Laughing at them

Chris Selley isn’t impressed with the NDP’s web ad, but encourages mockery.

I remain convinced that the same basic message can be conveyed more simply and devastatingly with politicians’ own words, not journalists’. The issue here is cap-and-trade. And the damning evidence is right there in the 2008 Conservative platform … whatever occurs between now and 2015, highlighting the absurd excesses of Conservative behaviour should be to their opponents’ advantage. Laughter is the last noise politicians ever want to hear when they aren’t telling a joke.

See previously: Attacking the attacks




Browse

Laughing at them

  1. I don’t understand why Cons 2011 policy platform is not taken into account because they don’t mention climate change. Pointing out policies that are years old when Cons have new ones is partisanship. Libs still stuck in 2008 and apparently believe 2011 election doesn’t count or didn’t happen, I guess.

    Reuters ~ Why We Vote For Liars:

    The telling of durable, convincing lies signals to voters that a candidate possesses the political skills to run the Executive Branch. “In American politics today, the ability to lie convincingly has come to be considered an almost prima facie qualification for holding high office,” Eric Alterman writes in When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/10/09/why-we-vote-for-liars/

    • You don’t think it’s worth noticing that the Cons’ current policy isn’t just new, it’s diametrically opposed to their own policy of merely four years ago? Or that they are not only repudiating, but mocking, a stance they recently embraced?

      You can call that “new” if you want. I’d call it “unprincipled”. The word “opportunistic” comes to mind, as well. So does “hypocritical”. Also, “deceitful”. Not to mention “dishonest”.

    • The issue, Tony, is that they are busy trying to make the NDP look bad by (a) vigorously denouncing a policy they themselves advocated not too long ago and (b) by lying about how it works.

      If they had said something like “After careful review we realized our former policy would have been a complete disaster, so we changed course to do X; the NDP have yet to realize the folly of their ways” then they would have some legitimacy.

      But instead they are trying hard to pretend that they never advocated the same approach to begin with, and are working hard to make the NDP’s approach sound as negative as possible – no doubt because some poll showed that “carbon tax” has a very negative connotation in the minds of voters.

      And so they are repeating the phrase ad nauseum at times when it makes no sense whatsoever in context to the questions asked. It’s like the whole CPC caucus has come down with Tourette’s and are exhibiting the exact same verbal tic.

      It’s cheesy; it’s cynical; it’s hypocritical in the extreme.

  2. Recall the laughter when Paul Martin attempted to say with a straight face that adding Belinda Stronach to his cabinet had nothing to do with surviving a confidence vote? Although; that was mostly journalists laughing, so it might not count.

  3. That’s easy for Selley to say. How do you satirize a keystone kops movie? You don’t, you just sit back and look on in wonder.

  4. I find it hilarious that the NDP are spending more time trying to explain to people that their carbon tax isn’t a carbon tax, as opposed to actually trying to defend the policy.

    • I’m told that there are three basic methods of curbing CO2 emissions: carbon tax, cap and trade (which itself has two variants) and regulation.

      The current government has chosen the regulatory approach. Can you explain the benefits of this method over the other methods? I’m particularly interested in benefits to me, as a taxpayer and consumer.

Sign in to comment.