolving the fiscal imbalance. I expect to see more tax cuts, more spending cuts, more democratic reforms, more dismantling of the nanny-state when the time is right. And, as a political junkie, I am thoroughly enjoying the hardball tactics of Harper, the ineptitude of Dion, and the slow-motion train wreck of the Liberal Party. I've got another angle on these attack ads--Harper is appealing to a substantial chunk of voters who formerly voted Liberal. They are what I call the "political brain deads", who can be tricked into voting one way or another, based on some kind of simplistic emotional appeal.
There must be a lot of these voters out there, as how else to explain the Liberals' "soldiers in the streets" and the many other absurd ads.
This is way past surreal. But typical.The Liberal Party of Canada steals taxpayer dollars(not one Liberal charged), uses those dollars to "win" elections, and in the process, pervert our democracy.
It has a stated aim at the very highest echelon, of eliminating federal Conservative opposition in Quebec, to the obvious detriment of the country but luckily the political and financial benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada and its many freinds.
A Liberal Party that spent more than a decade taking unfair advantage of their political opposition, to put it kindly. From the petty( announce an election on a Sunday against Day) to the profane(pick one, there's certainly lots to choose from).
For them to complain is understandable, if laughable, but for Mr. Coyne join in? And so hysterically? Please. The unions at the Star and CBc are going to be after him for job poaching.
Why would he want to join the nattering nabobs of knuckledom that encompass what passes for a media in Canada today?
Troubles at the Post and auditioning for the Star? Water fountains at the CBC? Mid-life crisis? Conversations with Cuz?Cui prodest?
The past decade ( and the internet) has revealed Canada's media, and it is not pretty.
The past year has not been kind to Mr. Coyne. I believe he has more to worry about when it comes to credibility than Mr. Harper.
I believe he knows full well that the goalposts move considerably when Conservatives are in power. That the media is less disposed to the Conservatives.
That the Liberals play dirty and mean.
That the most fortunate and least deserving fat cats of this country are Liberal appeasing or appointed. And entrenched.
That Rat Packs and Kazoos result when Liberals are turfed.
That a minority Conservative government is the original dead man walking.
That the Liberals always have and always will stoop to whatever level it takes.
That if the Conservatives really did do something real insulting, that the Liberals are:
1. Pissed that they didn't think of it first.
2. Happy that they and their friends in the media will be able to be suitably offended.
That Rome wasn't built in a day. And they didn't have alligators like Ottawa.
That payback is a bitch. And much appreciated by this long demonized, long Trudeauped Conservative.
The precise action of anyone without context cannot usually be interpreted to have any meaning. It's like making a comment on the contents of a book by citing one sentence.
You cite one sentence and assume that nobody else has read the book.
I am sure both Andrew C. and Paul W are constantly astounded at how uneducated people are about current events but I think this is a situation where they don't give people enough credit in understanding what is going on here.
It isn't about a malicious attack that shows a lack of character on the part of Sephen Harper.
What we have here is a response to the constant rhetoric coming from the Liberals that Harper is in Bush's back pocket or Harper is in Big-oil's pocket or how the "neo-conservative" ideology (that is Bush like) of Stephen Harper is driving a "secret agenda". If the words here are not precisely as bad and do not say that Stephen Harper is selling out Canadians, then I would suggest that we are getting far too pedantic with the language.
If we can agree that they are just as bad, then explain what are the optics to the average shmo who witnesses a sucker punch against our national leader that is not responded to with equal ferocity?
My thinking is that the Prime Minister would look weak.
The average person understands this . The average hockey fan understands that a retaliatory shot in a hockey game can be excused as "part of the game". If you don't like the game, don't watch.
And by the way...even though the precise meaning of "neo-con" might not be as bad as "vendu", the implied meaning is much much worse. "Neo-con" has the implied meaning of fascist or nazi. Why aren't you writing about that?
First off, I'm a card carrying Conservative. I somewhat agree with Mr. Coyne on his points. However, the whole vendu diatribe is misplaced and belated. I do agree that I would've preferred a Conservative budget to the liberal one that we got. Mr. Harper can get away with it though, as there's no where else for right-of-center voters to put their vote. There's no where else for red tories to put there vote. There's no where for small-c Conservatives to put their vote. So we're all kind of squeezed while Mr. Harper courts the left-of-center voters for the next 10-11 months till the next Federal Election.
Although she is Franco Ontarion maybe you should ask your CBC "coguest" Chantal Hebert whether or not this is such an offensive word, whether it will play in Quebec.
What I am trying to understand is why a number of press people have taken up Dion as a charity....dont get me wrong I am not saying partisanship or advocacy(except for Lawrence Martin who might as well be run for office) but there is a general "dont be so hard on the guy" kind of spirit to this.
Look M. Dion is a nice man, he is a smart man, and he did yeoman's service under JC, even though I dont think they necessarily agreed on all aspects of the Federal governments role....I think he appeals to journalists because he is smart, sees the world as complex and gives real thought to things.
But being cold, so what. Harper does as well, as do many politicians. Maybe there can be some enlightenment, assuming you agree with the premise, that there is this general "lay off the guy" attitude. Is it the desire for a horserace? Is it genuine affection? Is it dislike of HArper (I dont think so I think he holds the same appeal to some journalists) Is it a case of I like people who are like me?
Just curious because while I like him, I dont get the defence, as opposed to observation.
The latest example of the media sucking and blowing when it comes to the Libs & Cons came in waves on last night's news.
In the past, Joe Clark was a loveable loser for getting caught with his pants down and losing a confidence motion in the House, en route to getting smoked at the polls. Trudeau was portrayed as a God for snookering the rube.
But last night on the news, Harper was a hypocrite for being ready for an election. He has a minority government. The Liberals and the NDP voted against the budget. But that is never mentioned.
No, the party line from the Libs and the MSM is that Harper wants a vote and his 17,000 sq. ft. HQ is proof.
Stephen Harper isn't Jo(k)e Clark.
As I said before, we're playing hardball now. Get over it. Actually, don't. The crying will only cost you votes. No one likes a wimp.
And all the tears in the world won't put a speedbag like Joe Clark back at the helm.
Stephen, you can add one more possible explanation to your list of reasons why so much of the media "have taken Dion up as a charity". They just can't admit that their impressions and expectations of Dion as leader have turned out to be so horribly wrong. Read this, from Andrew's Dec 4th column "Power slips from the old guard":
"His is a singular political persona; we have not seen anything quite like it before. In intellect, courage, and conviction he is a match for Mr. Harper, as he is also in diligence, perseverance and integrity. Beyond that he is a paradox: outwardly humble, yet immensely self-assured; gentle in demeanour, yet tough as nails; respectful of opponents’ views, yet divinely certain of his own.".
I'm still waiting for the first example of Dion being "respectful of opponent's views". And the
only thing I can tell that Dion is "divinely certain" of is to reflexively take the opposite position of Harper's. Andrew and others need to admit that Dion was underestimated for a good reason--the guy is a political dud. And for the sake of their credibility, these journalists should join in the pummeling that Dion rightfully deserves. Here's a suggestion for any Parliamentary Press Gallery members out there (Paul Wells, maybe ?). Try to get something SPECIFIC out of Dion, maybe ask him a simple question like, "If you become Prime Minister, what is the first piece of actual LEGISLATION that you will introduce into the House of Commons ?". I can safely speak for most junkies out there, that we need something more substantial than his monotonous and vacuous "three pillars" approach to governance.
I don't understand Coyne's crying, political advertising is a dirty rotten game, and the Liberals mastered it for years against the right wing parties (Manning, Day, and Harper)... Now that the Cons are actually good at it, it's all of a sudden wrong and a sad day in politics. While I would've liked some tax cuts from Harper, I'd rather have him in power than the Liberals robbing me blind !! Coyne, bend over and enjoy, Harper is here to stay !!!
The liberals used slurs like Uncanadian, Scary Hidden Agenda, Right-wing extremists for a decade or more. New low? My ass.
Is it right what Harper is doing? No. In a civilized country it would be unacceptable.
However, my partisanship is not so much pro-Harper as it is anti-Liberal.
I hate the liberals with the burning passion of a thousand suns for everything they are and I don't care one iota how low anyone from any party goes in smashing them to bits.
If Harper made these ads against any other party I'd be firmly against it but it's against the liberals.
Hypocritical? You betcha. Do I care? Not a chance.
Harper is grudgingly the best choice on offer at the moment but he's pissed me off so much with his liberalesque spending and pandering I may stay home on election day. That is, if it weren't the liberals who would benefit.
seriously Andrew,
this witch-hunt is a little tiresome.
There is lots to bitch at Harper about, but considering not one Liberal, nor any Quebecer, who has seen the ad in the month or so that it aired, but somehow, in comes swooping Andrew Coyne months later like he just discovered America.
I think you are fishing...
Chernamania and Paul Wells tagging along probably adds to my point...
I was a typical middle class Canadian in a mid-size city, small c conservative, which means I voted for JC for 5 years, and then the arrogance and the sleaze crept in. Shawinigate still towers above adscam in it's disdain for any norms of conduct, for how it's odor tainted everyting it touched from the RCMP to the BDC, and how it revealed an unelected "parallel government" in Quebec doling out my hard earned tax dollars on the basis of Party affiliation.
Then in the subsequent campaign, the Liberal Party (that group which had revealed itself as nothing more than money grubbing greasy little thieves) told me that I was a bad Canadian and that I didn't have Canadian values. I have never felt rage like that before or since. When you marvel at our blind partisanship, you fail to understand that small c conservatives are above all, patriots, and no slur could hurt worse this one. I have met so many more like me since, who had never joined a Party and voted Liberal as often as PC, who recognized that day who Canada's real enemies were, and who vowed to fight them at every turn.
I hope Harper is just warming up, and every time he mounts another head in his trophy room, I cheer and donate so he can buy more ammo. The Liberal Party is a cancer on Canada, Harper is our oncologist.
Ummm...I think I'm in the wrong blog. I'm looking for fondue recipes. Can someone help me?
A lot of what I would've said here has already been stated by others - in particular Stephen and Calgary Junkie, excellent posts.
Although I would consider myself a mildly partisan Conservative, I no longer feel much loyalty to this government, for some of the reasons Andrew mentioned.
BUt here's the thing, Andrew - As bad as the "vendu" slur might be, it does not compare to the longstanding Liberal demonization of very large chunks of Canada's population whom they consider to be fascistic, crazy, fundamentalist, and unassailably pro-Bush simply because they have a different view of certain issues and of how this country should be governed.
When the Conservative play dirty, they attack Liberal politicians. When Liberals play dirty, they actually attack their fellow Canadians - men and women who love this country but hate what the Liberals are doing to it.
I'm sure Dion doesn't like being called a vendu, but you know what? I didn't like having my political views called un-Canadian or scary simply because they differed from Liberal nanny-state propaganda.
Allow me to end this post with an obnoxiously partisan cheer: GO HARPER GO!
PAUL WELLS,
I'm an "idiot", so says you. We are left to wonder which of my statements are so contemptuous as to be the subject of you