'His failure to define himself was his choice' - Macleans.ca

‘His failure to define himself was his choice’


Conservative campaign chairman Guy Giorno puts his faith in the voters.

Mr. Giorno said Mr. Ignatieff has no one to blame but himself for not taking the time to respond to the ads. The issue was not the fact that Mr. Ignatieff spent so much time living and teaching abroad, he said. Rather, it was his failure to explain his reasons for returning to Canada. “Ordinary Canadians said, ‘it looks like he came back just to run for prime minister,’ ” Mr. Giorno said. “You can agree or disagree with the sentiment, but that was a real-person reaction. His failure to define himself was his choice.”

… Mr. Giorno said the Tories simply let Canadians draw their own conclusions by presenting Mr. Ignatieff’s own words in the ads. “Voters deserve full credit,” he said. “They’re sharp and insightful.”


‘His failure to define himself was his choice’

  1. It was a horrible debacle, equal to Harper’s tragic F-35 decision, and there was plenty of blame all round for his entry into politics.
    I say ‘was’ deliberately. Let’s leave the poor soul in peace and move on.

  2. Giorno must be very unsure of himself if he’s still running around repeating this stuff. Maybe his conscience is bothering him, and he’s trying to reassure himself.

    • Or is it that you just don’t like hearing it?

      • I never like hearing outright stupidity….it’s why I rarely answer YOU.

        • While you ALWAYS answer me. Hey, that’s brilliant. lol. Why such anger and vitriol in your agenda?

          • No, mostly I ignore you. As I do anything loaded with ignorance.

  3. “Mr. Giorno said Mr. Ignatieff has no one to blame but himself for not taking the time to respond to the ads. ”

    Liberal base could also be blamed because their university educated supporters don’t support party and don’t seem to mind that their party needs money. All those smart, wealthy university educated people and they lost to poor yokels!

    I have long wondered why Iggy and Libs did not respond to Just Visiting ads. Liberals have money, they are just making curious choices on how to spend it. What were the Liberals spending their money on, exactly, if not promoting their leader? 

    And people did talk about Iggy being abroad and it was not only Cons who were gossiping about it. It was non-partisan issue – who is this guy and why does he think Canada has been waiting for his return? 
    – “The Conservatives received $10.4 million in 2010 in subsidy cash while the main opposition Liberal Party picked up $7.3 million.

    Corporate and union donations are banned and individuals are allowed to give no more than $1,100 a year. In the last quarter of 2010, the Conservatives raised $5.2 million from the public, compared with $2.2 million for the Liberals.” Reuters, April 1, 2011 

    – “Supporters of centre-left parties (63 per cent of Liberal supporters, for example) and the university educated (62 per cent) prefer leaders who show knowledge and understanding.” Ekos

    – “Although it does poorly with university educated Canadians, the Conservative Party is not shut out of the demograph … ” Globe and Mail, March 21, 2011

    ” … the Liberal Party received four times more money from riding associations and candidates than all the other parties combined …. the average donation to the Liberals was 3-5 times larger than the other parties … the Conservative Party has a base of individual donors that is much larger than the other four parties …. ” Democracy Watch, 2005

    • “All those ‘smart’, university educated people and they lost to yokels! ”

      Ahhh yes, class resentment.

      You are apparently unaware Harper has a master’s degree, and Flaherty graduated Princeton?

      • I think the narrative is more like:

        1) Smartypants Toronto folk with their education and foolish liberal values think conservatives are all yokels.

        2) Conservatives trounce Liberals in election.

        3) TonyAdams gloats that those smartypants liberals are actually stupid and were wrong to call *his* side stupid.

        It’s that heady mix of perpetual victimhood and superiority that seems to drive so many on the right.

        For more on his stunted political outlook, see “Junk Politics”, here: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/30/junk-politics/

        • Yeah, I’ve seen the endless slogans he’s memorized to parrot back without any critical thinking, and the long quotes from books of the last century. LOL

          But to consider his entire party ‘yokels’ and to be proud to have what he thinks is  a cabinet full of yokels is beyond absurd.  No wonder Con party voters are so easily led!

        •  Which part of the narrative is wrong?

          1) is most definitely true, just look at these boards for evidence, or go to liblogs.ca.

          2) yep, that one’s true.

          3) TonyAdams and many others are gloating.  And rightly so.  Stupid liberals got their ass handed to them, and now they are headed for extinction.

          But your conclusion is false.  There is no perpetual victimhood from Conservatives.  We know liberals think very little of us, and generally that’s a badge of honour.  As for superiority, well, that goes without saying, we ARE superior in that our ideology is based on reality, not on what we wished reality was.

          • The very fact you think you’re living in reality negates the rest of your post. LOL

          • “There is no perpetual victimhood from Conservatives.  We know liberals think very little of us,…”

            But isn’t that sorta like undermining your point, just a wee bit? Just say’n.:) 

            alfanerd…mmm, must be a synonyme for hubris – one i haven’t come across before now?

          • no, as i said in my earlier post, having liberals think little of us is a badge of honour. after all, the liberal’s heroes are Omar Khadr, Julian Assange, Michael Moore… I wouldnt want to be thought of highly by people who also think highly of Omar Khadr.

          • If that’s the best you can do for thinking, it’s no wonder liberals think little of you. Pathetic.

        • LA Times – Dec – 2010 – “Consumption of carbohydrates has increased over the years with the help of a 30-year-old, government-mandated message to cut fat.

          And the nation’s levels of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease have risen.”

          TJ Cook – For more on his stunted political outlook, see “Junk Politics”, here:

          I am concerned, as just one example but there are many, about Government giving food advice when it does know what it is doing because it is making people very unhealthy.

          TJCook, Wherry and others concern themselves about tone/mood of talk about Government that is making us sick and unhealthy.

          • This is complete gibberish.

          • Carbohydrate intake is up in the American diet because thanks to their advances in food technology they’ve managed to add unhealthy fats to any carb they can get their hands on.  The idea that fat intake is down is a joke.  Start looking at some food labels.

      • “Ahhh yes, class resentment.

        You are apparently unaware … ”

        I am university educated and am appalled at other university educated people’s arrogance. If university educated people were so smart, they would realize people are individuals and don’t like to be controlled by technocrats who don’t know what they are talking about. 

        University educated left wing types have launched moral crusade, dressed up as science or public policy, on people they don’t approve of. Left wing using science produced by marxist profs who have agenda because they are completely ignoring science that is discovering that people are under control of their genes. Have to expect class resentment. 

        I am tall and underweight – I will believe left wing types don’t have an agenda when they start giving short people a hard time for not trying hard enough to grow taller.


        Left wing: “The Obama administration is about to ditch the food pyramid, that symbol of healthy eating for the last two decades ….. The new symbol was designed to underscore a central mantra of the federal government’s healthy eating push: make half your plate fruits and vegetables. And it is expected to be a crucial element of the administration’s crusade against obesity …. ”

        Liberal Party – “Healthy Living, where Quebeckers and Canadians can be better informed through food labelling, information on trans-fats and healthy food choices, and have better access, especially for low income families, to affordable and healthy foods. An $80 million fund will be created to promote local purchasing and farmer’s markets (such as the ones found in North Hatley or Ayer’s Cliff).


        Twin Study of Human Obesity: Height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were assessed in a sample of 1974 monozygotic and 2097 dizygotic male twin pairs. Concordance rates for different degrees of overweight were twice as high for monozygotic twins as for dizygotic twins. Classic twin methods estimated a high heritability for height, weight, and BMI, both at age 20 years (.80,.78, and.77, respectively) and at a 25-year follow-up (.80,.81, and.84, respectively). 

        Height, weight, and BMI were highly correlated across time, and a path analysis suggested that the major part of that covariation was genetic. These results are similar to those of other twin studies of these measures and suggest that human fatness is under substantial genetic control.

        LA Times, Dec 2010:

        Consumption of carbohydrates has increased over the years with the help of a 30-year-old, government-mandated message to cut fat.

        And the nation’s levels of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease have risen. “The country’s big low-fat message backfired,” says Dr. Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. “The overemphasis on reducing fat caused the consumption of carbohydrates and sugar in our diets to soar. That shift may be linked to the biggest health problems in America today.”

        Steve Pinker: Most intellectuals today have a phobia of any explanation of the mind that invokes genetics.

        • Bible college doesn’t count.

          • OriginalEmily1 – you are Canada’s left wing Colbert Report. 

          • Another meaningless post by you.

          • Then why always respond to people you say are stupid and irrelevant — and insist on always having the last word while you’re at it?

          • See?


        • Is your example trying to advocate against healthy eating because being obesity is entirely genetic? That is a completely unreasonable stance to take.

          Being obese is not entirely genetic.
          Obesity levels have been increasing. They went from 14% in 1994 to 24% in 2009. Do you think this is because Obese people have more babies, or immigrants tend to be obese? Perhaps the increase is better explained by changes in the amount of exercise and quality of food that Canadians are eating.
          The fact that siblings are similar in many ways does not mean that they are going to end up being the same physically, mentally, or socially.

          • “Is your example trying to advocate against healthy eating because being obesity is entirely genetic?”

            No, people can eat whatever they like. ‘Healthy eating’ thing is way over rated, tho. 

            Science Daily, Aug 2009: New research in the latest issue of the Society of Chemical Industry’s (SCI) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture shows there is no evidence to support the argument that organic food is better than food grown with the use of pesticides and chemicals.

            ” Perhaps the increase is better explained by changes in the amount of exercise and quality of food that Canadians are eating. ”

            Perhaps we are wealthier nation, food production is more efficient and cheaper and we are buying more food than ever before.

            People can now afford to fulfill genetic destiny to be whatever weight their appetite guides them to. 

            StatsCan: Canadians are not only spending more on food, but they are also buying more calories. Between 1976 and 2007 the number of calories available per person increased 9% from 3,118 to 3,384 kilocalories.


            “The fact that siblings are similar in many ways does not mean that they are going to end up being the same physically, mentally, or socially.”

            Who argues that it does? Genetics are in control, not people. Appetite is in charge, not will power. Whatever appetite-drive each person born with will guide them to weight.

            We are individuals, not groups.

          • Brother, I am envious of your ability to compartmentalize just about everything. Life must be peaceful. :)

          • “Brother, I am envious of your ability to compartmentalize just about everything.”

            I could say same thing about others. 

            I like people, they are eccentric, curious, peculiar for the most part. Government trying to stamp out individuality and turn us into Borg. I like chaos or creative destruction and Big Government is hostile to my desires. 

            I don’t have big theory of everything – only that government claims to know more than it does and is causing lots of harm with their agenda. 

            I also have unique job where I spend an inordinate amount of time in front of my home computer doing research for Detroit consultant firm. I see a lot of information in a day.

          • I can respect that. What I can’t respect though is this god-forsaken Disqus with the little tiny narrow window for responding deep into a conversation. It’s like, please Disqus, but not too much. 

            Pardon my rant.

        • “If university educated people were so smart, they would realize people are individuals…”

          Pretty rich from a guy who’s making sweeping generalizations of whole classes of people in this very comment.

          Then again, you’re university-educated, so I guess that actually makes you one of those book-smart, life-stupid people you’re generalizing about.

          • That’s all you got, TJ Cook?

            Difference between me at university, and many others, was I knew to avoid the Humanities like the plague. Humanties are morally bankrupt, only care about individual, no sense of civil society. Education meant to teach people how to think for themselves, not indoctrinate. 

            It is why Himelfarb writes about ” … higher ground, to challenge us, to inspire us to find our better selves” … while he supports policies of putting pedophiles back into community so they can continue their evil ways.

            Not all of us think that pedophiles back into community is about “…. redemption or, for that matter, to compassion….”.

            Choices are made when State puts pedophiles back into community – some people think of even more molested children, some think liberty for pedophiles.

            What is higher ground in Himelfarb’s world and why does he expect the rest of us to follow?

            David Rubenstein, Weekly Standard – Fat City:  

            After 34 years of teaching sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, I recently retired at age 64 at 80 percent of my pay for life ……. 

            According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, Harvard, donating 4 to 1 in favor of Democrats in 2008, was one of the more politically diverse major American universities. Ninety-two percent of employees at the University of Chicago donated to Democrats. 

            The University of California favored Democrats over Republicans, 90 percent to 10 percent. And William and Mary employees preferred Democrats to the GOP by a margin of 99 percent to 1 percent. Neil Gross of Harvard found that 87.6 percent of social scientists voted for Kerry, 6.2 percent for Bush. 

            Gross also found that 25 percent of sociologists characterize themselves as Marxists, likely a higher percentage than members of the Chinese Communist party. I would guess that if Lenin were around today he would be teaching sociology and seeking grants to fund the revolution. “

          • All I got? You contradicted your own point in a single sentence: ‘the problem with this group of people is that they don’t understand people are individuals, and don’t act as a group.’

            I mean, duh. You go on and on about the “left” as though they/we all conform to your absurd caricature and then you complain that they have a monolithic view of conservatives?

            Now you address the Junk Politics article with an ad hominem attack on the author. Not only that – you claim the author is pro-pedophile. Priceless. You’re doing exactly what the article described.

            (I’m sure you have some strained interpretation of something Himelfarb wrote that you feel supports your accusation. Spare me the details).

            Another classic: you’ve avoided the Humanities like the plague, but you understand what it’s *really* about, unlike those smartypants who’ve spent their lives studying it. You certainly are confident in your ignorance.

            Really dude, you’re turning into Uncle Blowhard McFoghorn. You might want to slow it down a bit and actually read what you post here.

          • “You certainly are confident in your ignorance”

            Indeed I am. And there is a reason for that. 

            How serious can you take people who claim that air conditioning is causing obesity crisis? 

            “Having your air conditioner running during those hot summer days helps keep you cool and comfortable, but did you ever think that it could make you fat?” ABC News, June 2006

            Steve Pinker: Most intellectuals today have a phobia of any explanation of the mind that invokes genetics.

          • Another bizarre non-sequitur. You’re really slipping, jolyon.

          • Really? That’s the handle jwl is slinging now?


    • True, it’s pretty easy to scare the uneducated out of their money.

  4. Much as I dislike Giorno, he makes a valid point. It’s not that Ignatieff failed to respond entirely but the way he responded – a book – only fed into the narrative that he was entirely self-interested. “You want to know who I am? Why I want to lead the country? Buy my book.” Not a wise strategy, average voters are not going to rush out to Chapters to purchase a political pamphlet. Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t charge for their tracts.

    • Potter provides a wonderfully succinct description of Ignatieff’s book:  “his job application True Patriot Love is such a cloying Via Rail portrait of Canada that it is hard to take seriously the idea that he actually believes it.”

      • It was shockingly horrible! 

        That was mistake #2 by LPC (number #1 appointing him instead of electing him) instead of writing that horrible book in the south of France, he should have started with the Liberal bus tour, terrible strategy by LPC!

  5. Meanwhile, those that voted for Harper because he wasn’t ‘returning to Canada just to be Prime Minister’ ended up voting for a guy who came back into politics after running a right-wing political action group formed for the express purpose of defeating our system of health care… came back into politics for what reason and what reason only?

    To be Prime Minister.

    • Nah, he didn’t come back in order to be prime minister, tho’ I think he likes the job a lot.

      He came back into politics in order to save the Canadian Alliance (which was crashing and burning) and to destroy the Liberal Party of Canada.

  6. I know I’m too idealistic, but I still believe Canada without the nasty politics from Giorno and Harper is a better place and that Ignatieff gave us a glimpse of that by not responding to the ads.  Ignoring a bully is a slow way to win, but it doesn’t weigh on your conscience.

    • It’s not that you’re being idealistic. It’s that you’re just outright wrong. The idea that Iggy represented a more civil and idealistic politics is pure fiction. He and his team worked tirelessly to ridicule and undermine Dion when he was leader. Iggy was never hesitant to repeat one outrageous accusation against the government after another. Once the campaign started, and he had access to more public money, the attack ads came from him in waves. He never put forth any enlightened or grand ideas of his own, and had to flip-flop on previously held positions as an excuse to force an election that apparently only he wanted. That he couldn’t respond to the truths of the Conservative attacks, or that Canadians rejected him doesn’t make him a better politician. It just makes him a failed one.

  7. Ignoring a bully is a slow way to win, but it doesn’t weigh on your conscience.

    • What about his own bullying of Dion? Or his own vicious attacks on Harper personally? Will those weigh on his conscience?

      • As I recall, those attacks came after the writ was dropped. I must have missed the national ad campaign attacking the Prime Minister’s personal motives before the campaign started.   

        • Your recollection is wrong. Might be because you’ve been living in San Diego too long. I don’t know. But Liberals were running attack ads before the campaign started. This is the first one I found going back. There were more before that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSmJaPICle8

          • Moved here at the end of January plus I don’t own a TV so that would be two strikes against me eh? Good point though- I believe those ads came out in March of this year? Right after the Oda affair right?

  8. “Mr. Giorno said the Tories simply let Canadians draw their own conclusions by presenting Mr. Ignatieff’s own words in the ads. “Voters deserve full credit,” he said. “They’re sharp and insightful.”

    King James Bible
    Every way of a man [is] right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

    At least we know where Giorno stands ethically speaking – nowhere. No mention of the fact many of the ads were simply gross distortions of the truth, lacked context or even invented it. No responsibility for the actions of the CPC you’ll notice. It’s just MI’s fault for failing to respond adequately [ which he didn’t – but that’s beside the point in terms of ethics]. A child of ten could see through Giorno’s self serving pap. And we needn’t dwell on the sheer effrontery here, the lack of basic logic even:”…draw their own conclusions by presenting Mr Ignatieff’s own words in the ads.” No they didn’t . “They” baldy misrepresented him to the public, sometimes even willfully lied , invented or simply left stuff out. If your premise is wrong your conclusion will be…sigh, why bother?
    Were there ligitimate questions about MI? Sure! He didn’t make a very convincing case for why he came back. But that’s irrelevant anyway. The only real legimate question is did his absence in some way undercut his ability to lead the country. It’s a legimate question. Did he simply miss first hand too much of our history. But that was rarely the question they asked of him. Again, he didn’t do a very good job of answering that particular question; outlining your families history and pleading that you are in fact a loyal citizen misses the mark. In some ways MI misunderstood the nature of the real questions the public may have had about him- can you do the job; do you understand this country in your bones. Instead he responded to giorno’s crap and smear job, even giving it legitimacy in some ways.[ would he have done better to ignore the smears? But then they weren’t just rumours were they? They were being beamed, pretty much unopposed into our living rooms.]
     So i do regard Ignatieff as a failure – but for none of the reasons a grade A A$$hole like Giorno cites. Maybe because Ignatieff simply didn’t grasp where he really needed to put the main force of whatever defence he mounted. Or perhaps he did? And just realized there was no effective response to the question.; If so, it was a gamble that failed. Does any of this let Harper, Giorno or any of the other Tory character assassin artists off the hook? Not in my book it doesn’t! Ignatieff may have failed to answer the really important question because there essentially was no answer – beyond, give me a chance to prove it to you. But the Giorno crowd’s sins were much greater. They didn’t even care if they were asking a legitimate question or not…they merely wanted to poison the well for Ignatieff with the Canadian public before he even had a chance to make his case…and they didn’t give a rat’s ass how thet did it. This should worry anyone who cares about ehtics in politics…who’s next, [and how low are they prepared to go to nobble them] on their list?

  9. Another thing I didn’t particularly like during the election campaign was that the media never clearly responded to the suggestions by the CONs that the elections were called because of the budget. In fact, the media often quoted somebody from the Harper circles saying that opposition decided not to support the budget before it was even put forward, while the reason the budget did see any light at all was because the CONs used every (yes, legal) loophole in the books to delay the confidence motion. Whether CON supporters like it or not, but this government  (the first in the history of Canada!) broke the law.  And it is on the record books now. And that was worth even loosing the elections. The elections will come again even if Harper doesn’t like this democratic nuisance.

  10. Nice to see the usual suspects are adapting to the “new normal” defending their failures of thought and process in defiance of common sense, logic and political reality….my favorite election statistic is 52% of non-Quebec Canadian voters voted CPC. How does that make all you anglo progressives feel? You are not the wave of change you hoped, just an irrelevant ripple. 

    • It makes me want to move to Quebec.

      • make sure you take lots of cash…good to see you wanting to vote with your wallet…au revoir.

      • Yeah. He/she just made a really convincing argument for why i should remain in the 48% who didn’t vote his/her way. Quebec’s not looking to bad to many progressives these days. Not for me though. I’m a westerner, through and through. We western progressives have known hard times before, and we’ve also seen the wheel turn full circle – sooner or later it will again; it just may not be in the form of the LPC. What does nosbians think libs are going to do? Give up living in the country we helped build? Shut up and go away?

        • No I think they will wither and die like a parasite whose host just took the correct meds. You can’t be for and against ideas when it is convenient for too long before your supporters start to seek alternatives. The crazies have gone dipper and the more circumspect are finding welcoming arms in the CPC camp.

          • Keep the faith brother. Geez! It really astonishes me sometimes the lengths some will stoop to express their outright hatred of all thing liberal. What did we do? Steal some imaginary birthright. Some entitlement to power the only conservatives are worthy enough to wield? The ugliness of your language alone is quite stunning. 

    • And yet, in the end, everybody (well, maybe not you) knows that the Earth isn’t flat and it moves! It took a while, but the ripple reached the shore.
      As to percentages, other “leaders” temporarily won by similar margins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
      Where are they now?

      • If that’s what you actually believe, you have my deepest sympathy. What you link to explains more about you than I could ever imagine. 

  11. I don’t agree with some of the things Giorno says — e.g., I think his take on the anti-Iggy attack ads is a bit of a lame, self-serving rationalization.  One of the problems with trying to analyze and quantify the effect of those attack ads is that we have no way of knowing what would have happened if those ads had never been run, so it’s a bit of a mug’s game to speculate on all of those hypothetical scenarios.  A lot of Liberal supporters seem to think that if those attack ads had never been run, Iggy would have cruised into 24 Sussex, but I’m extremely skeptical about that.

    The one thing I agree with Giorno on, though, is the CPC focus on the economy.  You can criticize the CPC’s performance on the economy all you like, but at least the CPC realized that that’s what most Canadians care the most about.  Or at least the Canadians that the CPC needed to get votes from in order to win.  The “scandal du jour” approach and focus of the Liberals was a failure, period.

    • I think his take on the ads is fairly correct, they worked because there was no response made. His notion that the Liberal party “chose” not to respond to them is a bit more difficult to swallow. More that they simply couldn’t afford to, as they were still trying to adjust to the new realities of funding and paying off debts from leadership campaigns and repeated election campaigns.

      Also, I disagree that it was the CPC focus on the economy that drove them into power, but do agree that the Liberals once again campaigned poorly because they tried to focus on issues and evidence rather than just spit out platitudes and slogans.  I mean hell, we have the CPC people outright admitting that “muddying the waters” was a good thing when it came to some of the issues, like the AG’s report.  When a political party feels that it’s fine to say “Hey, it’s good that we were able to confuse Canadians”, you know they don’t actually give a damn about reality.

      And apparantly Canadians like that attitude.

      • “…. as they were still trying to adjust to the new realities of funding and paying off debts from leadership campaigns and repeated election campaigns.” 

        Try again about where money went, Thwim. Debts not paid and parties are reimbursed a considerable % for election expenses. 

        What new realities other than raising money from supporters do Libs have to grapple with?

        NDP and Cons figured it out, wonder why Libs are still bamboozled. Where does the millions of $$$ go? 

        Postmedia, May 16, 2011 – “Seven former Liberal leadership candidates – four of whom lost their seats in the May 2 election – still owe almost $800,000 from their 2006 party leadership bids.For some, such as Stephane Dion – who is still an MP and won that leadership race, but is still in hock $30,000 – the struggle to pay off the five-year-old debt may be easier than for others, such as Ken Dryden, who lost his seat May 2 and owes $347,984.”

      • ‘I disagree that it was the CPC focus on the economy that drove them into power, but do agree that the Liberals once again campaigned poorly because they tried to focus on issues and evidence rather than just spit out platitudes and slogans.”

        Thwim, I’m as cognizant as anyone of Harper & Co’s shortcomings, but I really wonder about that statement of yours.  It borders on saying “the Liberals lost because they are truthful and good, and the Conservatives won because they are dishonest and evil.”  I also run across other Liberal supporters these days similarly claiming that Dion, and now Ignatieff, were “too good for Canada”, that Canadians didn’t appreciate how wonderful they were, etc.  Get real.  The sure sign of a chronic loser attitude is claiming that you didn’t lose because you deserved to lose; rather, it’s because those stupid voters just don’t realize how fabulous you are.  If Liberal supporters continue to abide by that belief, then the Liberals are going to be in opposition for a very long time IMO.

        • Okay. So beyond your personal feelings about it. What’s incorrect?

          I also notice you clipped the rest of the post, do you not think it’s relevant at all that it was CPC operatives who were praising their chief strategist for “muddying the waters” with regard to the AG’s report? Or would you, also, like to gloss over ugly bits of truth where they don’t suit your internal narrative?

          I mean, be real “We’re focussed on the economy” despite an economic platform that was almost completely founded on wishful thinking about what the economy might do 4-5 years down the line. How is that anything but a platitude?

          • You and I don’t disagree on this point as much as you think.  I think we’re just misunderstanding one another re: the CPC focus on the economy during the campaign.  I’m not saying that what the CPC said on that issue, or the CPC’s economic policies, were “correct” or right or anything like that.  All I was pointing out was that the CPC focused on the economy as a ballot issue, consistently talked it up, etc.  And that that was the strategically correct thing to do, given such things as polling data, the demographic that the CPC needed and wanted to reach, etc.

            As for that “muddying the waters” quote, though, of course I agree that that’s a morally unseemly thing to say and do, but that’s politics.  I mean, were you born yesterday?  Politicians of all stripes do that kind of thing all the time — a piece of bad news comes out, damning news, in fact, so what do you do?  You spin, obfuscate, etc.  If you’re trying to suggest that the Liberal Party is some sort of lily-white bunch of Boy Scouts who never would do such a thing, and/or never have, well then I’m sorry, that’s just bs.  The LPC historically has been every bit as adept at the Black Arts of politics as anyone.

            You seem to be upset because the CPC under Harper is currently practising these Black Arts better than the Liberals are.  But under Chretien, the Liberals were doing it better than their opponents (elimination of GST anyone?).  I dislike unseemly, amoral behaviouir as much as anyone, but I certainly don’t think that any one political party in Canada is wearing the black hat, the other the white hat.  There’s plenty of scumminess on all sides.

          • Yeah, and I hated Chretien as well.  My point was that yes, the CPC won because they’re dishonest.

            The party that tried to point out the truths to Canadians when they were coming out during the election campaign got punished for doing so.

            The party that was the most comfortable lying to the Canadian public, being open about their attempts to deceive and confuse the Canadian public, they won.

          • Well, I think that’s an excessively simplistic, reductionist, black-and-white view of the election campaign, so we’ll just have to disagree on that.

            Your post could be interpreted as saying that everyone who voted CPC did so because they believed everything that the CPC said.  That’s just not true.  I know lots of people who voted for the CPC on a “hold your nose” basis.  A good friend of mine voted for them and told me flat out that he doesn’t trust Harper. 

            And that goes to the problem I have with the implication of your post.  It implies that the CPC lied to people, they all bought it, and voted CPC.  That’s not what happened.  People vote for all kinds of different reasons, and there are many instances where people are all too aware of the warts and shortcomings of a party or candidate, yet vote for them anyway.

            Take BC as an example.  Lots of people, myself included, vote for the BC Liberal party in provincial elections, not because of any great love for that party, but because we dislike the NDP even more (see 1990s, Glen Clark, Fast Ferries, etc.).  Does that mean if/when the BC Liberals lie to us, we stupidly believe them?  Of course not.  Does it even mean that lying about this or that is the reason the BC Liberals won the last election?  Arguably not.  We just don’t like the alternative.