‘It doesn’t have to be like this’

The Green Party launches a meta attack ad.




Browse

‘It doesn’t have to be like this’

  1. Hear, hear!!!

  2. Not sure this makes any sense.

  3. There is not one positive message in the ad. End attack politics? By simply attacking all the others? What would the Greens do to end "attack" politics? Curious.

    For the record, "attack politics" are never going to end because, in a free country, you're allowed to criticize others, just as the Greens kind of did in this little ad of theirs.

  4. The irony of the ad is that many longtime supporters of the GPC jumped ship due to these very same attributes of its current leader – cheap and obsessive cheap shots against Harper inserted at every opportunity. Eventually they just give up raising the issue and move on/wait out until after the next election.

  5. Harper, not Elizabeth May, is the cult leader of attack ads. Get real.
    The Harper Government wages an eternal attack on 60% of the population with the support of dots like you.

  6. I wasn't talking attack ads. Just general obsession – going back to her days at Sierra Club where she tried to rally her Environmental Activist associates in the US to get involved in the 2006 election by criticising the Coinservatives, and becomeing part of the Think Twice |Coalition – an ABC group

  7. Look, we've got it that you're waging an attack campaign against Harper on these boards. But aren't others allowed to have their say, too?

  8. Meanwhile, the GPC in the last election increased it's vote by 273,545 and party leader Elizabeth May took part in the debates. Silly ad though.

  9. So what's the positive message in this ad, then?

  10. . . . Coinservatives . . .

    ?

    That's an unfortunate typo.

  11. Where's the "name calling", "smear campaign" and "mudslinging" in this ad?

    It's not saying attack ads will end, but that the "attack politics" don't reflect what Canadians want from their politicians and politics.

  12. Wait a second here.

    Didn't we recently have an election where a party had already promised to do things differently, better, to be about something? in which the government was attacked for offering nothing but "attack politics"?

    In fact, didn't we elect that party?

    I guess May figures, if it worked for Harper…

  13. Where's the "name calling", "smear campaign" and "mudslinging" in this ad?

    Well, the ad does use a common tactic in attack ads, which is to use unflattering pictures of other leaders in black and white, doesn't it?

    As for "name calling," "smear campaign," and "mudslinging," I suggest it's all in the eyes of the beholder. One person's "mud" is another person's truth.

    I kind of like the free market of ideas, and letting voters decide for themselves.

  14. The fact that Cons don't know the difference between policy criticism and personal attacks is the problem.

  15. I think it's an alright ad, but I was hoping for even better. They could stand to run attacks against the energy companies that are bankrolling crooked politicians. How about attacking journalists as the spineless twerps many of them have become? That'd get noticed too.

  16. Is that why you just engaged in a personal attack against me, and have done so against so many people for years on the Internet? The shamelessness of some people on here has no bounds.

  17. Well, it's a start. 'Fresh and green' is better than dark and ugly anyday.

    Whether they go on to anything more…dunno. Probably depends on how much money they have, as TV advertising is expensive.

  18. I quite liked the ad. For those that missed it, it did not attack any of the other parties; it did however attack the strategy of attack ads. It is true, that it did this in the context of an attack ad on attack ads. It is also true that it did not show an alternative to attack ads (hey it is only 30 s long) Perhaps a little cute but I liked it.

    I don't know if the Green's can successfully tie their wagon to it… but here they have touched upon the most powerful political sentiment in the country. People are fed up with politics in this country. Personally, I blame Stephen Harper, chet blames Chretien, others blame the Bloc and a few even blame poor Ms. May. (Isn't she just an author?) Most Canadians have no inclination to sort out who is to blame and have written off the lot.

  19. And so Dennis responds with paranoia and a personal attack….proving my point.

  20. not a good idea to bite the pen that covers you, likely to get covered in ink

  21. And yet you attack these ads.

    Please. There is no mudslinging or namecalling or even use of unflattering photos.

    I suppose the whole idea that the old guard political elites like the Conservatives, Libs, NDP and Bloc are nothing but "attack politics" could be considered a smear, but I think you'd have a hard time finding any non-partisan Canadian who would disagree with that assessment of the Ottawa elites.

  22. Harper's attack ads sicken me (and I was no fan of the Martin attacks on Harper either). I'm glad a political party has latched onto this issue.

  23. How did that prove your point again? You accused me of being a "Con", a problem, and too stupid to know the difference between policy criticisms and personal attacks. You then accused me of being paranoid and in engaging in a personal attack by daring to speak the truth about your long-time and hypocritical antics on the Internet.

    Please tell us: What in the world was your point again?

  24. And again he proves my point. LOL

  25. Why not? Conservatives show absolute disdain for journalists, and still get elected and covered. That's why journalists as a whole are spineless — they don't put politicians in their place, as subservient to journalism and citizens.

  26. Most amusing of the 2006 attack ads, was the Liberal's "soldiers in our cities" ad. And what happened last June in Toronto during the G20? Turns out, their attack ad was bang on, and Canadians who trusted the Conservatives were a wee off.

  27. I suggest you watch that ad again. Unflattering black and white photos of all the other leaders in those little TV tube thingies.

    I believe that this idea of "attack politics" being prevalent actually comes from Ottawa elites. I don't see an outcry from Canadians. In fact, the parties are simply reaching voters the best way they can. If they have to attack Iggy in the process, and he can't defend himself, that's how it goes.

  28. Agreed. I have no use for the Green Party and don't know if this ad will work but I think it's an excellent ad, and Elizabeth May had every right to scold Wherry for prematurely suggesting hypocrisy.

  29. Changing the channel (as in deciding not to particpate in attack ad politics) is a positive message.

    And there is a big difference between criticism and smear campaigns.

  30. Doing politics differently.

  31. To be fair – it was an "ad" that never aired, and only saw the light of day by way of a clerical error.
    The content is fair comment, I just wouldn't call it an ad, because nobody ever paid to play it.

  32. The other message the party is supplementing the ad with in free media is that Canadians shouldn't get turned off and reject politics or voting altogether, just the attack politics itself.

  33. You're more than welcome to enunciate one at any time instead of engaging in this nonsense. You then have the gall to bemoan the current state of politics, while having contributed to gutter politics on the Internet since I can remember. Again, unbelievable.

  34. 3 strikes and yer out….game over. LOL

  35. No outcry, but disdain and disengagement. In fact, as has been noted by the Republican gurus who perfected the style and approach of ads Harper mimics, the very aim of such as is to depress the voter turnout of the other side. And the proof is in the pudding on that with voter turnout under Harper reaching record lows.

  36. Unflattering black and white photos of all the other leaders in those little TV tube thingies.

    Yes, but those are clips from the attack ads the other parties are running that the Greens are criticizing. Surely it's acceptable if one is criticizing attack ads to show the ads that one is criticizing.

  37. That's not an accurate portrayal of what happened at the G20. It wasn't the military trampling all over people in Toronto, it was the police. And they weren't incited to riot by the federal government, they were incited to riot by Dalton McGuinty and Police Chief Bill Blair.

    It makes a cute talking point, but it's not accurate and it blurs the very real culpability of the provincial government and the head of the Toronto Police Dept.

  38. Are you saying that that was the message in this ad? Even if it was, that's not a positive message. Nowhere in this ad is a suggestion as to what the Greens would do differently. In fact, I think ads like this do nothing more than to capitalize on any perceived cynicism, and serve only to add to it.

    I remember a debate in the last election campaign where all the leaders were asked to say something nice about a chosen leader. Elizabeth May got Harper, and she ended her answer by calling him an autocrat. How in the world isn't that "attack politics?"

    I've said this before. Some people's definition of "civility" in politics is to say anything they want, while having their opponents simply shut up.

    I'll also repeat that one person's "smear" can be another person's truth, which is why the same people who complain about "smears" are often the first ones to engage in them themselves when they feel justified in doing so.

  39. It worked for Chretien before Harper, and Mulroney before Chretien and Trudeau…

    It seems to me that almost every politician who ever said they were going to do things differently from the last guy spent so much time watching what the last guy was doing that by the time the big chair was theirs they had completely internalized the lessons, and couldn't help but do things pretty much the exact same way.

    I'm not sure if Chretien ever used the "What's your problem? Mulroney used to do this all the time!" excuse for any of his actions, the way Harper always does with Chretien, but he might as well have.

  40. Personally, I blame Stephen Harper, chet blames Chretien, others blame the Bloc…

    I still blame Mulroney, but to be fair, he'd probably blame Trudeau…

  41. They're not all like that. Even so, why use the unflattering images again?

    Many of you seem to condone one kind of attack and not another. Curious. I say let freedom of speech ring.

  42. Well, you can trot out all the unsubstantiated accusations you like. Voter turnout is a problem for most modern democracies, isn't it? I've never understood the problem with this anyway. If people don't feel bothered enough, things can't be that bad, can they be?

    This just seems to be to be a complaint for people who don't like a current government. They blame a lack of democracy instead of a lack of interest in opposition parties.

  43. "How do you say fraude in french? Fraud? Fraude?"

  44. Speaking of blurring, you are completely relieving the federal government and its agencies (such as RCMP) of any responsibility for what occurred. They were at the table leading the planning and at the very least aware of what the other two levels of government were up to. Federal representatives such as Public Safety Minister Toews set the tone for, and participated in the get tough on the rabble troublemakers propaganda. I don't recall him speaking out against the wholesale round up of peaceful protesters before, during or after the G20.

    You're just rewarding the feds for successfully disappearing once the arrests went down.

  45. A clever ad – well done.

  46. I say let freedom of speech ring.

    Exactly. For example, many people use their freedom of speech to express their frustration with attacks ads.

  47. Yes, certain attack ads, but not others. Free speech includes the freedom to be inconsistent, doesn't it.

  48. And he'd blame Duplessis…hey can we get all the way back to sir John A?

  49. Successfully evading their responsibility is the primary skill set of this particular federal govt. Smart politically – ethically it reeks.

  50. If the green party can keep this this sort of thing up i may be taking a closer look at them. It's timely and it's smart to tap into the undercurrent of discenchantment with how negative politics has become in this country. To become in a sense a voice for the voiceless is a role that only a fringe party with no short term likelihood of real power, can fill at the moment. They will likely become seduced away from this position too eventually, but until they do we should ride the wave.

  51. I appreciate the sentiment of the ad, but I'm not sure how useful it will be. The Green Party's big problem is that hardly anyone knows what they actually stand for, beyond "they like the environment", because they've not done a good job of communicating it. There's a lot more to the party than that, but you can hardly blame most people for not realizing it. If the party doesn't follow this ad up with something to address that problem, I can't see it getting them anywhere.

  52. It most surely does.

  53. It's sole purpose is to get May in the news, and get some "earned" press.

    How much do you want to bet she's on the political talk shows today or tomorrow?

  54. The ad begs the very obvious question:

    Why the he!l didn't the Liberal brain trust come up with this approach first?

    It might have been a game changer for them

  55. "Even so, why use the unflattering images again?"

    Oh, I don't know…maybe because it's easier to say "we shouldn't be doing this" when you have a picture of what "this" is?

  56. "Nowhere in this ad is a suggestion as to what the Greens would do differently"

    Except that whole thing about…not doing personal attack ads? Or am I reaching too far for a hidden meaning?

  57. No, we don't say fraud. We say "administrative disagreement". Geez, didn't you get your info-alert?

  58. She probably will be. If so, I hope she does a better job than she has of communicating what the party stands for in general.

  59. At a news conference Ms. May said she wants to do politics differently. And if her party finally wins a seat, she'll use it to end heckling in the Commons.

    Proportional misrepresentation.

  60. Yeah, that slogan worked really well for Kim Campbell.

  61. I don't have the power to reward the feds or absolve them of sin. I just get really annoyed with people who try to shift focus from the real issue, particularly when the issue is something as important as the single largest breach of civil liberties, in Canada, in my lifetime. It's all fine and dandy to say that "the feds set the tone" but Dalton McGuinty and Chief Bill Blair take specific and deliberate steps to misinform the police and the public by telling them that normal protections of rights were suspended for the G20. Both the police chief and the provincial government have admitted their deliberate choice to ignore civil rights and yet people still insist that someone else did it. That is wilful stupidity.

    You don't have to love, or even like, the Conservatives to tell the truth about this issue. Playing bullsh*t partisan games to try to shift responsibility is both stupid and irresponsible. It's stupid because it gives the guilty parties further license to lie about it too. We'd all be a hell of a lot further ahead in this country if people followed a simple rule: Tell the truth regardless of who benefits from it.

  62. The GPC council's #1 stated priority is to get May elected. Everything else is secondary.

  63. Well said, Igarvin.

  64. "get May elected"

    So how does this not help work towards that end?

  65. I think you are reaching too far, since nowhere in the ad do they say they'd do things different. More specifically, they don't say how they would do things differently. And let's not forget, this is an attack ad. Not one positive message in it. Just darkened images of all the other party leaders. Textbook attack ad.

  66. That's a curious bit of logic. It's like a priest giving a homily in front of his congregation and, in denouncing the use of foul language in today's society, utters every single swear word in the book.

    It's amazing to see how some people will bend over backwards to defend one kind of attack ads, while denouncing all the rest.

    There are all kinds of ways in which this ad could have been positive. It could have had a personal plea from May. etc. Instead, they released a textbook negative ad against all the other parties, all in the name of being against attack ads. Amazing.

  67. Assuming it is effective, and believed, it probably helps, marginally.

    But in her newly adopted riding, dunno. This sole focus on getting one person elected, at the expense of local campaigns across the country, is the best argument I can see for abolishing the per vote subsidy.

  68. "i may be taking a closer look at them"

    And right there, that's the success story of this type of earned media. If a handful of the informed, politically active class stop and say exactly that, then it's worth whatever it costs to put together. Those who read political blogs like these, take the time to comment etc.. are not shy, and share their opinions freely. You are influencers. This goes beyond partisanship. When you talk politics to others in your circle, maybe those who don't follow it much, they listen. And someone like you bringing up the Greens (or any party) at a dinner out or at a pub, that may be all the info those folks ever get about the party. If they think you're approving, that may give them enough of a push to say "why not, Times Arrow thinks they have some policies, and I don't know anything about the other guys".

  69. A simile is like a metaphor, but different.

    What a world you must live in.

  70. Wait, are you backtracking on your nebulous "fraud" allegation?

  71. In other words, you have nothing to say on the topic except to attack me personally. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. You guys give me all the material I need.

  72. Dennis:

    You'd have better luck trying to explain Einstein's theory of relativity to a sea slug. Emily is impervious to logic, facts, human psychology, irony, shame, introspection – essentially all the things that differentiate humans from animals.

  73. "It's amazing to see how some people will bend over backwards to defend one kind of attack ads, while denouncing all the rest."

    No kidding.

  74. In other words . . .

    You fancy ypourself a writer?

  75. If you're suggesting that I'm guilty of such, you're more than welcome to point out where.

    Some of these knee-jerk accusations get a bit tiring to deal with, you know. Can't you guys do better?

  76. You fancy yourself a coherent human being? lol. Next.

  77. I was quoting, to the best of my recollection, what May said in the french Leader's debate – her type of "new politics". As I recall, her main participation in that debate was "attack, attack". This type of language is offensive to me. I believe it was about something Harper said about emissions, or whatever.

    The other point that you appear to be alluding to is I presume concerning the in and out scheme. Unrelated. But it sure smells bad. Throw the book at them if the facts stand up, I say.

  78. You fancy yourself . . .

    Imitation being the most sincere form of flattery I leave the field to you.

  79. Dude, mockery isn't flattery. You should have left things well enough alone. You're incapable of engaging me on these issues. It was a foolish attempt. I know it's frustrating.

  80. Yes, please vote Green. In fact, I hope roughly 1/2 of Liberal and NDP voters vote Green. They are ideologically pure. Go MAY!

  81. I thought I was mocking you?

    Who knew!

  82. Yes, you were the only one. That's what happens when you're desperate and incoherent.

  83. Okay.

    If it is just me, my apologies.

    Otherwise, maybe seek help?

  84. I'm not playing partisan games, I want all of them in the dock together to explain what they did and when. McGuinty, Toews, Blair, Fantino, Elliot. I want them all to be accountable for what happened, and I want them to have a plan to prevent it from happening next time.

    You're playing partisan games to pretend the Conservatives, who organized the whole show, had nothing to do with it.

    If the feds had no part in what what wrong, tell me why didn't any of the RCMP officers on hand lay an information when they saw what the Toronto Police were doing?

  85. I need to "seek help" because I dare challenge you? And this is a thread about "attack politics." Fascinating.

  86. I'm guessing you need help the same way we all do.

    Hey, you having a decent day? Can I give you a hand. That's my Canada.

  87. Oh, I think it's pretty clear that "your Canada" is about personally attacking people who threaten your political agenda. Thanks. Bye.

  88. I say again, me

    You are a bad man Deninis.

    You lie.

    Worse, you seem to be proud of the fact.

  89. Politicians should be subservient to journalism? Why, exactly? Nobody elected journalists.

  90. It's that Klein wisdom again – find out which way the parade is going and get in front of it. The Libs seen to overthink everything.

  91. Anyone know if there are videos of the debate in question? It's been so long I can't remember who said what. Dot's version may not be absolutely accurate. I'm certainly not suggesting fraud or anything like that…

  92. Waste of Green Party money. Almost equals the democratic deficit in the Green Party by Elizabeth May avoiding an election on her leadership, as required by the party's constitution.

    Pots like May shouldn't call kettles black. Nor should they attack "Attack Ads". Maybe May needs another self-serving alliance with the Fiberals, Buzz, the CAW, and vested (at the trough) interests again. No … wait … that might threaten her cushy salary.

    "Liberal Brain Trust". A triple oxymoron.

  93. My knees are old, Dennis. They don't jerk. I have pointed out where, numerous times. I grow weary in explaining myself. I shall simply point out that, to you, this is an attack ad. To almost everyone else on this thread, it's not. From this data, and my understanding of political communications theory, I say you're wrong.

    And i wasn't suggesting anything, I was being quite clear. I was pointing out that what you said was funny because it applied to your own actions. But since you see this as an attack ad…you'll think I'm wrong. Impasse.

  94. And, an interesting discussion on political theory disrupted by partisan hackery.

    It doesn't have to be like this.

  95. Where have I denounced any set of attack ads? This is what you accused me of. Here's the original quote you threw back at me:

    ""It's amazing to see how some people will bend over backwards to defend one kind of attack ads, while denouncing all the rest."

    I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of an attack ad attacking other attack ads, and the hypocrisy of those not willing to admit this is one. Do you even know how attack ads look like? This is textbook: ominous music, dark black and white pictures of opponents, not one positive message in it.

  96. Look up the concept of the fourth estate and a free press being integral to democracy, Garnet.

  97. "at the expense of local campaigns"
    three or four ridings anywhere close to "in the mix' get the lions share of support, such was always the way. I was approached to be a green candidate in my riding, mostly because i wrote a letter to the editor. I don't think any greenie running has any misunderstanding of how much support is forthcoming.

    As to "This sole focus on getting one person elected", it sure works for the Harper Government.(ahem).

    Seriously, though, the party leaders have election signs mass-produced that say "fred smith, your JACK LAYTON Candidate", and it seems to be accepted wisdom now that local candidates are best not heard from.

  98. Yes, but does it include the freedom to be misleading, even dishonest? I wonder about that every time I see one of the Conservative attack ads.

  99. Because if it's the other way around, we end up with a broken democracy like we have in the "Harper Government's" country.

  100. And the impasse asserts itself again.

    Stop making an impasse of yourself.

  101. Like I've already alluded to, one person's lies are another person's truth. For example, you have to call the Conservatives ads misleading and dishonest. I don't. But that's freedom, isn't it? It's totalitarian regimes that believe only they know the truth.

  102. Freudian, one might say.

  103. "Waste of Green Party money"
    Every post, negative or positive, helps disprove your statement. I suggest you do some reading on web marketing and search-engine optimization to find out why going to all the trouble to make an account to slam the green party actually helps them with their marketing.

    Adding the liberal slam may also attract some extra attention. If I didn't know better, I'd accuse you of astroturfing for the green party.

  104. So taking others words so completely out of context that they no longer have any relation to reality is honest?

  105. In other words, you can't justify the accusation you made against me. This is what I'm talking about. Gets tiring at times.

  106. seriously, how many Canadians are presently represented in Parliament by MPs who refuse to appear at a single all-candidates meeting, to sit down for an interview with the editorial board of the local fishwrapper, etc… The examples I can think of off-hand happen to be Conservatives (Cheryl Gallant springs to mind), but I'm sure other parties have their own examples too.

  107. You're playing partisan games to pretend the Conservatives, who organized the whole show, had nothing to do with it.

    I didn't say they had nothing to do with it. I said that the McGuinty government & the Chief of the Toronto Police – the most proximate – decision makers have already admitted that they made the decision to suspend civil rights for the weekend. Not only have they suffered zero consequences for that illegal act, people don't even want to accept their confessions as genuine.

    Even though neither McGuinty or Blair has suggested that they were acting with the encouragement or consent of the federal government, you still insist that they must have been because…? because…? well just because.

    Do you think either McGuinty or Blair would hesitate to point a finger at the feds if they had any justification to do so?

  108. I can't respond to examples that aren't put before me. If you have a specific accusation to make, I'm more than willing to listen. However, some people seem to make such accusations simply because they're the ones being attacked. Just saying.

  109. Ms. May led the attack on Harper's climate change policy, particularly when the Conservative leader said his greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020 was one of the most aggressive in the world.

    “That's ridiculous. That's a joke,” she said. The rest of the industrialized world has committed to absolute emissions cuts from 1990 levels. Harper's plan calls for intensity cuts from much higher 2006 levels.

    “You accepted intensity targets,” Ms. May told Harper. “It's a type of a lie. … Your plan is a type of fraud.” http://greenparty.ca/releases/01.10.2008

    Accuses Harper of fraud on the environment

    She also accused Harper of defrauding Canadians with the Tory government's approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    "Your plan is a type of fraud — I don't know how to say it in French," May said, only to learn from the moderator that the word is essentially the same in both languages. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/

  110. I'm thinking of the attack ads against Dion and Ignatieff in particular. I say that as somebody who never has and likely never will vote Liberal.

    What I find particularly egregious right now is the insinuation that Michael Ignatieff returned to Canada because of some nefarious plot. I really don't understand why he returned or why he got into politics, except that he must have believed quite strongly that he had something positive to offer and had a duty to serve.

    I mean, look at the facts. He was famous, making good money in a prestigious position, and had a reasonable schedule. Even if he becomes PM, what does it offer? Long hours, being brutally attacked on an hourly basis, very little freedom, and not much money.

  111. Well, it's a little bit of hyperbole, but it's a useful concept.

    It does make you wonder why the PMO feels like they can bully the media -even on neutral turf – and actually have the media comply. It's a sad, sad state of affairs.

  112. "you can't justify the accusation you made against me"

    Well, I can't justify them to YOU, that's true. You never, ever accept my examples. You can't differentiate between criticism and attack, and are willfully blind to obvious logic. But it's fun to poke you with this stick.

    Poke.

  113. But here you go. You have an opinion as to his motives for coming back after more than 30 years, others have differing opinion. Why isn't that allowed in your world? In fact, you consider other people's opinion on this to be "dishonest" yet only have you own opinion to counter it. So, your opinion is the truth, and those of others, including viewers and voters, are lies?

    In fact, I think the record speaks for itself. Iggy came back only when he was given a path to the Liberal leadership. And now he wants an election that nobody else seems to want. So, why did he come back? It doesn't seem to be for the interests of voters, does it?

    Oh, my mistake. According to you, I'm not allowed to have this opinion, and to say it in a free society.

  114. With Elizabeth May to talk about the Green's attack ads on attack ads as she watches a CBC report on it. She is on PnP tonight #cdnpoli
    about 2 hours ago via ÜberSocial
    Retweeted by 4 people

    evansolomoncbc
    Evan Solomon

  115. Nonsense. I don't like the way the Liberal back rooms work, and I don't like Iggy much at all, but the insinuation that he came back as part of some nefarious plot is inherently dishonest. Why did he come back? Like I said, I don't know.

    I do know that the Conservatives have taken his statements out of context though. If the Liberals, or any other party, were to run a similar ad campaign against Harper…taking old statements out of context…you'd be jumping up and down a screaming at them to stop.

  116. A clever ad! The tone set by The Harper Government (I'm allowed to drop the pretense of claiming they're a party right? The PMO said so right?) has been turning a whole bunch of people off politics. This certainly taps into what I suspect is an ever swelling sector of the electorate.

    Well done Greens!

    (still likely won't vote for ya, but good on ya for trying;)

  117. You specifically accused me of holding two sets of attack ads to different standards, and have yet to prove such a claim. So, instead of doing so, you choose to, yet again, attack me personally. Why is that?

    Now, if I missed where you justified your claim, by all means, show me where. Otherwise, stop being such a sore loser about it.

  118. Where exactly is he accused of coming back for some "nefarious plot?" He is accused of coming back for his own reasons, and not for the greater good. Since you don't know, how can you be so convinced that this is not true?

    In fact, the record is clear. He chose to be away for more than 30 years, and he only came back once Liberal insiders offered him a path to the leadership.

    Furthermore, when ads suggest he's not in it for voters, I believe this assertion is confirmed by the fact that he wants an election when nobody else does.

    Is it the Conservatives' fault that Iggy is playing right into their developed narrative about him?

    Now, according to you, this appears to be illegal. People aren't allowed to have this opinion of the man, nor should he be expected to defend himself if these opinions are in fact misleading. He's more than welcome to clear the record, but apparently seems incapable of doing so, as are you.

    Regarding your claims of statements being taken out of context, again, you have yet to put forth any examples of such. Until you do, I can only assume there is no actual proof of such.

  119. And would, um, elected officials be somehow less integral to democracy?

  120. Do you not understand the word "insinuation?"

    And the record is clear. He went abroad and distinguished himself as a journalist and and academic. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, but it is the kind of thing we should be proud of. It's not at all the kind of record that would suggest that he's "just in it for himself." In fact the course of his career, not to mention his family background, would suggest that he felt he had something to contribute.

    You don't have to agree with that contribution. I certainly don't. In fact I think he's wrong on most issues most of the time. That doesn't mean he's "just in it for himself" though, it just means I don't agree with him.

    And I never said that running the ads was illegal, although it should be. I said it was dishonest.

    And who says nobody else wants an election? I do. I'm a voter who won't be voting Liberal, and I definitely want an election. There are a lot of others who have said the same.

  121. Intensity targets are a type of lie though. They completely ignore the science and seek to give the appearance of action while taking no action whatsoever.

  122. I have no dispute with Iggy's achievements during his 30 years away from this country. But the record shows he only came back when offered a path to the Liberal leadership.

    This isn't dishonest simply because you care not to acknowledge it.

    You may want an election, but I don't think Canadians do, which is why the narrative continues to work.

    Again, this isn't dishonest, it's just politics that doesn't adhere to your own wishes – even if you say you're not a Liberal.

  123. If they aren't answerable to the people, and that happens through the press and answers to the opposition, then elected officials are actually a negative influence on democracy.

  124. No, the record shows that he returned and competed in a leadership race which he lost. He then became leader by default when Dion stepped down and there was no opposition to his leadership bid.

    It wasn't perfect and I certainly have questions about it, but not nearly as many questions as I have about how Harper became leader of the Conservatives.

    Most Canadians never want an election if you trust the polls. We'd likely still have Pearson in office, his corpse propped up in a chair, if that was the standard for dropping the writ.

    The standard is the confidence of the House though. Ignatieff has clearly lost confidence in Harper. My impression is that a majority of MPs, and all opposition leaders, have lost confidence in Harper. We'll know by March 22…maybe sooner.

  125. 'But the record shows he only came back when offered a path to the Liberal leadership.'

    Actually, that's speculation. Not wild speculation, but speculation nonetheless. He came back while Paul Martin was still leader. For all he knew Martin would be leader for a while. I have no doubt that he had leadership ambitions, and those who urged him to return believed he would make a good leader, but there was no immediate leadership opportunity available… so there was no 'path' to present to him.

  126. Good for May; she knows her stuff on the environment, and the Conservatives are completely atrocious in that area, especially cutting funding for research. Like we don't need to know what our climate is going to do.

  127. A refreshing and perhaps smart move in recognizing that there are indeed votes lost and air time wasted by attack ads.

    Why however did it take the low rung of the ladder to stand up for what needed to become resoundingly clear? Many Canadians don't see the point in supporting a political system that doesn't move forward with ideas and legislation.

    Maybe some pundits, strategists and journalists should take note.

  128. Comment Of The Thread.

  129. Dear Opposition Party Warrooms:

    1) You get your hands on the redacted document regarding the Quebec City Arena — you know, the one that's half blacked out?

    2) You assemble an image of all the pages, in rows and columns, to show visually, at a glance, how much has been redacted.

    3) You put it on a poster.

    4) At the top of the poster, centered:
    The Harper Government was elected after campaigning on transparency.
    On cleaning up Ottawa's dirty little secrets.

    5) At the bottom, under the redacted pages:
    Not Afghanistan. Not border issues. Not national security.
    A hockey arena.

    I promise I won't sue if anyone steals this.

  130. It's speculation, but not without some foundation. He came back after Liberal insiders offered him support for any future run. If Paul Martin hung on, he may well have gone back to Harvard. Again, speculation. Yet the Reverend here calls it dishonesty. How can that be? It's a characterization based on a take on events, and it can be defended or rebutted at any point. All part of the free market of ideas in a political democracy, if you ask me. And Harper certainly faced just as much, about a hidden agenda and quotes from decades past, as Iggy does now. I didn't hear protests from the left back then.

  131. Well said. Every journey starts with that fist step.

  132. Apparently some people disagree . . .

  133. That or they wan to keep their powder dry. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight as Obama said. Ethically questionable for sure, but i doubt the libs want to throw away their club since Harper has ten of them.

  134. Oh God, thanks for reminding me of the intensity target b.s. Totally agreed with her on that. What else have you got?

  135. The Security was organized by the Feds, commanded by an RCMP officer. He oversaw the whole operation from a command centre in Barrie. I don't know how they can be excluded from anything that went down.

  136. A) I'm not trying to exclude the feds.

    B) What's your source for the command centre in Barrie?

  137. One additional point. If you watch this video, starting about the 7 minute mark, you will hear Chief Bill Blair stating, unequivocally, that it was his people – his most experienced, senior commanders – who were making the decisions at the G20. Perhaps he's not being honest, but in the absence of any credible claims to the contrary, I'm inclined to take him at his word.

  138. "The G8/G20 has always been considered the largest global annual security event,” said RCMP Chief Superintendent Alphonse MacNeil on Monday.
    He was guiding journalists through the hitherto secret summit command centre – a converted auto-parts factory in Barrie, Ont." http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/ne

    Best part?

    "The command centre served as the central nervous system of the whole operation, staffed by 80 police officers, security agents and military personnel."

  139. " his most experienced, senior commanders – who were making the decisions at the G20"

    He's not being honest. They ran the streets in Toronto. That's it.

    From the Globe
    "Tasked with protecting visiting dignitaries, the RCMP set up the command centre to co-ordinate the national police force's work with the other commands involved." http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/ne

  140. I would think that the "ethics" route is the way to start the campaign against the Harper Government®. You run ads questioning the character and value to Canadians of the Conservative attack ads. You meld that into the bigger issue of questioning Conservative ethics. Then once your foot is in the door, you go after the jets, the prisons, the deficit etc.

  141. He's not being honest. They ran the streets in Toronto. That's it.

    The streets of Toronto are where the crimes against civil rights were committed. Which was the starting point for this entire discussion.

  142. My apologies. I read "who were making the decisions at the G20" and missed some context, it seems.

  143. So this is…proof of an effective use of a $10,000 pr campaign?

    How dare she tempt the media with an interesting hook! The nerve!

    Seriously, are you saying "It's sole purpose is to get May in the news, and get some "earned" press." as if it's a bad thing?

  144. Just goes to show you don't understand intensity targets – part of the NGO brainwashing of uninformed individuals.

    If an activity is growing at 10% and the intensity of the same activity is decreasing by 15% there is a net reduction. You can't just make blank statements. Shows your ignorance. Which is what E May and other NGOs count on.

  145. It's her last shot – if she's not elected, she's toast. I don't believe she will be elected, but, good luck to her.

    Either way, the Green Party will be better off long term after an election. If ads like this bring in youth voters, all the better.

    When A Coyne writes: " (That lets out the Green party, which might once have fulfilled some of the purposes here described, but which seems to have succumbed to a case of terminal unseriousness.) " he is referring to pre May GPC vs current state of affairs.

  146. A carbon tax (according to May her #1 issue) if it is not sufficiently punitive is a type of lie also. It does not necessarily lead to absolute reductions if the economy is humming.

  147. And btw, FYI – intensity targets (emissions/$ GDP) that George Bush proposed and China are proposing are different than Canadian intensity targets (emissions/unit of production).

    I bet you didn't know that, did you?

  148. I should have said making the policing decisions in Toronto at the G20. I was paraphrasing Blair but perhaps wasn't clear enough that he was talking specifically about the police riots rather than the entire G20 summit. The actual summit didn't even take place in Toronto, after all.

    My point all along has been that the cracks about "solidiers in the streets… with guns… in our cities" is a deliberate partisan distortion of the reality of the thing. And it pi**es me off a bit.

  149. Yeah, likely the best thing is tossing corporate honchos directly into the hoosegow, but that's a hard sell politically.

  150. I understand intensity targets just fine Dot. They are variation on the old shell game, developed by corporate hucksters who put their personal greed ahead of the well-being of people.

  151. Yeah, the ones Harper favours are even worse than the ones Bush wanted.

  152. Mandating an automobile's efficiency (l/100 km or MPG) is an intensity target,

    Increasing a refrigerator's efficiency (Energy Star ratings) are intensity targets.

    Home energy audits to insulate (reduce energy per yr) are intensity targets.
    etc. etc.

    I don't think you do understand them, frankly.

  153. Nutty.

  154. I'd vote for it.

  155. Me too, but the guys with the money run the world.

  156. That is a distortion, at best, of the issue at hand.

    I understand intensity targets well enough that you really can't get away with conflating consumer goods with overall industry targets.

  157. With just a hint of hops…

  158. I think going back that far probably gets into 'wonkiness' territory. For most out there, I don't think they knew anything about the greens pre-May, so i doubt that Coyne's comparison holds any real-world weight.

  159. Poke. Poke.

    See?

  160. Is that from the Book of Revelations?

    Are all your ideas faith based?

  161. It does to all of the troops who stay home in the election – no one to GOTV. Ask the former candidate in her riding, and former GPC deputy leader Andrew Lewis, what he thinks of May. Or former Deputy Leader David Chernushenko. Or former leader Jim Harris who is taking a "sabbatical". Or many many former EDA executive – say Guelph.

    GPC support is wide and 1" deep. It's more of a protest party – a place to park your vote right now. This ad fits that demographic – a protest against the other parties.

    That's why you were recruited as a candidate based upon simply a letter to the editor. There are many paper candidates. And desperate last minute efforts to locate candidates so they can call themselves a "national party" – a joke really.

  162. Again, as you say, wide and shallow…which means there's basically no institutional memory, and nobody asking the former execs. Thus the wonk factor. Maybe a few thousand people in Canada know anything about the history of the Greens.

    You're right in that it's a protest vote, and if they're really lucky, they'll finish second in a couple ridings, and just maybe elect May. But hey, they have to start somewhere. And why not with a decent PR campaign? As to the paper candidates? Sure, there's a couple in every riding, for all the parties. Unless you think the libs in alberta and the Cons in Quebec honestly think they have a chance?

  163. Which is why I'm giving reporters some flak on Twitter for not limiting Harper's coverage when he limits their questions. Tell the public that they were unable to get answers from Harper regarding questions they wanted to ask, and spend time covering parties that answer questions instead. He'll come around quickly, or lose votes.

Sign in to comment.