Topical humour -

Topical humour


The Liberals have come up with a new idea: compare Mr. Harper to Mitt Romney.

Behind the scenes, Liberal strategists said their MPs should respond to Mr. Harper’s accusations by comparing him to Mitt Romney, the U.S. Republican presidential candidate who was caught saying 47 per cent of all Americans “believe they are victims” entitled to help from the government. Liberal politicians were urged to say, in reply to the Prime Minister, that Mr. Harper is similarly interested in targetting only certain voters “but the fact that more than 60 per cent of Canadians would never vote for the Conservatives doesn’t mean those doesn’t mean they don’t exist.”

This is probably not as worthwhile an idea as the three ideas the Liberals presented on Tuesday afternoon when accused of not having any ideas.


Topical humour

  1. Good for Garneau for presenting those ideas (although one is technically in provincial jurisdiction).
    However, the Globe article shows the Liberal approach is wrong, when accused of not having ideas (as Wherry seems to hint at here).
    When accused of not having ideas, the Liberals propose comparing Harper to Romney? How does that address the criticism? Why not stand up and define what it is to be Liberal, or defend initiatives that you’ve presented in this parliament?
    Leblanc, a potential (actual?) leadership candidate, agrees that comparing Harper to Romney is a good idea… Never mind discussing Liberal ideas, I guess… As Paul Wells says, it looks like they’re campaigning for opposition, not for government.

    • Look at what happened when Garneau put those ideas to Harper? He gets brushed aside with what i’m pretty sure is a standard bit of Harper bs. ‘Oh why didn’t you vote for it when you had the chance ?” Completely glossing over the fact that those items [if in deed the tories did propose them ; never discount the possibility of the big lie from Harper] were almost certainly wrapped up in a bundle of others or even an omnibus bill – something that the liberals were almost certain to vote down on principle.
      How do you deal with this sort of rank dishonesty? Probably not by throwing Mitt in his face, but why not? Trying to engage on ideas doesn’t seem to work either.
      Sounds to me as if your trying to blame the wrong party. To discuss ideas presupposes the other party is interested in listening to them, much less adopting any of them.

      • It’s fair to say that I’m expecting too much from the Liberals, since a) they don’t have a leader yet, and b) the election’s not for another 3 years. So expecting a slew of ideas from the Liberals, at this moment in time, is unrealistic. The ideas will eventually come.
        But this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There were constant comparisons between Harper and Bush, a president that was in office for 8 years, that Canadians knew and (for the most part) disliked, that dragged the US into an unpopular war, etc etc… And how did that work out? The Conservatives increased their vote share in every subsequent election, until they got their majority.
        Now they want to compare Harper to Romney, whom Canadians know far less about, and who might not even be on the radar anymore once December comes. Is this what passes for Liberal strategy these days?
        I’d like a reason to vote Liberal. Not a reason to vote against Harper/Layton/whoever. I suspect most Canadians would agree with that sentiment. This episode has shown me that the Liberals are far from convincing me to vote FOR them, and are simply continuing to pander the idea that I should vote AGAINST someone else.
        But like I said, it’ll change. In another year or two, I expect the Liberals to have some concrete ideas, approved by their members and new leader, and perhaps then they will look more like a gov’t in waiting, rather than a party vying for the job of opposition.
        So if you think it’s a smashing idea to compare Harper with a man whom most Canadians know very little about (I think he presided over the Salt Lake Olympics? And is rich? Is that a fair summary?), then go for it. As for “blaming the wrong party,” I don’t think the Liberals should be pitching their ideas to other parties. They should be selling them to voters. Yes, it would be nice if our parties discussed ideas with each other, but if that fails, the party should come to the voters with those ideas, rather than saying “Well, we tried having a reasonable discussion with the other parties, but it didn’t work. So… we’ll just start slinging mud everywhere. We’ll start with Harper = Romney.” Well, how about selling those ideas to the public instead of mud-slinging? How about talking them up with journalists, and sharing with constituents, on their websites, on blogs, etc? And for one of their prominent leadership contenders to think “Gee, what a swell idea! Let’s start the comparisons!” is a little disappointing.

        • Fair comment. Think you’re pretty bang on. But I didn’t say it was a good idea,[ didn’t mean to anyway] just that it might be understandable given how frustrating it is to deal with Harper. But you’re right, there are creative options. Unfortunately this being politics i expect the liberals to run with that one if they think it might stick…sigh.