Dreamworldview - Macleans.ca
 

Dreamworldview


 

The Liberals’ new English language ad, filmed, it appears, in Narnia…

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.3364268&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]


 

Dreamworldview

  1. … and the French ads appear to have been filmed in Mordor.

  2. Don't accept the Turkish Delight.

  3. Andrew Coyne, proving once again that internet snark is a young person's game :)

    (Really, Narnia??)

    • He doubtless meant "The Shire" with Ignatieff as Gandalf and Harper as Sauron. That would mean Layton is Gollum and Duceppe is Saruman.

  4. OMG IT'S FUNNY COZ IT'S TRUE! If MI had goat's legs and big ears and horns and like a second-year "Conflict Studies" major's attempt at a beard, he'd like TOTALLY be Tumnus!

  5. Oh dear me. Mike you can always go back to plan B after an election and launch a Canadian franchise for the New American Pogo stick (Schtick)? Think of the global vision possibiities.

  6. Beyond kumbayah Liberals, the reaction so far seems to be that the ads are pretty flat, and I'd have to agree. This is why we have to have an election? Because Iggy thinks he's better than everyone else while a tree's about to fall on his head? lol

  7. If I'm not mistaken, it looks like the ads were filmed in Algonquin Park.

  8. If I'm not mistaken, it looks like the ads were filmed in studio with Iggy standing in front of a greenscreen, and the background was digitally inserted later.

    • He can't appear to get too close to real trees, for fear of repeating the Green Shift?

    • "standing in front of a greenscreen"

      I was wondering about that but it looks like it was actually filmed outside. You can see the weeds moving behind him around the 19 second mark.

      • You can have motion in a greenscreen backdrop too. The lines around Ignatieff against the background are sharp, rather than soft (as you would see with natural light and unedited video), so I'm guessing greenscreen here.

        • It's not. The camera is running a counter clockwise movement around MI and the background movement matches perfectly, and then on the closeup the background becomes more blurry as it should be in an exterior shot. And then there's the amount of ambient lighting on MI, you can't can't fake that in a budget studio.

    • Nah, you can see some of the vegetation behind him moving.

      As for the "flat, boring" thing. Bland works. This is hardly the moment to start doing attack ads. Probelm is Torys simply can't imagine an ad that isn't solely about how their opponent is a pedophile, alien, commie, whatever.

      • So, we're going to have a $300 million dollar election, one that nobody wants, in order to get, let's see, bland? But I thought he was "big?" I mean, the entire justification for an election is that we have to shake things up, yet here he is putting us all to sleep with his brilliance. Fascinating.

        • An election nobody seems to want? $300 Mill.

          Seeing the exit of S. Harper? Priceless.

      • Geez, liberals have short memories. It wasn't the Tories that brought out the guns in the street ads.

    • If that's not greenscreen then………..well you can all insert your own response.

      • …..and does it matter if it was or was not greenscreened?

        • Not really – but it's still kind of interesting. It's about authenticity.

          • I suppose…but sadly for both of us authenticity has taken a terrible beating since the days of our childhood (OK, maybe just my childhood, and maybe it has always been this way). When I think about being authentic I'm not really just thinking about whether or not this particular ad was produced with the use of a green screen (my bet is that it was); for me those details are not so important. I'm actually thinking more about qualities that are related to authenticity.

            In particular I really dislike the whole spin / staying on message / talking points / sticking to the script method of 'doing' politics. I would much rather see some actual dialog / conversation rather than the moronic, word for word recital of the three stock answers to the questions of the day. And I don't mean that I am looking for that gotcha moment so that we can all crucify a politician for a minor slip-up; I want to see our leaders thinking on their feet, responding, restating, clarifying the question, seeking to understand, even admitting that a statement went too far and taking it back. I want to see an honest, open, authentic person instead of a cardboard figure spewing throw away lines that have been endlessly test driven and refined by marketing people.

            The best Stephen Harper interview I have ever seen was a lengthy one he did several years ago (I'm 97% sure he was PM at the time), at a college in the US; he was engaging, he was funny, he was authentic.

            So, yes, I am also a big fan of authenticity.

          • At this point I'd settle for a politician who can convincingly fake authenticity.

          • I suspect you don't really believe that.

            'It' is worse than years ago, no?

            Regardless, I will continue to hope for improvement, even if progress might take a good long while.

          • Was a joke. You know, faking…authenticity. (drops head in despair, wanders off stage…)

    • Tree hater.

  9. Personally I think the ad strikes the right tone, the idea of a "Big Canada" is likely to be an easier sell than, say, The Green Shift.

    It should be interesting to see which theme wins out: "It's all about Ignatieff" or "It's all about A Better Tomorrow".

    Actually now that I think about it – isn't this exactly the way that Harper beat Martin? Harper was the Agent of Change while Martin tried to paint Harper as The Worst Person In The World? (my apologies to Olbermann ;)

    My my, how times change eh?

    • A "Big Canada". What in the world does that mean, and why do we need it now in the middle of a hard recession. For the life of me, I don't understand this political narrative nor its usefulness in any upcoming election campaign. Liberals may love the idea that they're "big." Good for them.

      In 2004, and especially 2006, Canadians were sick of Liberal scandals, and wanted a competent and safe alternative. In 2006, Harper was able to convince them that he was it.

      In 2009, I don't know why Canadians would want to turf a proven leader over, well, Iggy. And I know I don't find these ads in the least bit convincing. Only Liberal partisans do, by the looks of it.

      • Fine, and judging from your response this ad isn't the least bit convincing to Conservative partisans. Whatever.

        (I can think of one MASSIVE reason why Canadians would want to turf a "proven" leader…Say it with me now…."prorogue"!)

        • So, Canadians are going to storm the gates because Harper…..prorogued Parliament……a year ago…… to stop an extremely unpopular coalition.

          This is all you got?

          The only narrative I've heard so far that makes any sense is that a different approach is needed for a recovery. Yet this implicitly acknowledges that there will be a recovery, which Harper has to take credit for. And it also begs the question: how will Iggy's "plan" be different from Harper's, and why do we need Iggy to implement it?

          So far, Ignatieff is falling right into the Conservative narrative, which is that it's all about Iggy and nobody else. And Iggy doesn't seem capable of proving otherwise, at least not yet.

          • Yes, doing an end run around that quaint little notion of Responsible Government is "all" I got. Harper has been playing out the string ever since.

            But keep telling yourself otherwise…

            p.s. Nice attempt at spin there…Harper prorouged parliament only to stop an extremely unpopular coalition…rrriiiiiight, he's just that altruistic!

          • Well, regardless of his motives (and, yes, the coalition was unpopular, even if Harper's motives self-serving), if you think that prorogue will be at the forefront of Canadians minds in this election, and that's why we're having one, then good luck with that. In fact, my bet is that Team Harper would love to have you as part of Team Iggy. But I suspect the latter will be filled with a bit more common sense than what you have to offer. Just a bit more, by the looks of these ads, of course.

          • Hey, it was enough to convince this life long NDP voter to give the Liberals a second look.

            (and if you don't think that anything will be made of Harper's penchant for petty partisan shenanigans then you're dearly mistaken – I suspect that a promise to move beyond and above them will be central to Ignatieff's message)

          • So, you counter Harper's apparent hyper-partisanship, which is what Liberals and leftists think, with an election motivated solely by ego and partisanship? Hey, that's a plan!

          • Right, 'cause that's exactly what I just said…

          • "…an election motivated solely by ego and partisanship?"
            Hey Dennis, why bring up 2008? Harper's own broken promise and vision of dancing on the grave of Dion likely still stings for the so-called leader even now. And he prorogued more than once, you know.

          • Where does altruism enter into it, and why is that relevant? Doing the right thing can occasionally coincide with doing the self-serving thing.

          • Harper Prorogued Parliament less than a year ago during the high water mark of this recession. How responsible was that? That was only a few short months after he broke his own election law to throw the country into an election. An election that was qualified by the belief that Parliament was dysfunctional. Parliament was dysfunctional because the government made every motion a confidence motion, and heavily disrupted committee work complete with a how to manual. All because he was focused on Partisan gain vs working with the government that Canadians sent to Ottawa. So this is all about who again?

            All of this seems like great reason to go to the polls.

            The ad I saw today showed a positive message about Canada's future. That narrative is something I can get behind.

          • This is exactly what I'm talking about. In fact, if Team Iggy is as out to lunch as some of you on here, then Harper will finally get that majority. Running on a prorogue that occurred over a year ago is really a justification for an election today, is it? And it completely misses the point that the coalition was far less popular than the prorogue, as hard as that is to believe for some of you.

            Again, there is no coherent Liberals narrative for an election. And if going positive is that narrative, haven't seen it in these dud ads either.

          • It must be hard writing from a script.

            There are numerous reasons to throw out this government. Harper has alienated many regions on an impressive variety of topics. I don't think the prorogation is the only reason to go to an election. Its one of many.

          • You know, it never ceases to amaze me how a person who is uttering the same inanities about prorogue can turn around and accuse their opponent of "writing from a script."

            All I'm asking for is one narrative explaining to Canadians why we need an election now. Just one. Not too many to count, but one. And let's assume for a moment that the lame suggestion about prorogue ain't it.

            Hey, I'm not the one who's saying we need an election. You are. So tell Canadians why in one simple narrative. Next.

          • I think the Liberal's have already given it to you "We can do better" It may apply to a variety of topics but it is still a narrative. In my opinion it's a pretty good one.

            Ah Dennis I can't help but see conbots everywhere, my apologies if that's not you. They always seem to pop up instantly for damage control whenever anything involving them hits the fan, or when another party is having a good day. Spin baby spin.

          • Specifically, in one simple narrative, do better than what and how?

            You see, I've avoided impugning your motives for having an opinion on this. You haven't done the same with. And, yet, here you are saying that you're for doing things "better." Fascinating.

            I have yet to hear a good reason for why we need this election now, and Liberals have yet to provide one that'll fly with Canadians.

          • "and Liberals have yet to provide one that'll fly with Conservatives like me"

            *fixed*

          • Hey, we're all listenting, and we'd all love to hear what would fly with Canadians in general.

            It's like asking people to do rocket science, apparently.

          • But you're running on the proroguing part. Better get up todate on your talking points Duncef. Jason and Johnny are going to spend the next week spouting about it and pretending like we live in a republic.
            While you may have no love for our westminster parliamentary system, the fact that Harper is a rhodes hypocrite (as opposition leader he trolled for an election many, many times, promoting a union of himself, Duceppe and Layton to the GG of the day, just to stay on theme) must make you weep at night.

          • Iggy is going to plant a garden, has planted a garden. thats how

      • Note to Michael Ignatieff's team: the Conservative partisans aren't buying it. They see right through you.

  10. Talk about HIDDEN AGENDA!! There is absolutely NOTHING of substance proposed by Count Iggy. The arrogance is truly breath-taking. I note that CityTV is currently advertising a programme titled "The Biggest Loser" on this webpage . . .

  11. The French ads seem far more effective… I don't think many Canadians are going to be convinced by talks of reaching out to India or China, and Ignatieff speech seems rather rushed in the English ad.

    The central message is rather generic, but potent – if supported. Ignatieff's got to get out of the fanciful, well, dreamworld, and take Harper to task for each little screw-up over the last four years if he wants a shot of beating the Conservatives. It's not so much about drawing away Conservative supporters, but rather presenting a clear, strong opposition to Harper in order to sway NDP, Green and most importantly, Bloc voters to the Liberal side.

  12. Tender, non-threatening blue and green colors, boilerplate speech… BORING.
    The add would've had more teeth with Iggy standing in front of Van Gogh's Wheat Field with Crows, and saying something like "We need a new way of thinking: Vote for me or the planet will fry"

    http://www.vggallery.com/painting/p_0779.htm

    • Sure, but fearmongering and threatening are strategies that are already taken. Why do Conservative partisans like fearmongering and threats?

  13. I'll also add that I wonder if the same people who criticized Harper for running pre-election ads will criticize Iggy for doing the same thing now. I mean, isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

    As for the negativity part, I wonder how long until Iggy starts unloading himself. Because you can count on it. And I believe he's on record saying he won't do it, too.

    • The difference would be that Harper ran negative ads outside of a writ. Ignatieff is running a positive ad about his party's vision. Do you really not see the difference?

      • No, especially since the main criticism was that they were being run before an election. Now you're saying it's OK only if they're positive? And I don't even think these are positive. Boring would be more accurate.

        • I don't have a problem with any party running positive advertisements that tell me about them at any time of year. I have a problem with attack ads outside of a writ. The only stem dysfunction in the Commons.

          The Prime Minister is supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart.

          • The Prime Minister is supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart.

            While this might be a lovely aspiration, as a statement of fact it's pretty shaky, historical evidence-wise.

            (Also, I have a faint suspicion that it's only Conservative attack ads you find distasteful; when Liberals do it, it's just "the ugly truth" they've been forced to bring up, due to Conservative perfidy, I'm guessing?)

          • "The Prime Minister is supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart.

            While this might be a lovely aspiration, as a statement of fact it's pretty shaky, historical evidence-wise. "

            Can't blame me for yearning for better.

          • When Stockwell Day was mocked and called a religious wingut, how is that a positive message?

            When the Reform were painted as radicals and uncanadian by the Liberals, how was that consistent with your message?

          • The Prime Minister is supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart.

            While this might be a lovely aspiration, as a statement of fact it's pretty shaky, historical evidence-wise.

            (Also, I have a faint suspicion that it's only Conservative attack ads you find distasteful; when Liberals do it, it's just "the ugly truth" or similar, I'm guessing?)

          • The Prime Minister is supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart.

            While this might be a lovely aspiration, as a statement of fact it's pretty shaky, historical evidence-wise.

            (Also, I have a faint suspicion that it's only Conservative attack ads you find distasteful; when Liberals do it, it's just "the ugly truth" about wicked Tories they've been forced to discuss, I'm guessing?)

  14. Interesting slogan: We Can Do Better. Compare that with a CPC slogan from a few years ago: Demand Better.

    Interesting because in neither case does either party actually say that they WILL do better.

    • Well, the implied message with the Conservatives was that they'd do away with the scandals. And, for the most part, they have. Hard to see what, in 2009, we have to do away with.

      I've been of the belief for a while that Iggy's most courageous move would be to wait it out until Canadians get sick of Harper. That's how you unseat governments even in good economic times. yet Iggy doesn't seem to have the stomach for that, and Canadians aren't sick of Harper like Liberals and leftists are.

      • They claimed they were bringing transparency and accountability to government. The only thing there that was followed through on was the appointment of Paige, and even so they are now trying to keep him from doing his job by taking away his budget.

        They never claimed anything about becoming scandle free. I don't think any government could, and they certainly haven't.

      • Indeed. Full marks to the CPC for not participating in their own version of Adscam.

        Now my memories of that campaign are a bit vague, but my recollection is that the Demand Better slogan was kind of a multi-purpose slogan, getting itself loosely attached to many if not all of the individual promises. That had the advantageous effect of then allowing each voter to read whatever they wanted into the phrase. You have highlighted the scandals, whereas other people may have focused on other issues, issues where the CPC has not been quite as successful in meeting the higher standard implied by Demand Better.

  15. So, we need to have an election in order to have a government that will reach out to India and China. In fact, this is so important that Iggy decided that he had to stay here to work on bringing down the government full time instead of, er, visiting China.

    • I thought we needed an election so Khadr could come home and build trains ?

  16. Negative ads have there place. In an election. Do I like the Liberal's one better, sure. Its how I lean. However the recent Con one were plain old unnecessary. Same one during the writ would have been fair game.

    • In fact, I think it's pretty obvious that the ads against Dion and Ignatieff both hit their mark. They both were doing well in public standing before they hit. They both started sinking after the ads aired.

      If Iggy wanted a quick election, he should have done it in the spring. Instead, he was seen as weak, and the narrative from the ads has stuck.

      Of course, that's probably precisely why Liberals don't like the ads. They're good and effective, unlike the current Liberal attempts.

      • "If Iggy wanted a quick election, he should have done it in the spring"

        How do you reconcile that with the "an election motivated solely by ego and partisanship?" simultaneous talking point? Thank you, Dennis, for posting both of them yourself.

        Iggy, apparently, is a weak notaleader right up until the moment he is an egotistical partisan. While I know you will refuse to believe it, he just might have been trying to make Parliament work.

        • I reconcile it easily. He doesn't have judgement.

          If Iggy wanted Parliament to work, why did he scuttle the very EI panel he created to work on the issue, and why does he now want an election no matter what happens?

          The funny thing is that, the more that I ask for a coherent Liberal election narrative, the more jumbled are the responses.

          I have to believe that Iggy is absolutely expecting that the NDP or Bloc will bail him out. Nothing else makes sense. And, if that happens, then I'll finally give him some credit. If it doesn't happen, then I think he's in some deep doo-doo, especially given what I've read in this thread so far.

      • http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/Best-P

        This poll from early August kinda pokes a wee bit of a hole in that assertion of yours about the efficacy of t the "Just Visiting" ads on Ignatieff's personal popularity. I'm not exactly seeing any drastic "sinking" here are you?

        http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/07

        Furthermore, this latest offering from Ekos shows the Liberal party in general has not been "sunk" by those ads. Check out page two for the tracking. Looks pretty stagnant don't it? Almost like one would expect during the summer months when pretty much no one is paying attention to politics.

      • http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/Best-P

        This poll from early August kinda pokes a wee bit of a hole in that assertion of yours about the efficacy of t the "Just Visiting" ads on Ignatieff's personal popularity. I'm not exactly seeing any drastic "sinking" here are you?

        http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/07

        Furthermore, this latest offering from Ekos shows the Liberal party in general has not been "sunk" by those ads. Check out page two for the tracking. Looks pretty stagnant don't it? Almost like one would expect during the summer months when pretty much no one is paying attention to politics.

        • I'll remind you that the polls said pretty much the same thing about Dion, and look at how that turned out. People don't tell pollsters that they think negative ads work. Negative ads work because they leave an underlying impression that's hard to erase.

          Iggy was soaring before the spring. Then the ads hit, as did all the negative reviews from the press – just as happened with Dion.

          Funny how Harper critics keep knocking him for tactics that WORK! That Iggy is finally running ads outside of a writ period suggests that, too.

        • Did you compare his leadership scores in January with NO negatives to the present?

          I understand many Liberals think anything is an attack. The disconnect for political junkies it "we think" or speak for the regular voter.

          Partisans, political junkies are too far gone from what I can tell. They have consumed the Kool-Aid.

          This weekend at a BBQ of 35 people, I worked the room and explained this summer and the News as reported vs the truth.

          Most of family were life long liberals. At the BBQ I corrected the wafer scandal, late photo ops and the Liberals recent election threat.

          Most reasonable people I have spoken with have a SERIOUS problem with MI being absent for 34 years and running for PM.
          Everyone I have spoken with were shocked regarding the fabrication of the "wafer story" at the state funeral by the Media. I laid out the case and saw a few Catholics become EX-Liberals before my eyes.

          I recognize many devoted Liberals don't see anything wrong with the Liberal Party and blame everything on the current government.

          • Thank goodness your BBQ party folk aren't incharge of electing our government. I have a suspicious feeling we'd be run by the doctor who medicated Michael Jackson…

    • There's some kind of ethical difference between running negative ads during an election campaign versus outside of one?

      Sounds pretty contrived to me. You've chosen to conclude that the Cons' ads were bad and the Libs' ads were good, and now you're trying to rationalize it.

      • Agreed the rewriting of history is always enjoyable to read by each partisan.

      • I'm reluctantly inclined to agree that most of the "this ad is fine, that ad is not" is based on a degree of partisanship.

        I'd say that I find attack ads outside of an election campaign ethically questionable because it's akin to a gladiator stabbing his opponent before a fight, rather than during one. Sure, in both situations, a guy's getting knifed, but it's hardly the same thing.

  17. Everything he says in the ad is probably true. I just don't see how it leads to the conclusion "therefore you should vote Liberal".

    • or, therefore we absolutely must have an election overturning the results of the last one about a year ago.

      btw, am I the only one having all kinds of trouble navigating these comment boards – especially from the notification E-mails. About half the time the link doesn't take me to the comment I'm looking for, then it takes me forever to find it. I use Firefox, but I've tried it with Explorer and Chrome, too.

  18. Shorter DennisF: Polls work except when they don't say what I want them to

    gotcha..

    • Hey, you gotta love it when someone thinks yelling "gotcha" in a reply counts as a winning argument. lol.

      Actually, I consider history and elections to work. And, in the case of Dion, the narrative from the ads seem to have worked. And, in the case of Iggy, I sense the same thing, too. The media has soured on Iggy. It's out there that he's been away and might be arrogant.

      Now, you may think these ads counter that. Good luck.

      Can I say "gotcha" now, too?

      • "gotcha" = "I understand now"

        As in: who needs things like verifiable results and standard deviation when Dennis' spidey sense is tingling?

        gotcha.

        • Verifiable results? You mean you don't consider election campaigns to qualify as verifiable results?

          Hey, if you want to stick with the theory that attack ads had no effect on Dion, and that they've had no effect on Iggy, then be my guest.

          But it might explain why you and him can't come up with a good reason to have an election now. Thanks.

          • you really are tiresome you know that?

            The reason why there should be an election? Well for starters almost 3/4s of Canadians voted against the Conservatives last time and they've done absolutely nothing in the interim to change anyone's mind about their fitness for government. There are literally hundreds of reasons, none may appeal to you specifically but that's to be expected – you are a Conservative partisan, and not the mythical "average Canadian" you like to pretend that you are. You go right on ahead and vote Conservative, I'm not here to change your mind, neither is the Liberal ad campaign – they are out to regain the voters Dion lost and to pilfer the disgruntled NDP voters…on those grounds, "We Can Do Better" is a fine message. Again, you hate it – whatever…

            As for your absurd contention that since Dion lost and there were negative ads about him, therefore Ignatieff will lose because there are *also* negative ads about him? Well that's better left in the dust bin where you found it.

            And on that note I'm outta here…time to go enjoy the remaining few hours of summer on a patio enjoying a beer.

          • Look, I'm not the one who can't come up with a coherent narrative for an election, and you have the gall to suggest that I'm being tiresome? That I'm nothing but a partisan hack? lol

            OK, so your latest attempt is that 3/4's of Canadians didn't vote for Harper. But even more didn't vote for Liberals. There goes that one.

            I can understand why you've given up trying to explain the inexplicable. Me? I wouldn't have tried to begin with, and thus save myself a fruitless Sunday afternoon.

            Bye.

  19. Well, it's not as if Kenney has to worry about his seat in Calgary Southeast. I guess he really likes that ministerial limo, eh ?

  20. Good grief – we are not in an election yet – Harper didn't bring out his policies until the 2005/06 campaign was underway.

    Double-standard or what.

    • Harper's general positions were not unknown, thanks to numerous public statements, and the fact that he had run for prime minister just two years before. You already knew Harper wanted lower taxes, no gay marriage, Canada out of Kyoto, etc. Today, do we know if Ignatieff will raise/lower taxes? Will he make cuts to impact the deficit. In theory, one might suggest that the budget Ignatieff claimed to have coerced out of Harper reflects his priorities. Of course, at the same time, he is now actively campaigning against that budget.

      • We did not know his policies until that election – stop trying to twist it.

        Why would he bring them out – after you see the over-hyped reaction to ads – I guess everyone has their childish and giddy moments – even Coyne

        • The specifics didnt come out until the election, his broad positions were known but you are correct his specifics were not out there….and he was roundly criticized for it. Then the cons did what nobody thought possible, they stole the agenda by announcing a policy a day and earned the respect of the press corps….they looked disciplined and substansive. Politically no policy was allowed to stew for days to attract criticism.

          Look for the Libs to try a similar thing, they tried it with Dion but the execution was so bad. Execution will be better this time, but we will see if the leader (an inexperienced retail political guy) will be able to handle things.

          What will the Cons do? Hmm, doubt they can get away with the coalition stuff as the only plank, they have a record to defend….thas bad and good…..new policies, hard to know…but I am still torn as to whether there will be an election….

          Mind you according to Rossi, Iggy is amazing and will have no trouble with this. Both sides have to watch the expectations they create leading into the campaign.

  21. I see the Liberals partisan are using the CPC examples of bad behaviour to justify their behaviour.

    Harper caused an unecessary election so we can too. Harper did not disclose his platform early so we can too.

    Harper is muzzling his MP's so we can too.

    The Liberals were complaining last year about wasting $ 300 million now it is a worthwhile investment.

    It is very funny watching both of these parties continue to attack each other.

    [youtube f_IlCNPQZw8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_IlCNPQZw8&fe… youtube]

  22. 1. I can't wait till the greenscreen meets photoshop…

    2. I believe the Narnia reference needs to be taken seriously. If Michael Ignatieff does want you to think Narnia, who is which character?

    Iggy presents himself as Peter, the wise older child. Stephen Harper, by contrast, is Edmund – an evil, brooding child that will sell us all out. Jack Layton is Lucy, a loveable little scamp, but clearly not ready for a position of leadership.

    • Ixnay. Ignatieff thinks he is Caspian, the noble heir to the throne finally come back to claim it after years among the Telmarines. Harper is Nikabrik, the embittered dwarf.

      He probably also thinks Dick Cheney is the White Witch and Barack Obama is Aslan.

    • Ixnay. Ignatieff thinks he is Caspian, the noble heir to the throne finally come back to claim it after years among the Telmarines. Harper is Nikabrik, the embittered dwarf.

      He probably also thinks Dick Cheney is the White Witch and Barack Obama is Aslan.

    • Ixnay. Ignatieff thinks he is Caspian, the noble heir to the throne finally come back to claim it after years among the Telmarines. Harper is Nikabrik, the embittered dwarf.

      He probably also thinks Dick Cheney is the White Witch and Barack Obama is Aslan. In short, like most Liberals he understands neither the Narnia allegory nor modern society especially well.

  23. I suspected / hoped that was the case…..I'm still trying to learn all the interweb thing nuances.

  24. Michael Ignatieff is such a plastic Canadian! Even in his campaign ads, he retreats to his beloved homeland of Hobbiton! When Stephen Harper was out being a Blue-Collar Working Canadian leading that there think tank, Ignatieff was smoking pipeweed and combing his foot hair and talking about how much boats suck.

    Michael Ignatieff: not not a hobbit, not worth the risk.

  25. Dion made his mark by eating a hot dog with a knife & fork.

    Iggy makes his mark by being an outdoors man dressed like a preppy looking for a trendy bar.

  26. The Narnia comment gave me a good chuckle. So thank you for that.

    And to comment on all the bickering: Dennis F is wrong. I could name many good reasons for an election but reality is the majority of Canadians never want an election. It doesn’t matter who is in charge, as long as the country doesn’t turn into a third world country, Canadians will not want an election.

    You’re being completely unreasonable Dennis F.