"Stephen Harper" Ad

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

All of those scandals occurred under Chretien, who has been retired for five years now. If you're going to attack the party, at least go after current Liberal MP/candidates (and there's certainly plenty to attack Dion over). Is it fair game for someone opposed to the CPC to bring up issues they had with Preston Manning or Brian Mulroney?



I love how you twist his words so they fit into your worldview of poor alienated Albertans. All he was saying is that an individual vote in a "swing" riding has greater importance than a vote in a riding that solidly votes for one party. This is true whether he's talking about Albertans who overwhelming elect conservatives or voters in PEI who always elect Liberals. It's also true in the US -- a vote in a swing state like Ohio has a much greater influence on the outcome of the election than a vote in a "safe" state like California or Mississippi.

Great post as usual!

Clearly its fair game to attack the Liberals over things that happened nearly 30 years ago (NEP), but you have to forget about things like leaving classified documents at your biker girlfriends place, alleged bribing of MP's with life insurance policies, appointing unelected people to the senate so they can sit in the cabinet, enticing newly elected MP's from other parties across the floor to the cabinet and of course breaking your own laws to make the system more accountable to call elections that no one else really wants.

[Bertuzzied]

I still can't believe the 3rd best person for the job can be the leader? The way they vote is broken and needs to be fixed.

Stelmach, Dion?? What are the parties thinking? It would be like John Edwards winning the Democratic leadership because the Clinton/Obama supporters would split the vote.

Still you can't pay me enough money to vote Conservative and for Anders.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Slava

Great post as usual!

Clearly its fair game to attack the Liberals over things that happened nearly 30 years ago (NEP), but you have to forget about things like leaving classified documents at your biker girlfriends place, alleged bribing of MP's with life insurance policies, appointing unelected people to the senate so they can sit in the cabinet, enticing newly elected MP's from other parties across the floor to the cabinet and of course breaking your own laws to make the system more accountable to call elections that no one else really wants.

Don't forget the "in and out" campaign financing scandal, in which the Conservatives told witnesses not to show up to testify at the parliamentary committee investigating the alleged corruption.

http://canadianpress.google.com/arti...KGY6pc2lEzjLzA

Funny we didn't see a thread on CP about that scandal; you can be damn sure that if it had been the Liberals who had refused to cooperate with an investigating committee, this board would be seething with outrage.

[Slava]

^ I debated starting a thread about that, but gave up the idea. It would start off well intentioned but by the time the first page was finished we'd be back to the NEP, or sponsorship scandal.

Its funny that the rallying cry of the Reform party was "Liberal, Tory same old story" until they merged with the PC's....and now apparently that is all ancient history.

[pepper24]

Being a left leaning individual, I actually like Harper and think that he's doing a great job. I see no issue why I'd vote for someone else. I predict another minority government for the Conservatives.

The ad on the other hand is awful.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Glad to see that he is still rocking the hardcore helmet hair and the sweater vest.

The dude should just shave his head bald and stare at people to hypontize them into doing his bidding.

[Bobblehead]

If there is an election in the fall, I wonder how many (if any) people will get the elections mixed and and get upset they can't vote for Obama or McCain?

[LChoy]

Traditionally I was more siding with Liberals over things such as gay marriage, harm reduction strategies (ie Vancouver safe injection sites), support for the arts. However, the conservative government hasn't been too bad either and some of the fear mongering never came to be.
Gay marriage still exists, women can still have abortions (we even put that guy up for the Order of Canada), Arctic sovereignty is being protected, Alberta’s resources aren’t included in equalization calculations. One of my wishes that come to mind is that it’s a good time to show some leadership in the international community. Harper wanted to mend relations with the Americans and has restored our special relationship. Our economy is great, we’re supporting our allies overseas, Trade is up, so we are in good shape to make a mark on the international stage. I’m not so sure Harper could ever lead Canada from behind the US shadows. I don’t mean to have us stand in opposite, but lead new initiatives in environment, energy, foreign policy. I don’t want Canada’s reputation as US junior. Whether you agree or not, We are the only country with nationals in US custody in Cuba, we backed out of Kyoto, Pot use is demonized. It would be nice to be a little unique on the world stage. However, like some posters have said, of the 3 leaders and parties, Conservatives are the only choice (or Green I suppose so that they can have enough votes to gain party status)

[evman150]

Originally Posted by lchoy

However, the conservative government hasn't been too bad either and some of the fear mongering never came to be.
Gay marriage still exists, women can still have abortions

Do you know what a minority government is? And what limitations it puts on the governing party?

[LIP MAN]

"I like that Stephen Harper is a straight up robot, and a corporate whore. That and Darth Vader's music playing when he enters the House of Commons really makes me feel all fuzzy inside."

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Subtle? Like the whole "Stephen Harper will put soldiers on our streets" subtle, like "hidden agenda" subtle?

Conservative ads do resemble the Republican ads, I'll give you that... but the Liberals don't exactly churn out cerebral ads either. They are notorious for scaring the median voter into voting for them.

I was just about to post the same thing. You missed the "point the gun at the screen" gem from the Liberals too.

The real questions this campaign will be "how quickly do the Libs dump the Green Shift when they realize it a loser" and "what will they replace it with given that it is Dion's entire, and only, platform"?

Should be an interesting month and a half.

[mariners_fever]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

All of those scandals occurred under Chretien, who has been retired for five years now. If you're going to attack the party, at least go after current Liberal MP/candidates (and there's certainly plenty to attack Dion over). Is it fair game for someone opposed to the CPC to bring up issues they had with Preston Manning or Brian Mulroney?

if i recall correctly, dion's persistence over the mulroney-schreiber affair was doing just that, trying to create sponsorshop scandal-esque controversy. it ended up only costing the government more money than the amount in question itself...

i study political science at a fairly high level, and i recently did a big paper on how scandal is very much the name of the game right now in canadian politics... the opposition party is very much trying to create as much scandal as possible as they believe it's the best way to create an attitude for change as it created change in light of the sponsorship scandal and harper's subsequent election victory in january 2006... i mean, he's really tried to milk and promote mulroney-schreiber, in-and-out, and the bernier affair... but the truth is none of these are nearly on as grandiose a scale as the sponsorship flap...

while it all does indeed make front page news, the polls seem to suggest that canadians see through the rhetoric because the conservatives seem to be at the same place in popularity as they were when they were elected with a new poll even suggesting the possibility of a slim majority... so the moral of the story? while some may or may not like harper, it seems most seem to view dion as trying way too hard to stir something up and view him, for lack of a better term, as an ineffective blow-hard...

i mean, it is possible to try too hard from time to time and to overthink your own ideas to the point where they make no sense at all and seem contrived...

and no, i don't vote conservative. that was just what i thought a decently-founded conclusion i came to when presented with the data. i actually have a hard time picking any party because after studying it for so long, you see through the weaknesses of all positions and almost grow to hate them all for not having an answer to everything, but such is life, i suppose.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Slava

Great post as usual!

Clearly its fair game to attack the Liberals over things that happened nearly 30 years ago (NEP)

Considering the Liberal party is the same party as the Liberal party from 30 years ago, and Dion's tax grabbing carbon tax is very similar to the NEP, the comparison is fair. This Conservative Party however, is not the same as the old PC party given that it is a merger of that old party and the upstart Reform party.

Originally Posted by Slava

but you have to forget about things like leaving classified documents at your biker girlfriends place,

I'll give you that one - and he was demoted from his post as soon as it was revealed.

Originally Posted by Slava

alleged bribing of MP's with life insurance policies,

You mean the "alleged bribe" that the RCMP found "no" evidence of? Not "insufficient evidence", but NO evidence of?

Originally Posted by Slava

appointing unelected people to the senate so they can sit in the cabinet,

How many "elected" people are in the senate again? And how long was Ray in Dion's "shadow cabinet" before he was elected? Are you sure the Liberals have never had an unelected member of parliament as a cabinet member?

Originally Posted by Slava

enticing newly elected MP's from other parties across the floor to the cabinet

Clearly that is much worse than enticing an MP from other parties across the floor to the cabinet to avoid losing a confidence vote and to cling to power, especially when you consider the critical cabinet post Belinda was given of "Minister of Complex Files" or whatever made up crap they gave her.

Originally Posted by Slava

and of course breaking your own laws to make the system more accountable to call elections that no one else really wants.

Now even you know he isn't breaking the law by calling an election early. If you don't, perhaps you should actually read the law, especially where it says the PM has to have the power to go to the GG if the Parliament is dysfunctional and unable to work. Considering Dion, Layton and Duceppe have been saying for months that this Parliament is dysfunctional, they should be thrilled the PM is finally taking the step Dion has been too scared to take. Now Dion will be able to finally fulfill his promise to "get back to power where we belong" when he was elected leader of the Libs. That is, should he get the votes for his massive tax grab known as the Green Shaft. Hey, has he even paid off his leadership campaign debt yet? Didn't think so... that's the guy I want running the country - the guy that can't manage his own leadership debt and has to go begging for an extension.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Don't forget the "in and out" campaign financing scandal, in which the Conservatives told witnesses not to show up to testify at the parliamentary committee investigating the alleged corruption.

http://canadianpress.google.com/arti...KGY6pc2lEzjLzA

Funny we didn't see a thread on CP about that scandal; you can be damn sure that if it had been the Liberals who had refused to cooperate with an investigating committee, this board would be seething with outrage.

Not seething with outrage, but not thrilled either.

As for the scandal, you must be referring to the practice in place BY ALL MAJOR PARTIES. The difference between the Libs and the NDP is that the NDP know, and will admit, they do the same thing so they haven't been making a big deal about this. The Libs on the other hand don't seem to understand how ridiculous they will look when it is shown, time and again, that they do the exact same thing.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by lchoy

Traditionally I was more siding with Liberals over things such as gay marriage, harm reduction strategies (ie Vancouver safe injection sites), support for the arts. However, the conservative government hasn't been too bad either and some of the fear mongering never came to be.
Gay marriage still exists, women can still have abortions (we even put that guy up for the Order of Canada), Arctic sovereignty is being protected, Alberta’s resources aren’t included in equalization calculations. One of my wishes that come to mind is that it’s a good time to show some leadership in the international community. Harper wanted to mend relations with the Americans and has restored our special relationship. Our economy is great, we’re supporting our allies overseas, Trade is up, so we are in good shape to make a mark on the international stage. I’m not so sure Harper could ever lead Canada from behind the US shadows. I don’t mean to have us stand in opposite, but lead new initiatives in environment, energy, foreign policy. I don’t want Canada’s reputation as US junior. Whether you agree or not, We are the only country with nationals in US custody in Cuba, we backed out of Kyoto, Pot use is demonized. It would be nice to be a little unique on the world stage. However, like some posters have said, of the 3 leaders and parties, Conservatives are the only choice (or Green I suppose so that they can have enough votes to gain party status)

From an economic perspective I'm right of center but otherwise I agree with you 100%. He was painted to be a boogy man, and he's not ... he's not exactly charismatic, but not the monster the Liberals warned us about. He had the sack to ditch Kyoto, which was a joke to feed the lowest common denominator and as far as scandals go ... really there haven't been many and the ones they have had are quite minor. Overall he and his party have been decent.

[Azure]

People vote based on ads?

I'm not surprised.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by evman150

Do you know what a minority government is? And what limitations it puts on the governing party?

Which is exactly why I'm not opposed to an election right now. For two years Dion has been threatening to bring down the government. Almost nothing has been accomplished in parliament during that time because Liberals keep abstaining from votes and Dion keeps issuing his ominous threats. What is the point of another year of this crap? You would prefer that Harper allow another year to be wasted so that he keeps his word?
Hey, I don't like liars either, but this is something that, when looked at from the grand scheme of things, is better for everyone.

If you figure that it wont matter because the Cons will just win another minority, I disagree. It will matter. While I personally hope for a Conservative majority, I highly doubt it will happen. But it's more than likely that the Conservatives will get another minority and that will more than likely lead to a change in leadership for the Liberals. Once that happens, we just might see some work get done on Parliament Hill.

And hopefully after 3 more years of a Conservative minority, the Liberals have their crap sorted out and they present a good leader that is capable of heading up the opposition into an election (where hopefully, the Liberals lose again).

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by evman150

Do you know what a minority government is? And what limitations it puts on the governing party?

Dude, read it how Flames in 07 interpreted my post. Of course I know what a minority government is (I do work for the government you know). We are talking about attack ads. Before the Harper government was elected, there was a bunch of ads and vocal opponents all predicting doom and gloom. Gay rights would be gone, women would go back to the back alleys for abortions, we would be in continuous state of military deployment with the Americans. The point I was trying to make was that attack ads are just that, all attack, little substance. Our world didn't explode, our economy didn't tank, the Oilers didn't win the cup, we pretty much had a pretty good couple of years under conservatives. No party is perfect of course, but no where near the scale some of the Conservatives opponents made it out to be

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Don't forget the "in and out" campaign financing scandal, in which the Conservatives told witnesses not to show up to testify at the parliamentary committee investigating the alleged corruption.

http://canadianpress.google.com/arti...KGY6pc2lEzjLzA

Funny we didn't see a thread on CP about that scandal; you can be damn sure that if it had been the Liberals who had refused to cooperate with an investigating committee, this board would be seething with outrage.

Dude, are you even aware of this hole sham the oppisition is doing regarding the "in and out" so called scheme?

Lets start with how the media was tipped off by elections Canada about the time and place that a search warrant was conducted. It so happened that only liberal news agencies were tipped off of this event.

Are you aware that all the opposition parties do it? It just so happened that the conservatives had a LOT more money than the other parties last election and the amount is higher than the other parties. All receipts were submitted to elections Canada indicating what the party had done. There was no cover up. The conservative party was expecting all the receipts to be paid out because it was something that had been done by all parties in the past. It just so happened that there was a new Chief Electoral officer who disagreed with the interpretation of the legislation.

Now, as far as this circus of an ethics committee. DO you know why the conservative witnesses didn't show up to the hearing? It was because they were protesting the fact that the conservatives were not allowed to have any of their witnesses called to the hearing. The witnesses that would testify that this process was done in the past by all parties. The conservatives have less members on the committee thus all the opposition members voted against the conservative witnesses.

Tell me, why would a ethics committee not allow witnesses to testify unless those people would prove that the conservatives had done nothing wrong?

One witness that was called came a day early to give his testimony because he was unable to attend the day of his scheduled date. There was a free spot in the witness line up as someone could not make it that day. The opposition members refused to allow him to testify and had him removed from the property by the security.

When the Chief electoral officer was at the hearing the opposition members voted to change the rules of the hearing so that only the questions that the opposition wanted to asked were ask and none of the questions that the conservative members wanted to ask could be asked. Especially conserning the issue about all the parties doing this so called "scheme". Once it was clear to the opposition that these questions were going to be asked by the conservatives they changed the rules in mid session.

Sounds very ethical to me.

[Slava]

^ Well the whole thing is shady whether all of the parties are doing this or not. Bottom line is that if the rules were broken then someone should be held to account...it has nothing to do with partisan politics at that point in time.

If the argument is "we broke the rules, but so does everyone" then everyone should be held to the same standard. If the argument is "we got caught with our hand in the cookie jar, but its not a big deal" that is a whole different case. No matter who you prefer to govern you have to see that point?