82

(Still) Searching for a new Liberalism

Why marketing is the centerpiece of modern political campaigning


 

A few days ago, I asked my twitter followers if anyone could say what the Liberal party’s campaign slogan is. It drew a handful of jokeysnarky responses, but no one actually managed to produce an answer as to what the slogan actually is.

It was a trick question, anyway, because the Liberal party doesn’t have a campaign slogan. At least, not one that I can make out. A trip to the Liberal.ca website provides lots of links to the party’s platform, to some videos, and other electioneering miscellany. But the closest thing you could find to a slogan was a link to the “Rise Up Canada!” speech, which was one of the four or five elements scrolling horizontally across the page. (Since that tweet the Liberal.ca page has been updated, with “Rise Up!” playing a much more prominent role).

Compare this with Conservative.ca which, since the start of the election, has had the bubbly HERE FOR CANADA slogan pegged to the top left of the website. It also plays over the closing moments of all of the positive Conservative ads—though, significantly, it does not appear in the Tory attack ads.

I’m one of those people who believes that the tools and methods of marketing, especially branding, are properly and necessarily the centerpiece of modern political campaigning. I believe that the selling of politics does not undermine democracy, it enhances it, and the branding of political parties and leaders it not a tool for manipulating voters, it is a means of enabling democratic participation.

The problem with this, though, is the one that Warren Kinsella keeps repeating but which almost everyone ignores: The single most important law of the political jungle is define, or be defined. If you don’t tell the voters who you are and what you stand for, your opponents will do it for you.

Quick story: A year and a bit ago, I gave a talk to a communications class at Ottawa U on political branding. I started with a quick exercise to get the students to rough out the contours of the Harper and Ignatieff brands – I’d name a car or product or band or newspaper, and students would have to place it under either “Ignatieff” or “Harper”. Basic brand-halo stuff. Anyway, what emerged out of the exercise was interesting: this class full of standard-issue campus Canadian lefties had no demonstrable love for Harper. Yet their own brand definition of Ignatieff pretty much hewed, unwittingly I am sure, to the Tory definition of the man as “not really Canadian”, as someone who was “just visiting”, and so on. That is to say: the students had completely internalized the Tory framing of Ignatieff.

As Coyne and Wells and Geddes and countless others have noted, the Conservatives could not have been clearer about telegraphing their preferred definition of Ignatieff. Between the “coalition of socialists and separatists” and “just visiting”, the Tory election script was 9/10 written in stone by early 2009. Which is to say, the Liberals had over two years to come up with a compelling counter-narrative, a definition for their leader and party, captured in a pithy slogan that would be workable as both a campaign poster and a debate-night riposte.

The Liberals have done a lot of things right, in opposition under Ignatieff. I thought the big thinkers conference last year was a great idea, and a considerable success. Afterwards, the party held a number of daylong roundtables hammering out sound policy ideas. I still believe that the government deserved to fall over its increasingly contemptuous attitude toward parliament, and I think the Liberals deserve a great deal of credit for not caving on this.

But what the Liberals completely failed to do is come up with a proper response to the “coalition” line, one that could have been repeated, ad nauseam and ad robotum, in response to every attack ad or journalistic query about it. What might it have been? Damned if I know, but I’m pretty sure that “Parliament will decide the government, as it always does” would have been a better answer than that Red Door/Blue Door stammering. Just as “I was out meeting Canadians” would have been a better answer than “I need no lessons in democracy from you” in response to Jack Layton’s question as to why Ignatieff had the worst attendance record in the Commons.

When the arc of this election is finally understood, I wonder if that exchange with Layton will emerge as the moment when everything changed for the Liberals. It wasn’t so much a knockout blow as the gutting of a fish—the moment that the Liberal message about respect for parliament was exposed as an empty, rotting carcass.

Just what has this Liberal campaign been about? At the start, it was about standing up for democracy—when it wasn’t about corporate taxes. Then there was the family pack – a thoroughly innocuous group of policies, with gusts to good sense. Finally there was the “rise up!” speech, which was pretty obviously a mid-campaign Hail Mary that might have worked better if the ground for it had been prepared in a more thoroughgoing manner. For what it is worth—which is clearly not much, given that it was completely ignored by Liberals—I wrote an essay for the LRC last year exploring the problems with the Liberal party’s identity, and what sort of branding they might adopt.

Free advice is worth exactly what you pay for it. But here’s the thing: Brands are not logos, and slogans are not words. They are identities, they are promises, they are stories. Every political campaign needs a story, and the Liberals simply do not have one. Sorry, the Liberals do have one: it is the carpetbagger frame the Tories hung around Ignatieff’s neck two years ago, and which he has never managed to shake off.


 

(Still) Searching for a new Liberalism

  1. A damning indictment … and it's all true.

    • A damning indictment … of us.

    • An excellent article as far as it goes. Yes, there was a rotten smell coming from under my bed and it is the dying corpse of the Liberal Party of Canada. Even trotting out Chretien to cheer over past achievements can't help, because that was yesterday; this is today.

      There was also a smell from the hubris of Jack Layton, saying he is going to be the Prime Minister of Canada. We will see. The crap about the successes of the NDP in the provinces are nonsense. You are probably old enough to experience the disaster under Bob Rae in Ontario. You may remember the fast ferry scandal in BC where $500 millions were spent on a poorly conceived experiment to revive the maritime construction industry ion BC. Eventually the three ferries were sold to the Middle east for $19 million.

      Even in the much touted province of Saskatchewan medicare was so poorly planned that there was a doctor's strike, no attempt to compromise. Then there are the Crown Corporations (sEE "CROWN CORPORATIONS IN CANADA") where several would have been bankrupt if they had been in the private sector. And so it goes. Favouring Layton is probably a "feel good" exercise but his platform raises serious questions – opening the constitution for Quebec to sign, Bill 101 – a disaster for calm in Canada.. definitely more taxes for ill-thought-out social programs. Great to spout that stuff when past elections show the party doesn't have a hope in hell in getting in but when your popularity rises to where to is now is scary.

  2. “I was out meeting Canadians” would have been a better answer…to Jack Layton's question as to why Ignatieff had the worst attendance record in the Commons." Because there's no way Jack would have said "oh, did you lose touch with them over the last thirty years somehow?" or something similar in response?

    • lol

    • Oh, snap! LOL

  3. "When the arc of this election is finally understood … "

    I wonder about Rise Up speech. Iggy was enthused, crowd were a bit somnolent. Emperor has no clothes moment?

    "Sorry, the Liberals do have one: it is the carpetbagger frame … "

    I don't think Libs could do anything about this because Iggy is carpetbagger. Iggy nomination says much about Libs/libs – Iggy being abroad for all those decades bothers people across party lines – non partisan vexation. What were Libs thinking?!?!

    Potter – other day was thinking of brand loyalty and fewer people voting for Libs election after election. Know it is difficult to get people to return to brand or product after they decided to make change.

    • It doesn't bother anybody but Cons…and even then it's faux outrage.

      • Yes, Canadians have really warmed to the man.

        • Canadians haven't warmed to Harper.

          • more than Ignatieff . . .

          • Obviously not.

            5 years later, Harper is still unloved.

          • You mean the one who was elected PM twice, currently almost doubles Ignatieff in the polls, and has consistently held a double digit lead in personal ratings? That Harper. No, you're right. Ignatieff's doing great, he's just finding his groove. Good luck Monday!

          • 5 years and still a minority….and for all you know another one come Monday.

            That's not love.

            You know btw that Layton just passed Harper in personal ratings?

            I don't need luck on Monday, I have no stake in the election.

          • Has the chance to become only the second PM in the history of Canada to increase his seat count three elections in a row. But like you say, for all we know…

          • Tsk….5 years and still nowhere.

            Monday may make it worse or better for him….but so far, that's no legacy.

          • Original Emily!,
            You are wrong, Harper is stil love by Canadian…

          • Harper has never been loved by Canadians.

            Well, unless you're a masochist.

          • I forgot that Canadians actually just means other citizens one agrees with.

          • I forgot that anyone would be silly enough to 'love' a politician.

          • The only one talking about love or the lack there of is yourself. Everyone else is just commenting on trust and comfortability, which polls suggest most Canadians at this point have with Harper.

    • The somnalent crowd who got up their feet and applauded and started chanting "Rise Up!" That somnolent crowd?

      • After pleading 10 times the crowd started to rise.

        • Canadians are reticent about public displays but once they are ready to do it they give 'er.

          • Anyone who's been to a rock show in Toronto will tell you that. Eventually.

  4. "the Liberal message about respect for parliament was exposed as an empty, rotting carcass" Funny how Ignatieff threw his 'a fish rots from the head down', at Harper in QP and now it is applicable to his own leadership, lol!!!

    You are so right about branding and selling – just look at the polls, Jack Layton has been refering to himself as PM from the very first day of campaigning – must work!!!

  5. What's really sad about this article is its indictment of Canadians as a group of people so media-iliterate that we are incapable of seeing through marketing.

  6. Good stuff. The Mace has posted a good summary of The Liberal's demise as well.

  7. One issue has enabled the Liberal party to dominate Canada for a century – national unity. If the Liberals want their comeback message, Jack Layton's proposal of Meech III is like a pinata waiting to be smacked. The Liberals are alone in standing for a vision of Canada as an indivisible whole – not a meeting place of two nations, and not as a handshake between three regions. Jack Layton has moved to the centre in left-right terms, but in terms of the national question, he's right out there in crazyland.

    The problem is that Michael Ignatieff is probably the exact worst person to give that speech. He's stuck to the decentralist line of Martin, and his absence from Canada certainly undermines his credibility on the matter. Incoherence aside, this could have been a golden moment for somebody like Stephane Dion.

    • Nicely put. But can the libs really return to a Trudeauvian vision of national unity? Not even Dion was entirely onside in this regard, and i doubt if he would have been able to articulate a renewed vision of one Canada given his unpopularity in Quebec. It's often forgotten how much Trudeau dragged the Liberal Party along for the ride.[ Ron Graham is an interesting source for this view] The right wing of the party[ even Chretien to some degree] was all for the Meech lake deal. So just who could articulate that vision for the libs and who would do it – JT – doubtful? Maybe one day?
      Oddly enough i'm not as worried about Jack and the constitution as i was. It is even possible this question can be sorted out by a party that hasn't burned its bridges in Quebec. History does throw up funny quirks like that.

      • A vision doesn't need to win over everybody – if 40% of Canadians are Trudeauites, while 60% are decentralizers, the Liberals will win in a four-way competition. Plus at this point any vision just has to be compelling for more than the 22% of Canadians likely to vote Liberal.

        • Well, yes. But my real point is that the old Trudeau vision of national unity is dreadfully unpopular in Quebec,[ and likely out west; at least until the NEP generation die off. ]Or would you say that's giving too much credit to BQ/PQ propaganda? It was often said Trudeau was unpopular in his home province, yet i believe he rgularly gained a plurality of the vote. But that legacy was never tested after 82; and i doubt if old fuddle duddle himself could have saved the parties fortunes in what was to follow. In any case it'll take a strong, positive and charismatic leader to regrow the party.

          • The Trudeau vision is unpopular in Quebec, but it is probably more popular than the Liberal party's current standing of less than 20%. Quebec is a crowded marketplace – a fourway race – and in that kind of environment, product differentiation can yield much better results than hugging the centre.

            Moreover, I contest just how unpopular the Trudeau vision is in Quebec. Trudeau didn't just win pluralities in Quebec, he won majorities. Similarly, while Chretien was less popular in Quebec, he was able to build up his support there with each subsequent election. Although Chretien (who was hardly as charismatic as Trudeau) avoided the constitutional question, centralized power, and created the Clarity Act he increased his support in Quebec with each subsequent election. Support for secession was at all-time lows in the early 2000s, and the Bloc seemed destined for the dustbin of history.

            Is the Trudeauite vision unpopular in the west? Probably, although it depends. Meech and Charlottetown would have devolved a fantastic amount of power to the provinces – both were decentralizing documents. Yet almost nowhere were they more hated than the supposedly decentralist west. The West is opposed to decentralization when it views such moves as benefiting Quebec. Jack Layton's proposals to open up the constitution are a perfect example of that kind of issue – Albertans can easily start to wonder what the payoff is for Quebec.

          • Interesting pov. I'm often struck at just how much received wisdom or the generally accepted orthodox view of politcs[ or anything for that matter] is just assumed to be stationary, an ever fixed truth, as with the popularity or unpopularity of the one country view of Trudeau. in or out of Q.If you hear it repeated enough it must be true.

            The element of luck and timing are often overlooked in politcs – Trudeau benefited from it enormously, as has SH..of course it takes talent and hard work too.

            I think you've put your finger on some of the liberals troubles – they've stopped believing in themselves, perhaps paid too much attention to the bad press clippings.Lost the faith,in a sense. I'm talking about the party as much as anything, not just the leaders. You must have a reason to want to be there…SH does, he wants to shrink the size of govt. The libs need to rediscover theirs. I shouldn't get too carried away though…they simply don't make PETs or SHs for that matter everyday – maybe it's better that way?

            Speaking of timing and luck – it looks like it's there for Jack. Cometh the cometh the hour…maybe?

          • "The West is opposed to decentralization when it views such moves as benefiting Quebec."

            I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The West (or the English Canadian right in general) has a few different views on Quebec. There are the D'Alton McCarthy-style haters, sure, but not many of them. There are the let-them-goers (my grandfather is one of these); they are also a minority, I think. However, I believe the majority of Canaian conservatives are deeply suspicious of Quebec nationalism. They dislike how they use (and abuse) history to tell a story with "Les Anglais" in the villian's role and suggest that "Canada is not a real Country." These people don't endorse seperatism or Quebec's demands for more powers at least partly because they don't want the liars* to "win" the argument.

            *I do not necessarily see all Quebec nationalists as liars per se — that would require me to think of nearly all Quebecers that way! Here I am referring to historians (amatuer and professional) torturing Canadian history into a story about poor little French people being bullied around by stupid English people.

  8. Anybody But Conservative has turned into the death rattle for the Liberal Party – who would have thought only a few days ago – Jack doesn't need Iggy anymore as let's face it Iggy is a walking lesson in how to single handedly kill a political party – it is slice and dice time folks thefate of the Liberla Party is what is at stake here – male no mistake about this as ABC with the liberal numbers this low is the death rattle for the party as jack doesn't need to setup an arrangement or a coaltion and both Jack and Steve will just carve up the cold remains of the party – NO ABC folks don't do it think about it as it won't be harper you are hurtiing it will be the Liberal Party !!!

    • Interesting take on things. . .

    • The Liberal Party was already basically a dead-man-walking by the time Ignatieff was appointed leader without a legitimate convention.

      Paul Martin gutted the party when he turned it into a personality cult to get rid of Chretien.

  9. this is what you get for betraying your own values and then voting against someone – it is never a good idea as it makes you a hypocrite and without any value in democracy – vote for what you believe in or else you are a waste of space and may as well stay home becuase when you vote for what you believe in you can sleep at night and have earned the right to complain – As itsatnds you have forfeited the right complain about any party as you have just proved to everyone that you have no integrity and in fact are worse than the person you voted against – in otherwords you are a hypocrite

  10. Revulsion? Do you really mean this? If so, what do you really find revolting? This is a serious question.

  11. Why would any Canadian in their left mind vote NDP?!…

    A party who has forced MEDICARE on every CDN?, only people who can pay out of their own pockets wile bleeding to death in a ditch should be able to get medical treatment or too bad!…

    A party whose founder Tommy Douglas was voted the GREATEST CANADIAN in the history of our country!, who does he think he is?!…

    A party who cares about the people?!?!, forget the people!, what about the oil companies, banks & big corporations?!, their only making millions in profits!, crap I'm out of bread & water again…

    A leader who thinks the credit card companies are charging us to much interest?!, who cares if Canadians are drowning themselves in dept!, keep the government out of the billionaires business!…

    I mean geeze baaa! The other parties & media etc keep telling me not to vote NDP baaa! they say the SKY WILL FALL! baaa! you'd be crazy baaa! to think for yourself! baaa! you know you can TRUST what baaa! the other parties tell you to FEAR baaa!.

    Baaa!…

    • You should post this in every thread, not just till the election but till the next election. And in Weinman's threads on single vs multiple camera sitcoms too!
      You could be the baaa guy- national tour, endorsements, dare I say it, a Senate appointment. Unless Layton kills the senate. Hahahah. Yeah right, like he won't be stuffing Heather Mallick and Raffi in there by September!

    • A PARTY that doesn't realize that CAPITAL letters and surplus punctuation make you look CRAZY!!!?!!!!;'?!

  12. I think this proves something that a few people have been saying for a while. The LPC is weak. It has no real 'convictions', other than to be in power. It tried to parachute a leader in, and is now finding out it would have been better if the leader had been a politician. I am not in the left leaning camp, but if I were, I would be supporting Layton. Ignatieff, and the LPC, have not earned the support of any Canadians.

    It appears that this election might prove that. It makes one wonder what will be in the future? On left leaning party (the Liberal Democratic Party)? Very interesting.

    • Try reading the article again. Their problem isn't that they don't have ideas and policies, their problem is that they believe that ideas and policies are all that's required for government.

      Unfortunately, getting INTO government requires slogans, marketing, and basic psychological manipulation of people, something the CPC is simply much better at.

      • So, I read it again. Doesn't change my original post.
        Now read my post again. I know that the Liberals have a few ideas and policies – it's convictions that they do not have. The title of the piece is '(Still) Searching for a new Liberalism.' It seems that they won't find it in time, and we will be able to sit on the sidelines and watch the Natural Governing Party implode.

        • Conviction sounds like a synonym for faith, which is some circles is a bad thing. I like evidence, not faith. Maybe CPC and NDP feel otherwise, hence brain-dead crime-and-punishment and huge increases in corporate taxes respectively.

          • If you see conviction as faith, I see your point. What I mean is a belief that they hold, and are willing to stand my it. It has been the experience of the liberal party to have a policy, or platform, that they think will get them elected. They may all, personally, disagree with said policy, but they will do it. It seems that the CPC and NDP do have beliefs (like them or hate them) and they will stick my them. I have not seen that evidenced by the liberals.

          • Belief is another synonym. It's a matter of pragmatism vs. ideology. Pragmatism is not a dirty word.

            As far as saying anything to get elected… have you been listening the Harper? He's been abandoning or slamming the door on many of his party's convictions. The only solace his supporters might be able to take is that he's just saying it to get elected and that those issues really are on the table in the event of a majority.

          • regardless of convictions, he still have to govern a country with millions of people. He can't make every decision based on his convictions. Heck, politicians make decisions that totally go against their convictions, because of political reality. That isn't necessarily wrong.

            Wouldn't you be the first to slam Harper if he started to run this country only based on his convictions? How come with other politicians it is called being Pragmatic, but with Harper, it is slamming the door on his convictions. . . ?

          • The difference is that either the CPC base or the general electorate are being sold a bill of goods. The base is kept obedient and generous with their donations by promising red meat 'principled' policies, while the public is promised middle-of-the-road pablum. In other words, the Conservatives claim to have principles, and Liberals are generally pretty open about evaluating policies on their merits and doing what seems not only sensible, but practical.

          • How can the CPC send a different message to their supporters, and a different message to the general public? Sounds kind of impossible doesn't it.

          • Private emails, telephone calls, private meetings with special interests (like that dude who was telling the pro-life group that they had defunded Planned Parenthood).

            The Conservatives are very good at delivering different messages depending on the audience. They even include loaded words in seemingly rather innocuous messages that seem designed to provide additional meaning to certain special interests. For instance, talking about saving the lives of babies in their maternal health message. To normal people, that means living breathing babies, to pro-lifers, that means saving microscopic clots of cells.

          • sorry, not buying it. easy story for any reporter to break.

        • Well, I'll grant that.. there's a lot more CPC members who are up for conviction than Liberals.

          • cute – I will give you that, but historically, probably not true.

          • Well, the CPC has only been around for a couple of years, compared to the generations the Liberals have been around, so you might have a point. Still, gotta give the CPC credit, in their short time around, they're working their hardest to make up the gap.

  13. You voted, for a party that admit you didn't know what they stand for. This is sad. Do us all a favor, and next time vote after you have done some reading, and are voting using your brain.

  14. Can you define 'the sheer stupidity of a neo-conservative austerity government during so much economic instability'.

    I am incredibly curious what you mean by this.

  15. The austerity government behind the massive new deficit? That's kind of an odd way to look at it.

  16. All I know is, the Habs were still in the playoffs when the Bloc were #1 in Quebec. Thanks a lot JACK.

    • actually I was rooting for Vancouver. . .

  17. Speaking of slogans:

    When the CPC man comes to our door and says he's Here for Canada, we must not give it to him – we'll never get it back.

  18. What no one in the media dares not mention is the conservative attacks were based on a a very true and very unusual set of facts: that Mr. Ignatieff did live outside of Canada for 34 years and only came back for the prospct of running the country.

    Indeed the defence of Ignatieff was far more dishonest than the CPC attack: that anyone who “spends time” outside Canada is being marred as unCanadian. With time, degree matters. If I tell my wife I’m going out, and don’t come back for a month, that becomes qualitatively different than if I was gone for two hours.

    • Exactly as you state it. And as such, it's THE most under reported story of this campaign. By far!!

  19. Ignatieff being compared to someone who takes a couple of years outside of Canada to go to school etc was simply dishonest spin. He chose to leave this country for his adult life. Comapred to someone who chose to live here for most or all of their adult life then in many ways they are less “Canadiaaan”. No, perhaps not in the legal sens, but in the common sense sense.

    But common sense doesn’t appear to be a prerequisite to being a member of the very select, tightly knit, inter-Twittering, lock-step thinking media “elite”.

  20. I voted Conservative in the advance poll, with good enthusiasm…

    • I know this is hard for a conservative to understand but Canadians really do not like Harper and he scares people. As for giving Jay Anderson a hard time for the honesty, get over it. Canadians are entitled to a vote and can vote whatever they feel. Informed or not, it is their vote. It is no differant than a conservative voting for Harpers lies just to get power. Leave it to a conservatives self righteousness to say "makes you a hypocrite and without any value in democracy ". I would counter that with Harpers value of democracy and question why conservatives simply shrug off all the anti democratic things Harper has done (the list is long and everyone knows it) and support him, even defend him in his actions. That is a true hypocrite and quite frankly disgusting to Canadians. Look in the mirror before you go on the attack of our fellow Canadians.
      I will close with this, I am a liberal not only in my politics but in how I live my life. However, I believe in stratigic voting to rid our country of what I consider an evil, evil man…Stephan Harper. On monday vote ABC.

  21. Interesting article on a day when Harper fires Patrick Muttart, credited with the branding and packaging of him, for doing a little bit of swiftboating of Mr. Ignatieff.

  22. I personally enjoyed the old slogan of "I'm entitled to my entitlements."

    Now that one was catchy.

    • Maybe Ignatieff would have had more luck out west urging everyone to "come under my big red cowboy hat."

  23. Can we all take a few moments to think nice thoughts of Mr Ignatief, a decent man of a certain mostly earned and mostly positive renown as an academic cum pundit, who unwisely succumbed to the flattery of desperate Liberal nabobs and took on the leadership of a sinking ship. I hope that his folly in doing this will be treated kindly by history, and by himself.

  24. I think there were more than a few hypocritical elements of the Liberal campaign that did not go unnoticed by Canadians.

    The "we're the only ones who can stop Harper!"…coming from the party who actually propped up Harper in parliament for several years.

    The "open, honest government" pitch…coming from a party still smelling of the biggest Canadian political scandal in recent times.

    The "call for democracy"…coming from an unelected party leader who missed more days in the HOC than anybody else.

    The "corporate tax increase"…coming from the party that helped put tax cuts in place.

    The "we're the centrist party"…coming from a party that moved significantly to the left in an attempt to raid NDP voters and a leader well known for his "right wing" history.

    Issuing the "Liberal Red Book of promises"…coming from the party that made that slogan the 'poster boy' for empty campaign promises.

    These (I believe) all played into the narrative of the LPC saying, or doing anything they had to in order to get elected. I think they also played into the cynicism that Canadians feel about untrustworthy politicians.

    Voters don't want to be taken as suckers any more than they want to be bullied.

  25. JUST VISITING …

    Yea, another election SUBVERTED by Mr Harper and his out of election USA imported personal attack or character assassination ads.

    We have had TWO elections SUBVERTED by Mr Harper and his ATTACK ads such that Canadians NEVER got a chance to know Mr Dion (NOT A REAL LEADER) and Mr Ignatieff (JUST VISITING).

    I think Mr Ignatieff is doing pretty good since he had start so far back because of the non stop out of election ATTACK ads Mr Harper had done.

    I think if you watch a lot of Mr Ignatieff (on CPAC), then you know why Mr Harper did NOT want us to know him. Harper would NOT even have a chance in a FAIR election.

    Both the 2008 (NOT A REAL LEADER) and 2011 (JUST VISITING) elections have been SUBVERTED by Mr Harper's ATTACK ADS.

    It is just outrageous what this guy has done to OUR DEMOCRACY … with his money (i.e. they say in the USA if you do NOT respond to an attack ad, you are DOOMED … MONEY BOUGHT both of these elections).

    PS JUST VISITING is the Obama BIRTH CERTIFICATE ploy, Mr Ignatieff does NOT deserve to be PM, he is NOT a Canadians or so says PM HARPER … HE KNOWS BEST YOU KNOW.

    PS I wonder why he say with Wayne Gretsky … JUST VISITING.

    Remember, better check with Mr Harper is you are a Canadians or [NOT] especially when you leave the country … you never know … anymore …

    TIME to EXIT the Harper FISH BOWL.

    Yea.

    • So I take it you're not voting Conservative?

    • So, just to be clear, cause I'm a little fuzzy on your point.

      SUBVERTED!

      also, LOUD NOISES! WHY ARE WE YELLING? I'M GETTING SCARED!

  26. What is the issue most important to you? Maybe it really is a trivial distraction from a more important underlying issue.

  27. This just in:

    Vote for me or you can "go to hell"!

    Very Prime Ministerial!!!

Sign in to comment.