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
Keep bookmarked posts here.
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 your scorn.
That the TO Star is partisan in favour of the Liberals?
That the media genarally and Andrew in this instance can be every bit as partisan as those he points the fingers at?
That the media being partisan instead of informing is an abuse of their position (news "you can trust" and all that), and are therefore much worse than those who are...well...partisans?
We don't know do we.
And I suspect we don't know because Sir Wells likes to sit in his media Ivory tower, free pesky comments that tend to scrutinize, which scrutiny appears to make him testy.
And so we have the drive by. Unwilling to enter the fray, but unable to resist the temptation to lash out.
I would say this behaviour is unbecoming, but we've seen it from you before, and so it is now just typical.
Coyne and Wells are two of the best, but they know Harper controls centre court and will for a while....Andrew simply wants a little action....he's bored!
Ha Ha Ha...
Apparently people don't care for your views on Quebec.
I have read you often and consider it time well spent. Lately I am second guessing myself.
Does that make me a partisan Conservative? Maybe.
As a Canadian I was hopeful that Mr. Dion would contribute to our Federal governance. He hasn't in any way, shape or form.
His most consistent message has been that the Conservatives are Bush toadies and that Big Brother is the best form of government. Nonsense!
I don't believe I need a Big Brother government to look after me. I am more than happy to help those Canadians that do need help.
Let's respect the BNA Act and let the feds look after their jurisdiction and the provinces' theirs.
Canada is a Confederation. Chretien proved that the Liberal approach to governing makes it a virtual dictatorship.
so when Gerard Kennedy says on national TV, twice in single week, that PM Harper "picks on people who wear Turbans", where is the MSM blowback because Kennedy called our PM a racist ? A RACIST !!!
Not a mention, not called to task, he gets away with it. Our Liberal loving MSM.
On the scale of slurs, racist trumps vendu any day.
But its OK if a Liberal is mean, that's "fair"
Harper can take a punch but he'll damn well throw back and the Liberal cry babies & the MSM loving sycophants get their tighty-whiteys all scrunched up their butts when he does.
Dion is a Liberal mommy's "that's not fair" boy. Than god he is not our Prime Minister and never will be.
Harper's a man who takes it and pushes back, with gusto.
Give'm hell Steve,
Wow, way to prove AC's point CPCers, that certainly illustrates which matters more to you all, expediency over principles despite all of the wailing to the contrary you , Harper, the CPC and CA/Reform before it made we Canadians have to listen to over and over and over again.
First point: Comparing a negative/attack ad in an election campaign to one outside of an election campaign is what the reality based community would call comparing apples and oranges. While yes they are both citrus fruits they are far from the same thing. In the case of the Liberal attack ad in question, it aired for a few days before the negative reaction it engendered (rightly so I might add) got it pulled. Here we are seeing Harper do something completely atypical and possibly unprecedented in our politics, he is using negative attack ads against his opposition outside of an actual election campaign, and he is not doing it just once but several times. So the "troops in the street" argument/defence clearly does not hold up to actual scrutiny.
On the "vendu" charge to begin with, it is offensive, it is clearly intended to appeal to the hard core nationalists within Quebecois society especially the soft nationalists that went with the ADQ last month (this is not saying the ad was writen after the election results, just that the same soft nationalist vote that went to the ADQ last month is the same group being targeted, nothing more). To try and claim otherwise simply shows ignorance or deception at work. I well remember that word and how pejorative it is in Quebec culture (especially for use against federalists by the nationalists which again illustrates who is being appealed to with this useage), and I rather doubt this was not known by those that shaped/formed these ads for the CPC.
I would also point out the comment about how Harper has done more in his 14 months than the Libs in 13 years is patently absurd. How many pieces of legislation did Harper put forward since he came to office? How many did the Martin Liberals? Then of each how many of those respective pieces of legislation were passed? I know as of about a month ago the Martin Liberals were roughly double the Harper CPC on both sides of that equation, and I rather doubt that has changed that drastically in the last month. Yet I see CPC partisans declaring it like it is proven fact, when they never actually back it up with you know, evidence/proof/facts. It is a mantra, not a fact. So if the Martin minority was able to introduce and pass roughly twice as many pieces of legislation as Harper then the idea that Harper has done more than the Libs in 13 years is so patently nonsensical only a partisan more interested in operating on faith than fact/reality could believe that one.
As to the tone, both within and without the HoC, it is interesting how everyone claims it is the Liberals that have coarsened things so, yet when one actually goes through the record it is Harper that appears to be the driving force, which since he embraced the GOP culture war concept for Canadian Conservativism in both policy speech and paper as CA leader and LOO only four years ago is no surprise. It is also that embracing of the "culture war" approach to politics that the GOP have pioneered over the last quarter century which gives legitimacy to those claiming Harper is using American/GOP political tools instead of Canadian ones.
Then we have the complaint about how calling Harper a "neo-con" is so wrong and without merit. Again though the actual facts show otherwise. Ever hear of the Calgary School? Ever read up on who were the main influences on that political school of thought which Harper and his closest advisors are a part of? Somehow I doubt it. For if you had you would have discovered that one of the primary influences on the Calgary school was an American political philosopher named Leo Strauss. Funny thing, Leo Strauss is the political philosopher whose teachings were at the core of the neoconservative worldview on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts. It is indeed Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, John Bolton and company that are the neocons and Straussians, and the fact that Harper's political philosophy is also strongly based on Strauss's writings make the charge that Harper is a neocon more factual than most political labels branded on politicians by their opponents.
Then there is the point that Lord Kitchener's Own made quite clear. Either Harper has turned into a traditional Liberal (if one goes by his actions in governing and his budgets and spending announcements) or he is acting like one to gain majority so he can enact his true beliefs/agenda. Either way though Harper is showing just how duplicitous he is being. Either he has sold out the principles he espoused to become first CA leader and then CPC leader and now PM, or he is lying now about what his current beliefs are so he can gain majority to enact the true agenda he believes in and espoused consistently from the late 80s until 2005. Which is when he suddenly he reversed multiple basic positions without once explaining why he was wrong then and right now, which only adds to the suspicion that this is a false front designed to get to majority and then the real agenda arrives.
It is too bad there are so many Conservatives these days so caught up in their opposition/hatred towards Liberals that they are willing to excuse such ugly and vicious tactics and strategies with nary a complaint. Harper has used some of the most toxic charges I have ever seen in the last 2 years alone. In that period he has falsely accused the Martin Liberals of buying MP votes with Senate seats using CPC edited recordings to make the claims appear valid and then covered it all up once the fraud was exposed. He in the last election and since branded Goodale as a crook because of an RCMP investigation alone (and just because someone is under investigation is not supposed to be an automatic proof of guilt, good thing for Stockwell Day at the moment) and slandered and smeared him for a year and then once cleared never once apologized. Indeed, Harper said it was Goodale owning the apology and yet again the CPC/Harper cult of personality swallowed it whole despite the absurdity of it. Then there was making the Income Trust promise and then breaking it nine months later when there had been no unexpected change from the course they were taking when the promise was made. Then there is the willingness to use the military as partisan props, recall trying to hide the returning dead solders by claiming it was to protect the families despite the families never being consulted? Remember the lowering of the flag stopped by Harper whenever we lost a Canadian solider in Afghanistan? Remember Harper himself trying to dodge a question about the way he fundamentally altered the judicial selections committee makeup and balance of power with the attempt to claim that Dion and the Lib position on those two anti-terrorism clauses sun setting meant they were in the control/pay of terrorist supporters/sympathizers specifically Sikh ones? Let us not forget how Harper wanted us in Iraq and when we didn't join took out that ad in the Wall Street Journal apologizing to Americans for our not joining them, that the majority of Canadians agreed and supported America in the Iraq invasion (despite the lack of actual evidence to support that fact, indeed there never was majority support for invading Iraq preemptively unless it was sanctioned by the appropriate international legal authority the UNSC).
Harper is proving out to be qualitatively worse than any prior party leader of any federal party I have ever seen, let alone as a PM. I never thought I would be nostalgic for Mulroney and Clark's days as PM but Harper is managing that with ease unfortunately. Yet we see here all this Harper boosterism and claims that this is no big deal. Well, we shall see, but the fact that Harper had the best year he will ever have as a PM (honeymoon period, no effective opposition and no leader of the Official Opposition for 10 months) and an economy in the best shape in decades thanks to the work of prior governments, the best fiscal situation an incoming new government has seen in decades, and they are flat with the election results of 14 months ago. That indicates that what Harper and the CPC have been selling is not being bought by those the CPC needs to get to buy in to get to a majority. The fact that despite what happened to the last election, running the worst election campaign I had ever seen, without a leader for almost a year, the Liberals have stayed fairly steady at their last election level. In other words Harper looks like he keeps hitting a ceiling while the Liberals appear to have a bottom floor/basement. Of the two places the latter is the better one since there is more potential to grow, while the only way Harper can win now is if he manages to totally discredit/destroy Dion, and I suspect that in the process of trying it will end up harming Harper and the CPC more.
If the CPC truly was a party of principles and honour they would denounce those tactics they decried when used against them (at least they think they have been on the receiving end of the same level as Harper dishes out, me I am not so convinced of that) when their own side uses it. If they were principled they would be up in arms when their side panders to Quebec just as they did when the Liberals did the same. Which was AC's point, and either you all missed it or you don't care, which only goes to corroborate his point about the willingness of too many CPC supporters to follow blindly in the cult of personality of Harper, he who can do no wrong and even when he does is only doing it to get real power when the true Harper will emerge.
As bad as the Liberals were, they were only corrupt in terms of money scandals for the most part; the CPC on the other hand looks ready to replicate the partisan takeover of the judiciary that we are seeing revealed in the USA by Bush and the GOP. While I do not like having tax dollars stolen, I find the idea of subordinating the judicial system to suit the partisan agenda of any political party/leader far more disturbing and worrisome. Since we know that Harper is emulating the GOP extensively, importing their tactics and strategies wholesale, has openly embraced the culture war politics (which btw requires hyperpartisanship to operate in, which is why Harper is the worst offender in the degradation of our political dialogue, because his preferred strategy requires it to work) and consulted extensively over the years with some of the most notorious GOP operatives this is not an unreasonable concern, although I bet the CPCers here will certainly think so. Harper has for years consulted with people like Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Frank Luntz not to mention affiliating with people like Dobson and Robertson via their Canadian branch outfits that have sprung up in Ottawa fairly recently, especially with Harper's win.
Harper cannot advance his true agenda/beliefs openly because there is not the support for them in this country. That was proven by the repeated failure at the ballot box of the Reform/Ca and the first time out for the CPC when they ran openly on that agenda, which is why suddenly Harper went "centrist"/"moderate" in the last election campaign. That is why he must run to the center to gain majority and then we will see the real Harper return but by then it will be too late. I would close with one last thing to all CPC/Harper supporters and fans out there, until fairly recently the way you feel about Harper and the CPC and what they are doing was the same for the supporters of the GOP, and look at where that blind loyalty is taking the GOP to these days, political oblivion for at least the next Presidential election and quite possibly for much longer than that. Is that where you want to end up after your blind support of Harper and the CPC? If not then maybe instead of taking what they say without questioning and automatically dismissing anyone that disagrees you do your own independent research, look into Harper's very long public record about his beliefs, and then see which side is spinning closer to reality (since all political sides spin by definition, it is by how much that is usually the important question, and by that standard Harper's CPC has taken spinning to a whole new level).
One final point, this totally faith based belief in the Liberal media bias/conspiracy against the Conservatives is also a GOP import, and has no more hard evidence (as in properly designed rigorous analysis instead of confirmation bias which is all I see CPCers present) supporting it than does for the GOP. Indeed the only two such studies that do exist showed no such thing, if anything they showed the Conservatives getting an easier ride than the Liberals, especially in the last election but even before then, but who cares about actual facts when faith/myth/belief is all you want/need to be a Harper/CPC supporter these days? It is a cop out crutch for explaining away all the troublesome realities that get brought up in that media which contradict the CPC/Harper spin.
Incidentally, the main reason the progressive community calls itself the "reality based community" is not because we named ourselves so but because Bush's own people did in an article to Ron Suskind several years ago to describe the media and political left in America.
The fact that Ms. Coyne is related to Andrew Coyne means nothing at all accept I'm sure he's proud of her. Face it, she has amazing credentials.
He's been a journalist long before she entered the political arena. My cousin was a butcher - does that mean I am biased to that over prepackaged foods?
Silly nonsense this "because she's a cousin he's biased".
What makes anyone think the separatists won't work harder now? When you at the bottom the only way to go is up. I'm not convinced this is the end of it. After all, Dumont "is not a Federalist" by any stretch.
Scotian the prophet,
try cutting down a few versus on the scripture,
do you actually think folks are going to wade through that?????
"do you actually think folks are going to wade through that?????"
I forgot, Conservatives prefer the 10 second soundbite, devoid of substance.
anonymous,
here's the short and sweet of Scotian's "substance":
CPCers are Republicans.
"Progressives" are based in reality.
the rest was filler aimed to bring the argument to an r14 insulation factor.
"Scotian the prophet,
try cutting down a few versus on the scripture,
do you actually think folks are going to wade through that?????"
It's an affectation that he's quite proud of. But Canadians are about to find out that Progressive is just another way to say pompous twit.
ok Scotian, thanks for being the 1 millionth person to take issue with me.
how the flying f*ck are the airing times of attack ads relevant? oh i get it. election timing. only the Liberal Party has the right to determine when to have one. so that Conservative attack ads can be best neutralized. AND, so that nobody has to mind actual policy issues. right?
by the way Andrew, i'm not by any means irrationally optimistic about what you may or may not be thinking of me and other Conservative voters, but are you actually proud to have someone like Scotian commenting on your blog? yeesh.
Scotian:
While I don't have time to address all the inaccuracies, hypocrisies, and hysterical hyperbole in your epic-sized post, I found the following excerpt especially funny:
"While I do not like having tax dollars stolen, I find the idea of subordinating the judicial system to suit the partisan agenda of any political party/leader far more disturbing and worrisome. Since we know that Harper is emulating the GOP extensively, importing their tactics and strategies wholesale, has openly embraced the culture war politics (which btw requires hyperpartisanship to operate in, which is why Harper is the worst offender in the degradation of our political dialogue, because his preferred strategy requires it to work) and consulted extensively over the years with some of the most notorious GOP operatives this is not an unreasonable concern, although I bet the CPCers here will certainly think so. Harper has for years consulted with people like Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Frank Luntz not to mention affiliating with people like Dobson and Robertson via their Canadian branch outfits that have sprung up in Ottawa fairly recently, especially with Harper's win."
That's a good one Scotian. "Subordinating the judicial system to support a partisan agenda"....does the name ROSALIE ABELLA mean anything to you, Liberal hack? The judge Andrew Coyne termed "Quota Queen", so left-wing and pro-union that she would make Maude Barlow blush...this was the person that the Liberal saw fit to serve on the highest court in the land.
I'm glad that the Conservatives are bringing some balance to the Supreme Court. If you want to fight an election complaining that Conservatives are appointing too many victim-friendly/criminal-unfriendly judges, then go right on ahead!
Your links between Harper and the Bush Republicans are, as usual with Liberal allegations, spurious. I note that you don't mention how enamoured the Liberal Party is with the likes of James Carville and Howard Dean. No, Scotian, Harper isn't learning how to fight elections like a Republican. He's learning how to do it like a LIBERAL - and that will include a dirty trick or two. As I mentioned above, when Harper plays dirty, he smears Liberal politicians. When Liberals play dirty - and let's be realistic, that's the only way those thieves know how to play - they smear entire segments of the Canadian population.
Keep working that "scary hidden agenda" angle. Toronto (or its proxies in Nova Scotia...) can no longer tell the rest of the country how it should vote, or who is properly Canadian and who isn't.
Let's just get to the crux of the argument, the Liberals made this ridiculously easy for the Tories. Having worked on both Liberal and Tory campaigns, I found this kind of attack to be something right out of the Chretien playbook. Chretien was able to get the Canadian people to see Stockwell Day the way he wanted them to, he just used the legitimate cover of an election campaign to do it. He used public money to run an election and serve a political aim. Stephen Harper's just using Conservative fundraising dollars to do the same thing without the expense of an election. The Liberals don't have the funds to realistically fight back, though they would if they could. Which is perhaps the reason for the media outrage, this smacks of bullying. It's the strong, smart, popular kid picking on the dork in glasses when he can't fight back. By picking Stephane Dion as leader, the Liberals made this remarkably easy. At this point, Dion should just be thanking God that Stephen Harper isn't vindictive enough to just call an election and wipe him out.
biff said...
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 your scorn.
"We"??? no biff, "WE" are not left to wonder, as every single statement you have ever made has been completely idiotic ;-).
good post AC. one wonders though, if dion is "selling out" quebec for the canadian interest, than doesn't that imply that harper is "selling out" the canadian interest for quebec. one would assume that a so-called leader of the canadian gov't would find the latter treasonous.
ahh cognitive dissonance and projection is bliss, i suppose.
canuckistanian
Change in politics?
Here's a suggestion, for a start.
1. Assume the average voter gets most of his or her information about politics from television news or the morning digest of news as opposed to detailed analyses or the blogosphere.
2. Have the news organisations that provide such digested information undertake, as a matter of professional and ethical standards, not to report contrived political puffery disguised as press conferences, unless the attending reporters are allowed to and do ask penetrating questions about the subject being advertised by the politician(s) giving the conference. Show coverage of such questions and answers, and hopefully the discomfort of the politician who is called on his or her BS.
Otherwise, I respectfully submit that the media attending passively at such press conferences are no better than the contrived audiences in many of those late night infomercials.
Recent examples of passive reporting:
-Mr. Baird's very scripted unveiling the new CPC HQ that they just had to prepare because of those Taliban-loving Liberals and their traitor-to-his-own people leader Dion recklessly wanting an election, especially when Dion is apparently down in the polls.
-Jason Kenney's press conference on behalf of Mr. Harper and his New Canadian Government to gleefully applaud the criminal charges against another Gomery witness and, of course, to smear all Liberal Party members as criminals by association.
queen's story said:
"Chretien was able to get the Canadian people to see Stockwell Day the way he wanted them to,"
oh really??? did he want them to see day as a goofball christian fundy who believes the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs hitched a ride in noah's arc??? or, did he want them to see Day as a political neohpyte totally lacking in any substance whatsoever??? gee, chretien really was masterful at manipulating reality to be, well, reality.
canuckistanian
Partisanship!? In a political debate? Unheard of!
But I wouldn't say it is a love of anything Conservative, a mirror of the frothy Liberal ramblings of Mr. Cherniak, rather, it is more a love of anything Stephen Harper.
Harper is seen as strong, capable, a real leader. Something Canadians have not had at the federal level for quite some time.
Face it AC, Canadians love the Harper. The love affair is just starting now, and will continue to get stronger.
--
Thus spake Harper on December 27, 2004:
"If you don't care about your principles - which are ultimately embodied by your core supporters - you'll quickly find that you have thin and insignificant support everywhere. You're everybody's second choice. And then you're not on the map either."
I've heard many Liberals comment that Dumont's not a federalist and I think I even saw one post on this thread mention it. Apparently, he's not loyal enough to Canada for their liking even though he's said he doesn't want a referendum and was quite happy to work within the framework of Canada.
Why is it OK to openly question the loyalty of a leader of a provincial party to Canada but not OK to question the loyalty of federal leaders to their province? Either way it's incredibly divisive so how is one worse than the other?
"Change Politics"? Of course people want to, and are changing politics, Andrew. It's you that's standing beside the highway wailing, as the traffic goes by.
If you don't LIKE the changes, say so. But don't finish off a post by saying "doesn't anyone want to change politics ...?".
Sigh. After a couple of days away from the net, I return to find out that my favourite columnist, apparently, has lost his freaking mind.
So far in this episode, as has been noted, the only referents to translation have been made by and on behalf of Anglophones. Happily, as I am currently engaged in immersive French language training, I have ready access to actual francophones. I asked three of my profs (who are paid on a daily basis to remind me incessantly of the importance of discerning between “celui” and “cela”) their opinions on the matter. Notably, one of the profs was a Quebecer of federalist leanings, one was a Quebecer of sovereigntist leanings, and the third was a francophone from outside Quebec to whom the whole sovereignty debate is frankly perplexing.
Notwithstanding the pronounced tendency of francophones to argue over the minute meanings and translations of various words, all three agreed that the appropriate translation of this term was “buy as is” with a connotation of “second rate”. All of them agreed that to read in the idea of “vendu” as in “sell-out” into the phrase was at the least a profound stretch that most francophones would frankly be unwilling to make. (Parenthetically, and tellingly, the prof with sovereigntist leanings mentioned to me that if the Tories were interested in calling Dion a “vendu”, they should come out and actually say it, since “that’s what a lot of francophones believe”)
Beyond this testimony (which, frankly, only serves to placate me – I'm just an anonymous internet commentator - for all anyone knows reading this, I could very well be making up the entire story or lying about it. Such is the internet), supplementary evidence is found in the reaction to the ads that has been engendered over the last month – or frankly, the lack thereof.
If there was a scintilla of truth behind the “vendu” accusations, even a minute possibility that this could actually be the case, this would have to mean that every single person in the Liberal leader’s office – heck, everyone in the Liberal party, INCLUDING DION HIMSELF, would have missed a massive opportunity to capitalize on this perceived faux-pas. The reactive script almost writes itself: the day after the ads debut, Dion appears in front of the press, and says something to the effect of: “Yesterday, the Conservative Party released a series of ads that targeted me. I am able to take criticism, but the language that was used in these ads specifically used extraordinarly negative, and what we in Quebec consider coded language. I was accused of being a “vendu” – which if translated into English has connotations of “sell-out” or “traitor”. (cue tear in eye) I have had a long career in politics, and I have been accused of many things. But one thing I will never apologise for is standing up for the rights of Canadians, both English and French. I will never apologise for that, no matter what language they throw at me”.
Et cetera. It would be “Chretien Face Ad 2007”. If the allegations made by Cherniak et al were remotely true, the people in Dion’s office would have to be morons of the most magnificent caliber to miss an opportunity like this. Knowing some of the people in that office, I can tell you that there are some extremely intelligent people there who would not hesitate to send this low heater not just out of the stadium, but out of the stratosphere. Over the past month and a half, if this were true, they could have done this at any time. The other plausible explanation is that this is just hysteria masquerading as analysis.
Now, I certainly expect to see stuff like this on Cherniak’s site (aka the batting cage of Candian politics), and maybe even from the easily provoked Paul Wells (who calmly and credibly translates the passage that Dion is a “traitor to his race”. I missed the Quebecois being declared a separate *race* - something even Jacques Parizeau at his most knackered wouldn’t claim… although perhaps it was covered by one of those motions of Parliament last fall) last but honestly it is a bit of a shock to read the purple prose above originating from the pen (ok, in the digital age, keyboard) of Andrew Coyne. The sneering condescension, for example, (“requires a blithe sophistry, or an automaton-like literal-mindedness, that in either case I cannot begin to fathom”) does not comport with the writings of the Andrew Coyne of old. Hell, I miss the Andrew Coyne of THREE FRIGGING WEEKS AGO, who argued, quite eloquently, I thought:
A civilized society, it seems to me, depends on two things: one, that people should not give offence needlessly; and two, that people should not take offence needlessly. Thoughtlessness, agreed, is not sufficient defence to justify the former, but neither does simple wilfullness justify the latter. It's not enough just to announce, "I'm offended." There has to be some sort of reasonableness test. Otherwise we get into these ludicrous situations where we ban the word "niggardly," simply because it sounds like another word.
[http://andrewcoyne.com/2007/03/eyes.php#1861456358295509286]
Not that I think anyone's going to read this as it's so far down the page, but boy have the CPCers done a good job of proving your point, Andrew.
AC, That is game set and match. You have a climbdown ahead of you, if you are man enough........
Wells, on the other hand will just stomp his feet like the spoiled brat he is.
Well I certainly can't match Anonymous for his USE OF BLOCK CAPS, if that's what you mean -- or his courage in manfully refusing to put a name to his prose. But as to the substance...
- the argument that "if this was an issue, Dion would have made it one," presupposes that Dion is the kind of adroit political player that virtually every member of this board would deny he was; that his complaints of ill-treatment would have been greated with sympathy, and not with the same sniggering cries of GROW UP, YOU BIG BABY in which Tory partisans appear to take such delight.
- the argument that it's okay, because it actually says "vendu tel quel," as I have pointed out elsewhere, misses the point: The use of vendu is what might be called "negative product placement" -- you drop the word in as a kind of nudge to nationalist voters, only with sufficient subtlety to give you plausible deniability.
- Why hasn't anyone in Quebec reacted, if it's such an insult? One, because they agree with it: that would take in most, if not all, of the francophone media. Two, because it's not an insult to Quebecers, as nigger is to blacks: it's an insult some Quebecers hurl at other Quebecers. Three, because anyone who did take offence runs up against the problem of plausible deniability: it's a difficult case to make, especially if you're the victim of it.
But the point (sigh) isn't the ad. It's the sort of partisanship run amok that can't admit there's anything wrong with the ad, or with anything the government ever does. As we have seen from the moment David Emerson and Michael Fortier were appointed.
AC:
Dion may not be particularly politically adroit, but he's a complete buffoon if he's not surrounded by people who are. That they haven't told him to make an issue of it speaks volumes.
I'm partisan towards the Conservatives, but I didn't like the budget, and I think the Fortier appointment reeks to high heaven (though I have no problem with Emerson).
But that being said, I have no issue at all with the Conservatives playing hardball with Dion and the Liberals. The media HAD given Dion a free pass before the first campaign, and I don't blame Harper one bit for getting the alternative message out there. It's proven to work, and I agree with others that have posted here about the overall evilness of the Liberal party. Frankly, it looks good on them to be on the other end for a change.
Seriously if this was really as scandalous a comment as Coyne makes it out to be, why hasn't Dion been in Parliament crying crocodile tears and begging for an appology from the mean old PM. That's exactly what he does every time he's called any other sort of name. This is just manufactured umbrage.
Ever notice how hardline conservative partisans refer to worn-out conservative generalizations from a bygone era way more than anyone else?
Funny, that.
"But the point (sigh) isn't the ad. It's the sort of partisanship run amok that can't admit there's anything wrong with the ad"
It wasn't what you said it was. You and Cherniak went wild, Wells chimed in. It isn't even running anymore. You didn't even have the right ad! Nice use of all your considebale journalistic talent Andrew!
Then you're ticked and attacking those that call you on it?
Rich!
AC, it's me, the longwinded anonymous commentator from earlier. Glad you saw fit to rebut my arguments, with the unfortunate gratuitous shot at my "courage" for posting anonymously. Frankly, I'm not sure what courage has to do with my posting anonymously, or what either has to do with the veracity of my arguments, but you're free to run down me and all other readers of your site who elect to post anonymously. Your site, your rules. Although may I suggest if you find those of us who elect to post anonymously lacking in courage and credibility, that you elect to delete the option to post anonymously from your site.
Also didn't get the latest l33tsp34k memo on the use of caps - my bad. I WILL FIX IT IN POSTPRODUCTION!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!ONE
With due respect, I continue to believe you are in error in your take on this issue. Couple of things in particular.
First point: my point wasn't (just) about Dion being a poor political player, it's that everyone around him would also have to be a poor political player for this to happen. For example, Mark Marrisen, who guided Dion from a distant fourth place to capture the leadership of the Liberal party, and is now in charge of the national campaign. You're telling me that he wouldn't be able to make hay of this if the Conservatives were really to call Dion a traitor/sellout? Or Senator Smith, or Warren Kinsella, or anyone associated with the past 70 years when the Liberal party of Canada was the most successful political entity in the Western hemisphere? After what the Liberals did to the Conservatives with the "Martin supports child porn" escapades of 2004? It strains credulity, to say the least.
Your second point surrounding the "negative product placement" of vendu tel quel, to me, misses my criticism - bolstered by my personal interaction with a number of francophones (again, don't rely on my anonymous words - try it out for yourself with francophones you know and love) - that it really isn't at all a valid comparison. Again, it's like saying someone is "dogging it" and imputing that the person has canine characteristics. It does not appear credible. Your own argumentation from three weeks ago would appear to lay out the case for a higher standard than "kind of looks the same, ergo the same". Again, in this case, I defer to the native speakers of the language for the ruling. YMMV.
Finally, with respect to your responses as to why no Quebecers have reacted as yet, I think that the explanation that this is pretty much a made-up translation error on the part of anglophones kind of trumps the other three explanations as the most likely explanation. You’re telling me that basically everyone who saw the ad in Quebec – francophone or anglophone - including, say, the editorial board of the Montreal Gazette, Chantal Hebert, Andre Pratte, you name it – either has it in for Dion, has a problem, however oblique, in expressing opposition to the vendu concept, or I guess isn’t Quebecer enough to take umbrage (?). I call Occam’s Razor here.
It’s funny that you bring up the Fortier/Emerson parallel here. That indeed was the last time I thought you were off base on an issue with respect to this government, and when you stuck with it in the face of what I thought were reasonable attempts by Conservative partisans to rebut. Then as now, you took a relatively derisive tone towards people who disagreed with you (the ubiquitous references to “Checkers not chess, Harper’s three steps ahead of you”, etc) which was frankly surprising from a writer and intellect of your quality. There are those Conservative supporters who are disappointed in the budget and other policy planks of the government who may nonetheless feel as if criticism of the Conservatives on this issue is unwarranted and off-base. I daresay they have the right to differ without being painted as unthinking automatons.
Looking forward to your next column.
So Mr. Coyne,
After writing so many articles against the budget, do you still believe the press is "not the opposition"? Or have you taken that back?
You've been one of the rare commentators to open your blog to public comments.
Don't get upset when it backfires when your hypocrisy, partisanship and sloppiness occasionally show up.
Dear Anonymous (the last one, I mean):
I have no problem at all with reasoned criticism, as I think I've shown. It's the ones who shriek things like "lost his freaking mind" who perhaps betray an unreasoning sensitivity to criticism.
Present company excepted, of course. Though I do wish people would attach their names to their flames.
AC: Understood. I have no idea what would drive someone to exclaim such a thing (in caps, nonetheless!). Perhaps it's my blind partisanship, or possession of blithe sophistry, or it might be my automaton-like literal-mindedness.
TOUCHE!
AC
Since you've tossed another log in the fire I'll oblige.
1)Kudos for having comments on your blog unlike other columnists some of whom lurk around this site;
2)If, as you say, your point is about partisanship, you've certainly picked a bizarre topic to make your point. The Liberal's conduct in the last several elections and in particular their absolutely beyond the pale villification of Conservatives and the conservative point of view, was done mainly, though not exclusively through attack ads;
3)As you concede in your third point, assuming that the intent of the ad is to insinuate the term vendu and all it connotes, it's part of the discourse in Quebec (you could have added that it's an insult Liberals have hurled at Liberals);
4)The Liberals meanwhile in previous campaigns have actively Christian-bated. In their blind arrogance they painted right-of -center views as un-Canadian and outside of political discourse. The media lapped it up and spewed it out on the Canadian Public. It looked like we were on our way to becoming a one-party state. Note the number of your colleagues who joined the government ranks.
5. If any further evidence is needed that the example you used to prove your point is ill-chosen, one need look no further than to see who picked up the ball and ran with it: Jason Cherniak, the poster boy of partisanship, Canada's own Baghdad Bob.
Well Andrew, I think it's time for you to choose a new career path. Your partisan reporting on the blood sport is going to make you ill. Every time I see you being interviewed you have this sour disgusted look on your face. (Especially when the Conservatives are up in the polls).
As another poster wrote "take a pill".
It is puzzling that this government is as violently partisan as it seems to be. After all, they are indistinguishable from the Liberals on everything from social to fiscal policy. It makes them look pathetic and cowardly when they attack Dion so viciously, all the while implementing the Liberal platform.
They've even appropriated the
Liberals' stupid slogans("Promises made, promises kept"). And what's with that "Getting things done" slogan? I'm sure Hugo Chavez "gets things done" too. It is clear that this government cares more about its own optics than it does about conservatism or simply good government.
Every time I see you being interviewed you have this sour disgusted look on your face. (Especially when the Conservatives are up in the polls).
======
Funny I've read all Coyne's columns in the past 3 years and i would bet 1 million that Coyne voted Conservatives in the last election.
I'd consider myself a small-c conservative and a stalwart Conservative supports, but I have to agree with AC that they have become too partisan. The thing is, in a minority government situation I can excuse a lot of things that can be justified to accomplish their goals. At least, I could if they would just accomplish some conservative goal at some point. At the very least, with Harper's background in economics I would have been happy had they introduced a conservative minded budget, and could have overlooked just about anything for that single accomplishment. But we didn't even get that. It appears that the goal is a majority government and everything else is expendable. I hated Paul Martin for that attitude, and although I still like Harper, we better get one heck of a conservative turnaround if they accomplish a majority.
which since he embraced the GOP culture war concept
Yeah, I tuned out right about there. Adjust tinfoil hat, adjust again.
"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.".
That pretty much tells you all you need to know about where Andrew's coming from when it comes to Dion.
It wasn't what you said it was. You and Cherniak went wild, Wells chimed in. It isn't even running anymore. You didn't even have the right ad! Nice use of all your considebale journalistic talent Andrew!
Then you're ticked and attacking those that call you on it?
Rich!
Andrew, you screwed up. You're wrong on this. Just admit it and move on. Talk about stubborness and 'partisanship,' indeed.
He drinks Vendu. With a lamb entree. In our cities. In Canada.
Wells/Coyne are beginning to remind me of McMahon/Trump at Wrestlemania, though Wells has a head start on Coyne on the headshaving finale.
Sincerely,
Cowardly
I have read all of your columns, Andrew, since you started writing at the National Post (I'm a charter subscriber). I rarely disagree with you much, and when I do (usually about decentralization) you will have noted over the years here at your web site that I do so in a gentlemanly, orderly fashion, as I did on the topic of the most recent budget, and, indeed, above.
Nevertheless, as can also be seen above (if the behaviour of blog commenters is a normative indication), many or perhaps the majority of people are not interested in reasoned debate; they are interested in pissing matches and cock fights.
Therefore, in order for any aspiring leader to become Prime Minister, especially with a majority government, he must feed a certain amount of raw meat to that portion of the electorate that is too stupid to engage in intelligent discourse.
For example, when on his first day in question period as leader H. M. Loyal Opposition, Mr. Dion calls Mr. Harper a "far-right neo-conservative", one can see how Mr. Harper must play that part of the game too, lest he be steam-rollered by your salivating colleagues in Canada's main-stream media.
You don't like it, Andrew, and I don't like it, but unless our effort to change politics involves replacing democracy or removing amygdalae, we're stuck with pandering, at least to some degree, to the voting stupid, for as H. L. Mencken said, "Democracy is the notion that the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
AC doesn't come right out and say why he finds that stale-dated ad "outrageous". It has little to do with a pious wish that politics should be done differently or that the ad is particularly negative, as negative ads go. That's just snow.
The reason for his outrage is that the ad appeals to, and is aimed at, those Quebeckers who don't buy into the Trudeau vision of Canada. That vision in Mr. Coyne's case is dogma of which he is, along with Paul Wells, a true beleiver: the Trudeau vision of a perfectly symmetrical Canada. It's never worked, it doesn't fit, it exacerbates linguistic tensions particularly in Quebec but also outside Quebec but it has apparently boundless appeal to abstract pie-in-the-sky types like Trudeau, Dion and our dear Mr. Coyne. They get outraged any time anybody dares dissent from it. It also explains why he is such an unabashed fan of Dion even though he is the most hopeless politician on the federal scene since the hapless Joe Clark.
That also explains his puzzlement as to why we're not as outraged as he is with the stale-dated ad. Mr. Coyne, the answer to that mystery is not all of us share your cult-like adulation of the Trudeau's vision of the Canadian federation.
Hands up, who actually gives a fig about vendu, voodoo or vindaloo.
For me, Quebec is a dead issue. Leave, stay, whatever.
Canada is steadily unraveling as a country: culturally, politically and economically. Big countries with small populations don't last long, especially if the ruling elite's idea of nationhood is the weak broth of multiculturalism and PC bromides.
Attention Coyne Readers:
Louis is correct.
Thank you and have a nice evening.
hey we need a way to identify the anonymous posters. for example, if Andrew set the comments so that we can see the time for each comment down to the minute, then we can identify "Anonymous 14:15" from "Anonymous 11:28" or something. because that "PC bromide" comment was really awesome.
oh yeah and something else. is vendu supposed to earn bonus points with the separatists? if so, it sure isn't working. vendu or no vendu, the Conservatives can never seem to fraternize with the separatists as much as the Liberals have been when the Clean Air Act was panned by everyone. man it was like they were long lost brothers and sisters. but hey what do i know? i'm a don't-care-about-Quebec Conservative partisan.
"hey we need a way to identify the anonymous posters. for example, if Andrew set the comments so that we can see the time for each comment down to the minute, then we can identify "Anonymous 14:15""
Can I get a HELL ya?
"t also explains why he is such an unabashed fan of Dion even though he is the most hopeless politician on the federal scene since the hapless Joe Clark."
I like to think of Mr. Celine Dion as sort of a Gallic Mr. Bean with some peculiar starch in his cotton briefs.
"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"
So I suppose, then, that when Peter McKay told Alexa McDonough to "stick to her knitting," the application of the term "knitting" to a socialist female couldn't possibly mean anything other than that Peter wanted Alexa to be kept barefoot and pregnant. Why, you'd have to be a fool not to think so.
I really wish people would stop accusing Andrew Coyne of being, of all things, a Liberal partisan (??)
How absurd can you get? Have you read Andrew's columns for the past year? the 5 years? 10 years? A partisan Liberal he is not, a partisan ANYTHING he is not, and yes I agree with Quebecois Separatiste that he almost certainly voted Conservative in the last election.
I agree with many here that Andrew has way over-reacted on this one and his hands on the keyboard probably acted before his head did. Happens to us all at times, except when it happens to a nationally-respected political columnist who allows anonymous blogger comments, this kind of "acting before thinking" takes on a whole new level. In any case, I think Andrew will eventually have to come down from his pedestal on this one and I'm prepared to give him some slack.
Disagree with Andrew if you must, but calling him a Liberal hack or partisan or media manipulator or whatever only compromises your credibility to rebut his arguments.
Hands up, who actually gives a fig about vendu, voodoo or vindaloo.
Thank you for this. I was contemplating what to have for lunch tomorrow. I've decided to go for Indian food :)
By the way, to all "Anonymous" posters...
You can give yourself a screen name and remain anonymous. When you post your comment, simply click the radio button next to "Other", instead of the one next to "Anonymous", and give yourself a name. You don't have to register for a blogger account or have a webpage, and it makes it easier for the rest of us to tell everyone apart (obviously).
Hands up, who actually gives a fig about vendu, voodoo or vindaloo.
Thank you for this. I was contemplating what to have for lunch tomorrow. I've decided to go for Indian food :)
By the way, to all "Anonymous" posters...
You can give yourself a screen name and remain anonymous. When you post your comment, simply click the radio button next to "Other", instead of the one next to "Anonymous", and give yourself a name. You don't have to register for a blogger account or have a webpage, and it makes it easier for the rest of us to tell everyone apart (obviously).
Vitruvius,
I beg to differ. The game never changes until somebody changes the game. Somebody has to give people a contrary example: they'll never learn to reward good behaviour and punish bad until they're given a choice between them, until they know what each looks like.
Which means first accepting that this may not be a winning strategy in the short term, or even in the long; that there are more important things than winning, among them dignity, honour and fairplay; that it doesn't matter what the other guy does, or did, or will do; that all you can control is what you do. I am astounded that this should even need saying, but so many people on all sides seem to have bought into the win-at-any-cost mentality that infects politics, as it infects sports.
So yes, when it comes to the "blood sport" of politics, I advocate unilateral disarmament. I am in favour of telling people what you would do if you were elected, and trying to persuade them to support you on that basis. I am against anything that departs from that. That may not be the way to win elections, but that's not my job.
Louis is correct, and chester is correct in saying that Louis is correct.
i believe some of the disgust with partisanship also goes back to the many ridiculous defences we saw of the Tory budget. The last 2 sets of ads and the budget are symptoms of what (i suspect) Andrew and Paul Wells feels is a shocking abandonment of principles. If the the CPC is prepared to play by "Liberal rules" and run these awful ads then we shouldn't be claiming on the usting that we're a party prepared to at least try and do things differently. That doesn't mean we have to be boyscouts, but not being a boyscout doesn't mean you have to be amorally whoring for power either. As a party the CPC has slipped to far to the latter and to defend this by saying "that's what Chretien/Martin did" you've conceded the argument on its merits and are grasping for excuses.
A middle ground would be better... attack ads that reinforce what we beleive in with negative facts about the other guy free of schoolyard snark.
Same with the budget. If, strategically, that spending was needed to put aside various Quebec issues, then fine. But throw your core supporters qua saphhors comments above a few bones in another area.
This is unfair!!!! I have been outraged about this since many weeks now, but nobody could tell because I am always outraged by the actions of the ultra-right wing, neoconservative no social conscience bully that is that bad man from izzy moneyland.
Ahhh, AC reccomends the Bob Stanfield strategy of unilateral disarmament....lovely. Hey wait a minute, didn't your hero use this as a sign of weakness, and reallly start the whole win at any cost thing.......with a Zap! I recall. Tell you what AC, we;ll down arms right after them, til then, bugger off, it's Grit season.
"I really wish people would stop accusing Andrew Coyne of being, of all things, a Liberal partisan (??)"
I agree.
The one thing I accuse him of, though, is apparently not having read any FRENCH commentary on those silly ads. Here are some samples (and no, I won't bother to translate them, because Mr. Coyne is surely fluently bilingual).
Gilles Toupin, La Presse:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070402/CPACTUALITES/704020555/5910/CPACTUALITES
"Les six publicités lancées par le PC en février dernier (trois en anglais et trois en français) insistaient notamment sur les liens de Stéphane Dion avec Jean Chrétien et Paul Martin, tout en rappelant l'épisode peu glorieux du scandale des commandites. Ces publicités tentaient également de démontrer que Stéphane Dion était un mauvais leader."
From Michel C Auger:
http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/mcauger/?p=70214100#more-70214100
Le Mercredi 14 février 2007
Les pubs anti-Dion : Subtil comme un bâton de baseball
"... Mais ce qui dérange le plus, c’est la différence entre le ton des deux campagnes. En anglais, on présente des faits – à la sauce conservatrice, bien évidemment, mais des faits tout de même – et on invite les électeurs à y penser.
En français – dans une réalisation beaucoup moins professionnelle, au demeurant – on fait surtout appel à l’émotion. Sous le couvert de l’humour – qui n’excuse pas tout ! – on dit tout simplement aux Québécois combien ils devraient détester les libéraux. Avec la subtilité d’un coup de bâton de baseball en plein front. ..."
From a site called Ameriquebec, some guy called Dave commenting:
http://www.ameriquebec.net/2007/02/15-publicites-des-conservateurs-on-traite-le-quebec-differement.html
"Comme vous pouvez le voir, le ton est généralement léger, l'humour employé est mesquin, les messages sont négatifs et désapprobateurs. Les priorités abordées sont le déséquilibre fiscal, l'argent, l'environnement, mais surtout le passé scandaleux du parti libéral, thème principal de deux des publicités, et mentionné instinctivement dans la dernière aussi."
Nowhere is there any jeering or cheering at the phrase "vendu tel quel."
As penance, you are condemned to watch a full week of the TQS hit Loft Story:
http://www2.loftstory.tqs.ca/emissions/loft_story2/
As you say, Andrew, "That may not be the way to win elections, but that's not my job". Aesthetically, emotionally, in my heart I agree with you. Be that as it may, one of Mr. Harper's jobs is to win a majority in the next election. If one wants pandering to the masses to not matter thereto, then one must change the masses, not unilaterally stop playing their game of selling their vote to the most pandering bidder.
Coyne:
I find it quite disgusting that you'd even dare to bring this up. I guess with the Left it's alright to trash Stockwell Day and his Christian beliefs, but never say anything about Dion. Give me a break. I hope the Tories not only bring out one more ad like this one, I hope they bring out a hundred of them.
AC: I had an idealistic view of politics when Preston Manning was leader of the Opposition. I never cared that he wasn't PM. Paul Martin scooped the Blue Book and the big deficits went away. I was happy that the country seemed to be regaining its stride.
And Mr. Manning could hold his head high because he carried himself with dignity and class.
He was a good man and even though he never became PM, he deserved credit for setting the agenda for Canada's fiscal recovery.
But that's not how he was treated. No, the reality was that the Liberals and the media portrayed him to be the Grand Imperial Wizard of the Klan. He was characterized as a person to be feared because he was bookish and believed in God (I'm an athiest, BTW). He didn't deserve what he got.
All of this is to say... You can't have it both ways. You can't put the onus on the Conservatives to be different and play by a higher set of standards when the MSM - the supposed watchdogs on the mechanisms of our democracy - are largely Liberal operatives.
You say you want the "good city." If so, then you (the MSM) need to do your part. Under our current political rules, the philosopher-kings would be sliced and diced by the Liberals and their media hatchetmen.
It's easy to say that you want the Conservatives to continue to be moral lemmings, but it's not going to happen. Not until you guys (on the whole) start acting like impartial referees.
It might be a 'chicken & egg' thing, but from where I sit, the failure of the media came before the failure of the politicians.
The Liberals have thrown a lot of slime over the years. And as the level of debate was heading to the gutter, the press abdicated their duties and took to flinging crap alongside their masters.
So it rings a little hollow, all of the sudden, to hear you scream 'foul' - where none exists - just because the slime is going the other way.
And is it any wonder that Ed Broadbent was chosen as the best prime minister that never was. Mr. Broadbent is exactly the kind of politicain that AC is talking about.
He fought above the belt, and was dismayed on how much politics has descended into name calling, out-right lying, and got-you games. Yes, politics has become a blood-sport, and in the long run, the electorate won't turn away necessarily, but opt to protest votes.
I am not a liberal or conservative supporter, but from that progressive left, I find the retorts from both partisans - pots calling the kettle black - an apt metaphor.
I mean, from a left prospective, how rich of Lord Kitchener to complain that Harper pulled off a Liberal type budget and got away with it. Hello, how many times have the Liberals campaigned on the left and ruled on the right (fiscally)? The same strategy, sorta, Harper is pulling now, and that you find offensive? Is there something wrong with tricking voters into voting for a party that is not up front?
And on the other hand, I find the demeaning name calling and just out right meanness of many partisan Harper supporters beyond my sphere of comfort. I look at those comment boards, for instance, on the G & M, and if their comments, mannerisms, and beliefs are what Harper and company cultivate and share values with - well Harper will never get a majority in Canada. To me it would be unleashing the crudest, mean-spirited and nastiest sort of social and political cultural underbelly. So when Harper supports here, decry that the liberals have painted them wrong and they are just getting back, I say, look on how Harper supporters display and conduct themselves - liberal partisans don't have to do a thing because of this prominent and vocal horde.
Ryan,
That's awfully Christian of you. Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"?
Everyone else,
I am not the media. Or the MSM. I just write my own column. The rest of them are written by other people. Take your complaints about "the media" to them.
I don't think we can change politics. Its dirty and negative (bloddsport). You have a select memory against the disgusting Liberal attack ads and accusations against Harper for the past two elections. I think bad behavior breeds bad behavior. The Liberals perfected the art of dirty disgusting attack ads and Stephen Harper is returning the favour which really deosn't bother me if it means the Liberals won't return to power to do what they've been doing for the past 13 years which is nothing but things I hate. Reform was supposed to be principled but when in the halls of power, it changes even those principled individuals. I think Richard Nixon disgraced himself in Watergate because of his experience in the 1960 election and losing what many think was a stolen election. Apparently you are now a Liberal Andrew Coyne and don't seem to like the idea of a Conservative majority. I fear Stephane Dion and his extremist left-wing agenda more than Stephen Harper.
For Coyne, to serve as a useful reminder of one of life's eternal verities and to buck him up after all the twisted justifications of the unjustifiable, bitter reproaches & mad attacks that are sadly only to be expected from such folk, a reminder from one classic 19th century liberal to another:
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
- John Stuart Mill
By the way in speaking of Chretien you remember the 2000 campaign don't you? Stockwell Day was ridiculed for being an evangelical Christian, I remember my friend thinking it was horrid we could have a Christian man as PM. And remember what Warren Kinsella did by mocking Day with a dinosaur. And Chretien insulted my home province of Alberta by saying he didn't like doing business with people out west. How's that for disrepectful. Instead of insulting a politician, insult a region. I think I rest my case on your definition of new low in Canadian politics.
You know, folks, how when someone is trapped in a burning building and a bunch of people grab a blanket and stretch it out and the endangered person jumps into the blanket thus saving their life?
Government well done is like that blanket, writ large.
Unless the people holding the blanket are pulling in different directions, the whole plan falls apart. You can't just stand around under the endangered person's flight path hugging and singing Kumbaya, because then one or more of you is going to be smacked topside the head by a non-trivial amount of gram meters per second, resulting in the endangered person plus others (possibly you) being hurt, rather than the endangered person being helped.
That is less than optimal.
It is human nature to want to help the endangered (except in self defense, of course). But the problem is, we can't blanket the world with blankets, because: (1) there would be no room left for people to stretch them out any more, (2) the energy required to stretch them out would overwhelm us, (3) you would quickly find a proliferation of people who are pretending to hold up their corner of the blanket but in reality are jumping into it for fun, thus actually further endangering the endangered person and you, and (4) the insidious greed of the Department of Blanket Licensing would destroy the whole exercise.
Each of us are just pulling on our own corner of the blanket design problem. As John Stuart Mill said, "Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. All errors he is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to do what they deem his good."
Thank you Andrew. This is yet another piece I will send smug Canadians to when they start patronisingly waxing poetic about how wonderful politics is in Canada as opposed to the US.
AC: You're right. You're not 'the' media. However, you are an influential member of it. You point out the positive and negative qualities of politicians almost every day. Why the reluctance to do the same for your peers? They are as much a part of the overall problem as the Liberals and Conservatives.
I'm in media press rooms (sports) all the time. There are some honest reporters. But most are baby elephants who are led around by their stomachs, willing to write and say anything the people they're kissing up to want them to say, as long as lunch is served.
It appears to be the same in your world, albeit with bigger carrots (i.e. Senate seats).
We have the system we have because the philosopher-kings are chewed up and spit out by bad people whose actions are legitimized to the lazy masses by so-called journalists.
Step 1 in cleaning up our dirty system is realizing that the press isn't an impartial juror. You could help. IMO, by doing so, you would be doing your country the ultimate service.
On the downside, I don't imagine you would have your jobs for very long. But as you said, "The game never changes until somebody changes the game."
By the way, thank you for creating a forum where we can discuss our passion.
It's interesting to see how much trouble can be stirred up over a word, such as "Vendu".
I recall Mr. Martin's supporters screaming this word at Mr. Chretien during the 1990 leadership convention in Calgary.
It seems that most of the "slurs" that the Tories are using are derived from the Liberals own bag of tricks or are just playbacks of senior Liberals own speeches.
So, while the Tories have descended to the Liberals level a bit, they have a long way to go before they bottom out.
I will agree with Mr. Coyne when the Conservatives start to match the garbage that has been pushed at them the last 4 or 5 elections:
Guns pointed at the screen and shooting viewers.
Soldiers in our streets, with guns, ready to take over for Mr. Harper.
Terrified women rocking outside hospitals waiting for abortions.
Selling out Canada to evil Bush
Harper is a liar and cannot balance the budget using his plan.
Aircraft carriers, remember that one?
Seeing a single word, “Vendu”, a word used by the Liberals to describe themselves, pales in comparison.
Anonymous, don't forget today's entry, where Jason Cherniak cobbles together a video suggesting that Harper is hoping for Canadian troop casualties.
Andrew, I await your indignant outrage, though you'll have a tough time finding the video since Cherniak has bowed to pressure and pulled it from his site and from YouTube.
john g: You read my mind. I will count the seconds until AC explodes with outrage over this one.
We've seen what happens when someone utters the word "vendu" within 100 miles of a Liberal.
So it will be interesting to see if we're witness to the same level of outrage, disgust and indignation when a rising star Liberal says that the Prime Minister of Canada is HOPING for Canadian troop casualties.
You Liberals are putting your necks in the noose by making heroes out of nutty Canadian versions of Bill Maher and Rosie O'Donnell.
The more Canadians see for themselves that Harper isn't to be feared, the crazier you folks look.
What a joke. The punk got all puffed up when he called the PM an A-hole the other day and decided to crank the shrill knob to '11'.
Must be quite the comedown to have to yank the post and claim ignorance as a defence. "With no training in media, I didn't realize how strong an emotional reaction I was creating."
At least Rober McClelland has the pills to stick up for his garbage.
AC:
What's not Christian? One is slagging a person's beliefs, and one is talking candidly about the conduct of an individual. The two are not same.
I'm saying if the Left feels it is appropriate to ridicule someone over their personal beliefs, why is commenting on a persons public record drawing any heat whatsoever.
‘which since he embraced the GOP culture war concept” (Scotian being quoted)
Yeah, I tuned out right about there. Adjust tinfoil hat, adjust again.” (Jack Kerouac)
4/03/2007
Obviously, otherwise you would have been forced to have to answer this: “…which since he embraced the GOP culture war concept for Canadian Conservativism in both policy speech and paper as CA leader and LOO only four years ago is no surprise. It is also that embracing of the "culture war" approach to politics that the GOP have pioneered over the last quarter century which gives legitimacy to those claiming Harper is using American/GOP political tools instead of Canadian ones.” Classic CPC denial of reality, because Harper did say these things in a policy speech and then formalized it in a policy paper as LOO/CA leader in 2003. Facts are nasty things, especially when you cannot refute them, so instead you go after the messenger; just have nearly all of the critics of my comment in this thread. Thank you for again underscoring the truth in AC’s column.
Oh yes, to the person that said AC should be ashamed of comments like mine in his blog, given that I used no profanities and instead of simple personal attacks I dealt with specific issues, tactics, strategies and actions taken by Harper and the CPC government and many of their supporters the only reason left must be ideological. Thanks for showing that ideological purity matters more to you than connection to reality.
Finally, to all those that took exception to my verbosity, tough. As Steve V pointed out, some people prefer their political discussions to be more than 30 second sound bite level content. Not to mention complaining about length and using it as a means to dismiss someone only shows the person making that comment's own intellectual inferiorities, since to critique solely on format as the basis for dismissing the content as wrong/unreliable is a classic dodge when you cannot actually refute the content. So thank you all for showing just how unable you all were to refute what I said. This is why I do not comment much at CPC supporter oriented/dominated blogs, I rarely actually have facts addressed, just called a lot of names, have my style and length mocked (despite the fact that the length is so I can show what I am basing my views on, a recognized writing tool centuries old, but then I guess that is being too conservative in nature for some here) and generally get nothing but CPC Kool-Aid from those members of the cult of personality surrounding Stephen Harper