The no context zone


The Conservatives have produced two more clips, these ones based primarily on the fact that Michael Ignatieff once used the word “yes” in a public setting.


The other is here. For the original context of Mr. Ignatieff’s affirmative comment, go to the 3:10 mark of this video. It’s unclear whether Mr. Harper has ever uttered the same word aloud, but in his recent interview with the CBC he did say “that’s right.”


The no context zone

  1. Another thing we've 'imported'….cheap sleazy Republican political advertising.

    "For the record, the full sentence the Conservatives used from Mr. Ignatieff's speech went as follows: "Are we ready to serve the people who put us here? Are we ready to fight for the Canada we love? Are we ready to fight for the Canadian family? What's the answer to that? Yes! Yes! Yes!" "

  2. no. No. NO!

  3. This is what happens when all of the PMOs talent leaves for the private sector.

    You are left with a committee of idiots to run your communications.

  4. …sigh….

  5. These ads are terrible.

    But they may prove useful if Ignatieff does bring down the government at the next budget. I doubt he will though.

  6. Can anyone find an ad from another party which directly attributes a response to a question obviously not the one asked?

    This may be a new low.

  7. I mean, why not try to smear him the same way they tried to smear Paul Martin: "When asked if the Liberal Party supported Child Pornography, Ignatieff repied…"

  8. You left out the final "Oui". Mmmmmm….

  9. Well, let's be fair. Ignatieff was saying Yes, we are ready to fight for Canadian families and serve the people who put us there. This is obviously referring to an election, isn't it? And the Conservatives said that Ignatieff wanted an election, they just happened to frame the question in a way that would even make Abacus blush.

  10. Someone with better video editing skills than myself could begin a big internet meme out of these ads….

    "Would Michael Ignatieff kill a man…. for a Klondike Bar?" …. "Yes! Yes! YES!"

  11. Yes, well, they forgot the final "Oui". Mmmmm….

  12. You wanna blush, watch the second one Wherry linked to.

  13. You should have left out the first sentence of that post.

  14. But it's not that obvious. I mean, am I really this obtuse? The Cons no doubt framed the question to make Ignatieff look bad, but Ignatieff is clearly (????) saying "Yes! Yes! Yes! Oui!" to the fact that he thinks the Liberals are ready to fight an election.

  15. OMG….don't believe everything Wherry writes! Again, Ignatieff is clearly talking about the election preparedness of the Liberals! Or do you really disagree with that?

  16. How about 'Does Stephen Harper want to make Canada the 51st state?'

    Harper: 'That's right'

    Or 'Does Stephen Harper lie to us all the time?'

    Harper: 'That's right'

  17. P.S. I'm not saying that I agree with the way the Cons framed the question in the ad, rather, I'm simply trying to point out that Iggy's answer is not ripped out of context as much as Wherry implies it is.

  18. Also really don't understand how the Tories are trying to push this as Ignatieff's "Howard Dean Moment"…. what made the Howard Dean moment what it was was that Dean's scream was rather weirdly high pitched… that isn't an element of the Ignatieff clip at all.

  19. *blushing*

    But let's be fair to me, I'm not saying I support the Cons ad strategy….just that's it's not totally without context. That's all.

  20. Fair enough.

  21. I don't think your obtuse.

    I think you're lying.

  22. You must be related to wsam…which means Mackay is your aunt too.

  23. It never gets old.

  24. it is DELIBERATELY without context. yeesh.

  25. Maybe they just mean that it's potentially one of those moments that rationally shouldn't really effect a politician's chances, but when repeated ad nauseum and focused on by the media might do so nonetheless.

  26. You'll notice that conservative arguments are often devoid of anything approaching merit.

  27. My guess is that Jack Layton will save the day, because he's actually willing to deal. He'll put semi-reasonable conditions on the table that the Conservatives can agree with.

  28. Let's move slowly through this, because I don't think either one of us is unreasonable.

    Wherry writes the following: " …these ones based primarily on the fact that Michael Ignatieff once used the word “yes” in a public setting."

    His implication? Well, that Ignatieff said "Yes" in a random speech, and the Conservatives ripped that soundbite out of the speech and used it as Iggys answer to their own question.

    Alas, listening to Iggy in context, it becomes clear that he is talking about the election preparedness of the Liberal party.

    The Con ad (the first one for sure and the second one to a lesser degree) asks, in a highly suggestive manner no doubt, whether Ignatieff wants an election, to which they play the clip of him saying Yes.

    To review, he was saying Yes the Liberals are ready for an election, and the Cons said that he said Yes he's ready for an election.

    Do we want to discuss the framing of questions and such? Okay. Was this an instance of the Cons cherry picking some random time Iggy happened to say Yes in a speech? Absolutely not.

  29. I've entered the no content zone

  30. Again…for the record.

    "Here's what Ignatieff actually said about the possibility of an election during that same speech:

    "Folks, I don't know when there's going to be any election. Everybody asks — I spend my life answering that question. I do not know when it's going to come. We are not seeking an election; we are not seeking to provoke an election.""


  31. Honestly, I think I could come up with better ads in my sleep.

  32. How can the Con's possibly infer that Ignatieff was saying yes to being ready to go to the polls when he was clearly saying yes to being ready to go to the polls!

    Oh the humanity!

  33. Again…for the record.

    "Here's what Ignatieff actually said about the possibility of an election during that same speech:

    "Folks, I don't know when there's going to be any election. Everybody asks — I spend my life answering that question. I do not know when it's going to come. We are not seeking an election; we are not seeking to provoke an election.""

  34. " At a time of economic uncertainty does it make sense to jeopardize our economic recovery with an unecessary election"?

    Well yes, if you feel the tax cuts are unecessary – which is what Ignatieff said in his speech. He was afirming his right as leader of the opposition to hold views contrary to the govt – it's his job. He is laying out [hopefully] where he and his party stand. If this should lead to an election then he will have done his job, no? Harper of course wants it all ways.

    "He didn't come back for you"

    The ads are moronic, they may well backfire. I'd be smiling if i was Ignatieff – they're worried.

  35. There must be some mistake here.
    They couldn't have possibly thought these ads were good to go.
    These absurd spots must have missed a crucial vetting step somewhere.
    Who has the last word on what comes out of he CPC war room? And who gave the keys to the kids while the PM is out of the country? …oh, nevermind.

  36. I wouldn't rule out Duceppe getting his $5 billion so fast if I were you.

  37. More red herrings I see.

    These are cheap sleazy unprincipled ads, and you know it.

  38. This is a slippery slope you're on here, i think you know that. MI did not expictly say" yes, yes we want an election", but the overall context of his speech was a " we're ready for one." That somehow justifies taking a man's words out of an explicit "yes we are ready" for an election context and into an altogether different" yes we want an election" context. We know he would like an election, but at least catch the man actually saying it before you quote him in an attack ad.

  39. “In a period of fragile economic recovery, does it make sense to raise taxes on job creators?”

    This from the party that actually raised payroll taxes which, unlike corporate taxes, is a huge job killer and actually eats directly into family incomes “during a period of fragile economic recovery”.

    From the party that actually raised approximately $1.5 billion in taxes with its air tax that definitely kills economic growth.

    Meanwhile, under the Chretien and Martin Liberals, unemployment reached its 30 year low with corporate taxes that were higher than they are now.

    Harper is the biggest flip flopping, promise breaking, liar and hypocrite we have ever elected as Prime Minister.


  40. Did the tories change ad companies. As you say, these are ludicrous. They have a wiff of desparation about them, which is odd, since the tories are in no kind of a desparate political position that i can see.

  41. More red herrings by….Ignatieff? Agreed.

    Otherwise, I see you have resorted to your usual dismissal of your discussion partner (I use that term VERY generously). And here I thought there was hope. :(

    P.S. if you look back through my comments on this, you will see that not once did I say these were "good" ads, or "principled" ads. In fact, on a couple of occasions I emphasized that I do not support their ad strategy. In short, I do know that they are cheap, sleazy and unprincipled, to use your terms. But again, was Ignatieff's words ripped out of context, as if he had really been confirming that he wanted a Big Mac with fries? I remain unconvinced.

  42. Then I guess it's fair to say that Peter MacKay thinks that the government has endangered the security of Canada and risked the lives of our troops by putting Air Canada's need for government-protected profits ahead of our troops need for a secure forward airbase?

  43. Yes, Ignatieff is clearly talking about whether or not the Liberals are ready for an election. More importantly though he's clearly NOT talking about whether it would make sense to jeopardize the country's economic recovery with an "unnecessary" election.

    That's the difference between answering "Yes" to "Would you like a piece of chocolate?" and answering "Yes" to "Would it make sense to risk your mother's life for a piece of chocolate?"

  44. I'm not the only person who didn't think Michael Ignatieff came back for me, am I? I mean, what am I, a Marine wounded behind enemy lines?

    I'll let you in on a little secret too. I don't think Stephen Harper came back (to politics) for me either.

  45. Not desperate at all, just sort of half-assed, like they were produced in under an hour. Even though it's just a 15 second spot, surely they could have found a better clip. The "Yes! Yes! Yes!" is pretty lame, especially since it screams "out of context!".

    Then again, maybe these goofy little ads were never meant to be aired–they'll just be stockpiled in the "election deterrent" arsenal.

  46. Does it really need to be pointed that out that while I might be prepared for my car breaking down in the winter (with an extra tire, flares, candles, blankets etc etc), that doesn't mean I want to break down in the winter.

  47. The Tory ad doesn't claim he's saying yes to being ready for an election, it claims he's saying yes, that it would make sense to risk the country's economic recovery on an unnecessary election. That's not the same thing.

    By your logic I could frame an ad pretty easily that states that Peter MacKay "Believes that it makes sense to risk the lives of Canadian Forces pilots by purchasing an untested fighter jet for them to fly in". Would that be kosher too?

  48. I would absolutely rule it out, given that the reaction from Conservative quarters was pure outrage. The Bloc's shameless extortion attempt seems to have been designed to fail.

    If there's any dealing to be done, it will be probably be done with the NDP.

  49. Half assed…it's like they enrolled in the Dion school of videography…oops!

  50. Did you know that Peter MacKay once said "Yes" that he thought it was acceptable to risk the lives of Canadian Forces pilots by forcing them to fly fighter jets that have never been tested in combat before?

    Shocking, but true(ish)!

  51. Apparently it does.

  52. And if you do break down in the winter, you better hope that whoever comes to help has better map-reading skills than Peter Mackay.

    (Just trying to move things along here; they're getting repetitive.)

  53. Harper is the biggest flip flopping, promise breaking, liar and hypocrite we have ever elected as Prime Minister.

    Jeez Ted! Don't sugarcoat it. Tell us how you really feel! ;)

  54. Holy smokes Richard, do you mean to tell me you're actually planning to risk your own life and the well being of anyone in your car for no better reason than needing to drive in the winter?
    I simply don't know if I can support you in your quest to renew your drivers license.

  55. It's funny how you referred to the Abacus poll posted by Mr Wherry as "leading the witness", but here it's A-OK that the Conservatives are essentially doing the same thing, but in a far more disingenuous way.

    Methinks your comment reeks of hypocrisy.

  56. Hasn't anyone a sense of humour? The ads are funny!

    They are a various of the Bud Light NFL coaches ads. The ads actually might help Ignatieff more than hurt him because they are funny.

  57. Thumbs up just for using the words "holy smokes"! I haven't heard that phrase in ages!

    (The rest of your post also warrants a thumb up…but alas, I have but one to give :)


  58. Thanks, actually you'll need any extra thumbs to hitch-hike back to town. :)

  59. Honest question:

    Is anyone out there actually proud of this tactic?

  60. I think the fools picked up on the meme 'This is Ignatieff's Howard Dean moment!' without ever understanding that most Canadians do know, don't remember and don't care about Hwoard Dean screeching especially since Ignatieff is not giving a meaningless screech. He's displaying emotion, which is more than Harper is capable of, unless he has a chair to kick.

  61. That, and those people completely fed up with Harper will agree with his supposed sentiments–and the enthusiasm with which he expresses it.

  62. Sorry, "most Canadians don't know, don't remember and don't care about Howard Dean screeching"

  63. I honestly think that the Conservatives are trying to spend as much of their money as possible before an election is called so that the commercials will not count as election expenses. I can see no other reason why they would put up such poorly crafted commercials if they have as much money as we are told.

  64. chiff usually has plenty of pride to 'spread' around….chiff?

  65. Definitely a 'reptilian kitten eater' moment

  66. Would those payroll taxes you speak of be the very same the Liberals used to reduce the deficit? They're going up because the EI surplus disappeared during the Chretien/Martin years. We can argue the merits of whether that was fair or not, but please end your sanctimonious posts by at least recognizing that EI contributions are now set by an independent agency and maintained apart from general revenues to stop future governments from using those funds for unintended purposes.

  67. I think that's what they had before, too.

  68. No, actually, it is pretty much totally without context, yeah.

  69. By that logic, you could frame an ad pretty easily that asks, "Does Peter MacKay like to engage in vigorous intercourse with warm blueberry pies with custard on top? Let's ask him. (CUT TO CLIP.) MACKAY: YES!"

  70. Richard's not in it for you. He's just in it for himself. Visit <a href="http://www.richard.me” target=”_blank”>www.richard.me if you don't believe me.

  71. Sorry ATI, but you are full of it or you've mistaken Tory talking points for news. You really do need to get your facts straight, or at the very least your dates. The deficit was already defeated by the Liberals when they re-allocated unused EI funds for other purposes as the Supreme Court confirmed they were perfectly right in doing so.

    As for the Tory tax increase on businesses and workers, you are also very wrong. To link Harper's job killing payroll tax increase to a reallocation of funds 12 years prior is something so ridiculous I don't even think Soudas or even Chet or CATS would think to try it.

    However, a budgetary rainy day reserve fund would come in handy right about now doncha think? Too bad we have career politicians running the show in Ottawa and not anyone with real job experience or any fiscal sanity.

    Bottom line is Harper increases taxes and he increases tax in a big way and he increases tax where it hurts those most vulnerable to such tax increases.

  72. That is the perfect response.

  73. Cons will roll on anything Harper serves up. We have come to expect that from them.

  74. You're sucking and blowing jontwit.

  75. Maybe they're using American 'talent'?

  76. Thank you Conservatives.

  77. I think so too. And both Layton and Harper would benefit politically.

  78. Crit_Reasoning is right. The Bloc cant imagine its getting this. I wonder if it'll be too late for Duceppe's outrage performance to qualify for the Oscars in 2011, but he'll be eligible for 2012.

  79. When I think of HarperCon on that plane to Davro throwing a temper tantrum and not being in town to micro manage it, I scream with laughter all day long.

  80. The outrage and gnashing of the collective teeth, at virtually every move Harper makes is priceless.

    However, I don't doubt for a second the underlying feelings generating these responses from Liberal supporters here.

    You have an unappealing candidate who, after years of faux forest ads and attempts to look Canadian by skating, does not resonate with the average person. going up against an incumbent PM who has taken Canada out of the worst economic storm of our lifetimes.

    The fear is palpable.

    And, no doubt, genuine.

    The gnashing of the teeth is a healthy response.

  81. Fear? I think the Liberals are grinning at the thought of the Tories running these ads.

  82. Well, I do give you credit for not attempting to defend the stupid ads. Attaboy!

  83. Heh. Not even biff can come up with a defence for the ads. As per usual he simply tries to change the topic, but this time not even he can truly believe what he is saying.

  84. They lie so much to us, to each other, and to themselves, that they are losing the ability to distinguish between truth and lies.

  85. Probably.

  86. The Tory ad doesn't claim he's saying yes to being ready for an election, it claims he's saying yes, that it would make sense to risk the country's economic recovery on an unnecessary election. That's not the same thing.

    MJ already knew that…..

    As an aside, I'm not at all convinced that an election, necessary or unnecessary, would be at all risky in relation to the country's economic recovery.

  87. Running such ads when there is no election is truly sleazy and lowbrow.

    If you are to run such ads during an election, I would prefer to adopt the US model where there would be a candidate voice-over at the end declaring I'm Stephen Harper and I approve of this ad

  88. If we use the Conservatives' logic, we should dispense with elections entirely. If our economy is so fragile that a change of government would imperil it, then clearly what we need is for Harper to be appointed President For Life.

    Fortunately, our country, and our economy, are more robust than that.

    (What I get from these ads is that the Conservatives aren't taking these positions for tactical reasons – their dislike of their political opponents is visceral. These ads are the work of True Believers.)

  89. I agree, I was mostly being cheeky.

  90. I agree really that it's not going to happen (mostly j/k in my reply). That said, I'm not sure the "reaction in Conservative quarters" is necessarily the primary reason. After all, what evidence is there from the Harper government's performance that suggests they're really all that interested in not doing things that would annoy conservatives?

  91. "You have an unappealing candidate who, after years of …" Careful Chet, your new message risks undermining your old message by starting to make it sound like Ignatieff's been back and working hard for a long time.

  92. I'm Shocked! Shocked I tell you!!!
    Neither the Liberals, the NDP nor the Bloc would ever employ scare mongering attack ads. They are purer than pure. It's only the Tories who are bad obviously and will be condemned to Dante's Inferno.
    Some of you folks are hilarious

  93. only it would be something winky like "This message has been paid for by the Concerned Patriots of Canada" instead.

  94. wow, a double double: sleazy and facty.

  95. That last point's a good one too. I mean, how would an election even accomplish the feat of risking our economic recovery (and isn't our economic recovery the envy of the G8? Are we kicking everyone else's a55es or is our recovery exceedingly fragile, likely to collapse under the weight of active democracy?).

    Heck, if anything, an election might IMPROVE the economy. A lot of money gets spent during elections creating jobs and work opportunities. On balance, I'd rather assume that an election would be more likely to strengthen our economy than weaken it.

  96. That's utter nonsense, TedBetts. The Libs used $23 billion out of the EI fund into their general revenues. Fine, you can argue that they were entitled to do so, but you cannot dissociate it from the deficit battle. The EI surplus was not used up AFTER the deficit was reduced, it was used as general government funds!

  97. Shorter Karma: "Moooom, they started it…!"

  98. Weren't Canadians told in 2006 to "Demand Better"?

    What ever happened to that?

  99. This seems to be the Conservatives' primary election plank these days: "The opposition isn't any better than we are. And, frankly, change is such a hassle."

  100. After a few more hours of thought, a few thoughts…

    This latest round of ads speaks to the danger of attack ads to the people doing the attacking… and every party that has resorted to attack ads has been burned by them. Sure, they can be effective when they're done well, but done poorly (like these) and they do more damage to the attacker than they ever could have hoped to do to the opponent. The Liberals must be loving this.

    Second, these ads come off as desperate. I don't think the Conservatives have any reason to be desperate, or even worried, but to the average voter who don't follow politics, I'm sure it comes off as desperate, like they actually have something to worry about… and they're so worried they're cobbling together dumb, and yes desperate, ads.

  101. The fact remains Ignatieff is proposing higher corporate taxes. The reductions in corporate taxes was authorized in 07 and are proceeding as approved by the Liberals. So to eliminate the corporate tax reductions which are already in place he is proposing increasing taxes. The yes,yes, yes is just emphasizing how Ignatieff feels about raising taxes. Ignatieff started the election speculation with his year end interviews. It has only escalated because of his continuing comments. He is itching for an election and so the Conservatives took dramatic licence.
    What I don't understand is why the media feels they have to defend and protect the Liberal party. The Liberal party has been around a long time and is not beyond using dramatic licence i.e. soldiers in the streets. However, we all know why. The media leans to the left and the Liberal leader is weak and so they feel it is their solemn duty to protect the Liberal party.

  102. But it couldn't stave off the last recession, the one that Harper the Economist said we weren't going to have.

  103. slacty!

  104. I do love the Orwellian Doublethink.

    Stasis is Increase!

  105. Perhaps Duceppe's feels this is his swan song as he may think this is his last federal campaign. So why not throw the kitchen sink at the government and see what happens. I think Duceppe will leave the federal scene and move to the PQ and replace Marois who is not very popular with her own people.

  106. Its called dramatic licence…Oh lets recall…..soldiers in the streets plus assorted other ads put out by the Libs over the years. The problem is the Libs are broke and can't afford to buy air time so they rely on their friends in the media and youtube to get the message out.

  107. At it again eh Mikey!

  108. True, but I'm not so much arguing that elections are so great for the economy that one could have stopped the recession from happening, simply that an election is likely a net positive for the economy not a net negative, or at the very least that an election is not likely to do tangible harm the economy, and definitely not the the extent that would jeopardize our recovery.

  109. Once again it is called dramatic licence. Just like the Liberals of old but are now too old to fight. So they need all their friends in the media to defend poor old Ignatieff. Its called whining and it is not attractive.

  110. Good point

  111. "Dramatic License"?

    I'm pretty sure that's just a fancy, elitist, latte sipping way, of saying yer lyin'.

  112. If Iam not mistaken these ads have not aired but were placed on the party's website. True to form the media has helped the Conservatives by showing them and of course Wherry has all of the Libs on this blog frothing at the mouth about no context. Who cares. The Libs are big boys and should be able to defend themselves. That says a lot about what the media thinks of the Liberal chances in the next election.

  113. Not meant to be aired on national TV but the party knew if they put them on the party's website the trolls would pick them up and they would reach the public. As bad as they are they emphasize the point that Ignatieff deceptively is suggesting he is prepared to raise corporate taxes and it is Ignatieff who has been yakking incessantly about an election. An election if necessary but not necessarily an election. Been there, done that, bought the T Shirt. Talk about sucking and blowing at the same time.

  114. You Libs love your artists and latte sucking types so you should understand what it is all about. Have you forgotten your Liberal values.

  115. So what you're sayin' is that you guys want to be just like us? Verrry Interesting!

    p.s. You seem to have some problems understanding the difference between liberal and Liberal. I suggest you do some reading up on it.

  116. In the words of Jean-Paul Sartre….

    "Au revoir, Monsieur Gopher!"

  117. Ah yes, cheap political advertising ….. first imported to Canada by the Trudeau Liberals when they ran footage of Robert Stanfield fumbling a football….

  118. "What I don't understand is why the media feels they have to defend and protect the Liberal party."

    Oh, give me a break. You can't open a paper without hearing about how inept Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are.

    They're bad ads. They're not worth defending. I'm sure your guys will come up with some better ones in the future. Move on.

  119. The ads have been removed. Somewhere in the PMO there may be a grownup capable of feeling shame.

  120. Frankly Im worried if Harper gets a majority we are one step closer to a police state and a separated Canada.

  121. Hello are you not reading the media outrage over these ads. I expect it from the Liberal sycophants on this board but virtually all media outlets are attacking the Conservatives over these ads. Let the Liberals fight their own political battles. But no the media has to take a position and write ad nauseum about how the ads jumped the shark and the attackers will be hurt more than the attackees. Give me a break. The damn Liberals have no money, have used attack ads in virtually every election and we only have to look at the last Martin campaing for proof but they can no longer pay for airtime because they are broke so they resort to youtube knowing their crappy in the woods ads will get airtime.
    The ads were put on the party website but the trolls found them and poof they are all over the place. The Conservatives are doing exactly what the Libs do. Put them on youtube etc and the media true to form will report on them and there is the free advertising.
    They are bad ads but you guys sure are going all out to make sure they are seen. Talk about jumping the shark. It is the Liberal friendly media and people like you on this board who are encouraging more viewings. Get over it. Take your own advice. Move on.

  122. If they have been removed they have served their purpose.

  123. You mean the CPC legislative agenda?

  124. Meh, I knew that when I read who was posting it.

  125. In the interview Harper confirmed he would change Canada so the Liberals would not recognize it! This means, none of the rest of us would either.

    He has a cadre of the 5 western premiers working out of a club in Oregon that can readily defeat parliament by working their agenda. Where are they going? To where ever Conservative ideals takes them. Gone are the CPP OAS and probably Quebec if they have their way. As a long time Conservative, I have put up the Conservative wish list here:

    The cadre can be found at http://albertathedetails.blogspot.com/2011/01/con

    The NWT member of this cadre are now going for devolution; that is to become a province where they can hook into Alberta's water export program along with BC.

    Strange times these! Probably the most important election in Canadian and Provincial History.

  126. Those ads were lies. Canadians do not like liars like Harper who assume that Canadians are stupid. You conservatives are revealed to the world as liars.

  127. They took the videos down. Wonder why?

  128. Actually, I'm very glad the Conservatives were called out on these ads, just as I was happy at the time that the Liberals were called out on their 'troops in the streets' ads. I find attack ads repulsive, no matter which party they come from, and I'm giddy when it bites the attackees right in the a**. I think it should be screamed from the damn rooftops, and yeah, I hope the Conservative are embarrassed by it. They should be.

    But, I know how it is… stop criticizing the Conservatives, start supporting the troops, change the channel, whatever.

  129. Embarrassing the Conservatives? Was that their purpose?

  130. Oh, and since we're talking about misdeeds supposedly being blown out of proportion… and Ignatieff getting a free ride from the media… Do you recall when Ignatieff's summer bus tour began? On the first day, his bus broke down, a few miles down the road. Ignatieff was ridiculed in the media for two or three days after it happened (which is about the lifespan of this ad story). So please, spare me this 'Liberal Friendly' media bullsh*t. The Sun papers actually employ Conservative talking points (eg. 'just visiting') in describing him in their editorials.

    And it's the Liberal's fault for an ad that the CONSERVATIVES came up with? Seriously? The Conservatives are the victim? Seriously? Seriously. Seriously?

    I know this 'Liberal friendly media' crap is convenient to explain away incidents that don't go your way, but that's all it is. It's shallow attempt to change the channel.

  131. Sycophants?

  132. syc·o·phant (sk-fnt, sk-)
    A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.


  133. Ahh, so you do know what the word means.

    Then why misuse it?

  134. Dear Todd,

    The idiots were there at the last election. You don't remember the sleaze then? How about the appalling ad about Stephane Dion? This is just par for the course for Stephen Harper, and people on his team who just can't help him enough!

Sign in to comment.