Coyne v. Wells on those Liberal attack ads, and others

Our Video podcast


Producer note:
There’s a bit of a quality issue half way through, but we’ve left it in for continuity’s sake.

Download | Feed | iTunes


Coyne v. Wells on those Liberal attack ads, and others

  1. Chantal Hébert's comment about the recent Liberal attack ad was, does this ad make you want MP's to return to Parliament as quickly as possible, or does it make you wish the contrary?

    • Paul Wells is correct the exact reasons words (excuses) why the Liberals grassroots rejected MI in Montreal were rehashed by the CPC.

      The cone of silence (lol reference), most adults are not paying attention. The Pros don't get it, they are not listening to the parties or th pros.

      When and if politicians are going to make a real impact affecting everyday life in a substantial manner (raise'lower taxes more than 1% , remove a popular benefit) than voter may get angry or take action.

      Coyne is wrong is suggesting the party leader should be required to do the mudslinging. It does not work that way in any organization private or public.

      The Hedy Frys' of each party will never been seen or heard again.

      • Coyne is wrong is suggesting the party leader should be required to do the mudslinging. It does not work that way in any organization private or public.

        And yoy know that how NO Common Sense. Are you privy to the goings on at the Cons War Room?

  2. both Coyne (a consideration of fairness and personal reputation before partisan interest) and Potter (opposition and PM restraint) are decrying the loss of statesmanship. while i happen to agree with them, I wonder if it is not just an anarchistic concept that we have little hope of recapturing given broader societal changes.

    • That's an interesting point. Could you elaborate further? Over the course of history, politics as it relates to "society" has evolved from those holding power/wanting power crushing their opponents through all means including violence, to what we have now– our still deeply flawed but peacefuil democratic system of governance (and non-democratic countries still play by these ancient rules). I took your use of the words "loss of statesmanship" to mean loss of reason, loss of respectful disagreement. Do you think that this loss of statesmanship means society is changing into ever more fragmented/ irreconcileable segments and that all-out partisanship is an inevitability? Begging with the consensus-backlash of the 70s and since it would appear that way… I hope not but it appears that way…

  3. Shorter Andrew Coyne: the Liberal ad is perfectly legitimate, although it attacks Harper's motives that we obviously can't know, whereas the Conservative ads are illegitimate, because they attack Ignatieff's motives which we can't possibly know. Anyway, attack ads, like the one suggesting Ignatieff is an outsider, are not effective, for example the Bloc attack on Harper's outsider status was terribly effective.

    Small, animated children should not watch this exchange.

  4. Looking forward to January 20. You even have my MLA (Lindsay Blackett) as a guest! Should be an interesting discussion.

  5. Coyne : "Does it raise or lower the tone of democratic discourse ?"

    Who cares ? The only two questions that anybody should ask about these ads are : 1. what are the Liberals trying to accomplish with these ads ? and 2. Are the ads effective or not in accomplishing this ? If these were Conservative ads, that is all anybody would be asking. Please spare us all the usual pious cant about the 'tone of democratic discourse'. Nobody in the media criticises Harper and his ministers when they spread lies about the the opposition. Trying to innoculate yourselves from this latter criticism doesn't wash, so give it up.

    This is the usual deux poids, deux mesures from the mainstream media.

    • For those of you keeping score, this is an accusation that the mainstream media are biased in favour of the Conservatives. Our friends who never tire of telling us we're biased against the Conservatives will be along in a minute.

      • For the sake of clarity, I did not accuse the mainstream media to be biased in favour of the Conservatives. I simply pointed out that they are held to a different standard, which is why I referred to the French expression deux poids, deux mesures. Liberals are always supposed to be saints and are expected to act accordingly, Conservatives are known devils so whatever they do is okay. Part of this is the fault of Liberals themselves – they still think like a government rather than like an opposition. These adverts break out of that (praise Zeus). The opposition doesn't need to be truthful, it just needs to be truthy. The government needs to be truthful, but nobody seems to be holding the Conservatives to account on this score.

        Concerning media bias, I think it is inevitable that the mainstream media is biased in favour of Conservatives in general in a country where our lame and derivative capitalist class are for the most part Conservatives, and where media ownership is so concentrated. I am sure that individual journalists have their own worldviews and even their own partisan affiliations as well, but ownership is much more significant than the supposed bias of any individual journo. That doesn't make Mike Duffy any less odious, for example, it just places him in context. Funnily enough, Tom Clark is the natural heritor to Don Newman.

        • For the sake of clarity, I did not accuse the mainstream media to be biased in favour of the Conservatives. (…) Concerning media bias, I think it is inevitable that the mainstream media is biased in favour of Conservatives

          Glad you cleared up the confusion.

          • Oh dear, CR – parsing statements out of context. I don't blame you, though – apparently the list for the latest batch of Harper appointees to the Senate is not yet finalized …

          • "Out of context"? Do you even know what that means? You contradicted your first sentence with everything that followed it.

  6. Good stuff gentlemen. AC parsed for me, make it plausible; make it fair; make it positive…at least avoid the dreary mistake of only stressing the negative…people tune out after a while, they know that life's not really like that…yet still the pols never learn…it's like they're from mars – or Ottawa.
    Seems to be a bit of a schism [ is that too churchy?] between PW/AC on the question of pols just saying what they and the people say in private anyway. My Question to Paul is: who sets the agenda on these adds really? On the Ignatieff adds were the cons just repeating what folks were saying at timmies, or were they in fact making the assertions themselves,[ if the former i don't have much of a problem]…in other words leading questions?
    As to legitmacy the Iggy adds are a good case study. Just visiting seems now a legit question…in it for yourself is scurrilous…purely speculative.
    I very much like AC's you thunk it you get to wear it point…let's do it…it'll work too.

  7. There are tims when i listen to Andrew when a little synapse starts buzzing in my head. It's saying maybe we do have too much govt, maybe the pols should stay home more and live regular lives…you know push the shopping cart down the ailse occasionally and race someone for the last loaf of fresh bread…being out of touch leads to so many of our problems…yet it's a big complicated world with lots of problems, and governing Canada does seem like a full time job sometimes…hard to keep your common touch. Sigh…life's so complicated, maybe they're doing the best they can?

  8. No, I clarified what I wrote the first time, and then rose to the bait of accusations that I was accusing the media of media bias and explained my views on that particular subject as separate from what the views I expressed in my first posting. All very simple really. Reading comprehension is, however, required.

    • You "rose to the bait of accusations that you were accusing the media of media bias" by accusing the media of media bias.

      I know you were trying to clarify your views, but I found it hilarious that you did so in such a clumsy and self-contradictory way. You said: "I did not accuse the mainstream media to be biased in favour of the Conservatives" in an attempt to refute Wells, before going on to completely validate Wells's point.

      • Conservatives are held to a different standard than Liberals. Media bias exists but as a separate issue. I don't see any contradiction between those two statements.

      • Finally.

        • Indeed.

  9. At least the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister agrees with both of you.

    "These are his words and it's perfectly fair to quote his words and cite his deeds." – Pierre Poilievre; in defense of May 2009 attacks ads against Michael Ignatieff.

    (http://www.cpac.ca/asx/show_scrums_may13-09_eng.a… 2:20)

    "My message to Mr. Ignatieff; put aside the election ads and the smears, and work with us to build the next phase of the EAP." – Pierre Poilievre; in response to January 2010 attacks ads against Stephen Harper.

    (http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/Power_&am… 24:00)

  10. No worries about the rambliness, and thanks for the elaboration!

  11. These Liberal attach adds are just showing that they have nothing to say that most people who would even be thinking of voteing Liberal want to hear they should soon come out with something close to a plan or there isn't much hope for them, they have wasted too much time already

  12. Pierre Poilievre is a …weasel….

  13. Hey, whaddya say we get some more podcasts posted!?

    If these long delays are a clever plan to get me to rack up dozens of "let's check if there's a new one" page views, well, it's working.

Sign in to comment.