Turn about is fair play. Libs once accused Cons of wanting to be Americans. Cons are now accusing the Lib leader of being American.
Bingo! Remember kids: two wrongs make a right.
extra super bonus: Having trade relations with Americans makes you evil and unCanadian. As does carrying dual citizenship. America and anyone having anything to do with it is the great satan come election time. Lets just replace debates with a contest to see which leader can burn the most american flags in a 1 hour time span to prove just how Canadian you are.
That's what I said LAST election. You know. The one where Harper broke his own promise to stick to a fixed schedule of elections. But I'm sure you will find an excuse for that one.....
It's like hockey. When the guy from your team does something, it's just fine. But when a guy from the other team does something, it should be punishable by death.
I'm sorry, do you have a record of my voting history? Where am I making excuses? Who's team am I on? This is probably one of the first Canadian Politics threads I've actually participated in on this forum, or at least stated my opinion. Do you have me on record as saying someone from the Flames can do no wrong yet bashing someone from another team for the same thing? Didn't think so! Keep your generalizations to yourself.
I'll add this: Harper's panicked ad campaign accused Ignatieff of being "American." But it's Harper who is injecting the American rhetorical style into our politics--attack ads that are devoid of content, making nakedly jingoistic emotional appeals in an attempt to grab the moral low ground before anyone else can get there. That defines everything that is wrong with American political culture.
Let's remember that we're better than that.
lol, you wish.
American style attack ads were a staple of the Liberal campaigns in 2000, 2004 and 2006.
Actually, given some of the ads the Liberals produced, it would be an insult to American politics to compare them.
The thing I hate most about election time are the ads. Last election I was appalled by a few of them. The one I hated the most was a Conservative ad attacking Dion with that stupid VLT machine. Just so pathetic.
Wouldn't it be awesome if this election all the parties decided to tell us what they're going to do right instead of telling us what the other guy is going to do wrong?
The thing I hate most about election time are the ads. Last election I was appalled by a few of them. The one I hated the most was a Conservative ad attacking Dion with that stupid VLT machine. Just so pathetic.
Wouldn't it be awesome if this election all the parties decided to tell us what they're going to do right instead of telling us what the other guy is going to do wrong?
Unfortunately people remember the negative ads more, so until human retention patterns change, we're stuck with this crap.
Unfortunately people remember the negative ads more, so until human retention patterns change, we're stuck with this crap.
It just seems so recent. Like in the last 15 years. I remember as a kid watching cartoons and whatnot on american channels (all the channels we get/got out of Spokane) and their ads were just brutal. Scary music, pics of the other guy raping puppies, some fact like: he voted NO on bill 233!. then sunshine and meadows and a pic of the good guy.
I don't remember anything like that out of Canada until the mid 90s. I could be wrong. Whatever. I just can't stand negative attack ads. They're just so (yeah, I've been using this word alot lately) PATHETIC.
Judging from all the insightful policy discussion in this thread I think we deserve negative ads. It seems to be the only level on which we can communicate politically.
So you're OK with an American citizen being the PM of Canada? I couldn't care less where someone is born, but to be PM of Canada while a card carrying citizen of another country is absurd.
What a dumb comment, the guy is not an American citizen, never has been and never will be.
The Following User Says Thank You to EddyBeers For This Useful Post:
Frankly, I'd like to see an election this fall because:
1. The Libs will lose
2. The Libs are in debt up to there necks right now and after the election their finances will look even more depressing.
3. Everybody will get a real close look at Ignatieff and his policies and previous statements and comments.
4. Its another chance for the Conservatives to form a majority government.
5. I get another chance to laugh at the NDP and their ridiculous pie-in-the-sky policies.
6. I'm bored and there's nothing like a good mud slinging election to liven up the news.
As per the link below he was polling very strong heading into early September . . . . . then as the economic meltdown picked up speed, the wheels started to fall off.
Others may suggest different reasons for losing traction but I'll stick with the obvious economic one . . . . . that was a pretty strong headwind for any government anywhere in the world at that time.
In the last week of September and the first week of October, as an example, I think the S&P 500 lost 33%, with other global market matching that.
Cowperson
Sorry, but I like my link better. Here's why: mine gives an aggregate running average of polls. Yours is a single poll. Canadian polls are prone to high rates of error because they're so bad at accounting for regional shifts in vote. Add to that the various methodologies, where small differences in voter screens can add high rates of variation, and it adds up to a situation where you're better off not taking a single poll too seriously, especially when it contradicts the overall trend. This one is most probably an outlier.
In any case, 43% is one of those tricky numbers. It could give him a majority if the chips fall correctly, but also might end up giving him a minority again. He was never that strong; and that's pretty telling, given the stunning mediocrity of his opposition last fall.
Put another way: there's a reason that Harper panicked and started running attack ads when the Liberals switched leaders. He's smart enough to know that last fall was a profound reality check for him, even if some people out West are prepared to anoint him PM for life.
American style attack ads were a staple of the Liberal campaigns in 2000, 2004 and 2006.
Actually, given some of the ads the Liberals produced, it would be an insult to American politics to compare them.
So.... what you're saying is "two wrongs make a right."
In that case, my rejoinder is: "I'm rubber and you're glue."
How about this instead: let's all demand that our political culture reflect that we are different from Americans. Let's reject attack ads regardless of their source, by refusing to fall for their weak arguments. Let's think critically instead of like partisans.
Instead of asking our leaders where they came from, let's ask them what they're going to do for us. Instead of asking how many stamps are in their passport, let's ask them probing questions about their platform.
Look: no-one is claiming that the Liberals are perfect (at least, I'm not). Nor that Harper is evil, though I do think he's a little out of his depth. But maybe we can dispense with the stupid nativism, the ad hominem fallacies, the attack ads, the blind partisanship and the regional bullheadedness... and then we can lay claim to a more mature and developed political culture than our friends to the South.
It's my fervent hope that we can do this, but when people actually trot out the nonsense from Harper's summer attack campaign as though it were a genuine political argument, I start to lose faith a little bit.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Makes one wonder if the Liberals are sitting on some government scandal they'll have the CBC release at the most opportune time. Other than that I can't see the logic in forcing an election.
There is no way the Liberal's sell this as a move for the good of Canada. It reeks of a power grab for personal gain. Most Canadians seen the coalition to overthrow the Conservatives in the spring as a pathetic power grab. There is a familar stench here.
"Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff pledged Wednesday to erase the projected $50-billion federal deficit if elected into government -- and to do so without raising taxes."
"When pressed on how he would do that, Ignatieff would only say: "wait and see." "
That's some good politics there. This is what we're going to do. But we're not going to tell you how we're going to do it. You'll just have to trust us.
That's some good politics there. This is what we're going to do. But we're not going to tell you how we're going to do it. You'll just have to trust us.
Worked for Obama.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
The Following User Says Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
The Liberals promising to slash the defecit without raising taxes. Does Ignatieff have the stones to pull out of Afghanistan immediately, much to the chagrin of Obama?
So.... what you're saying is "two wrongs make a right."
Nope. Simply that we're not "better than that", and that nobody complaining about Harper's "Ignatief is an American" ads, or any others from any party, is occupying any moral high ground.
