|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2011 13:35:34 GMT -5
I can't believe the results. It says that the party I support the most are the Conservatives and least is the NDP. I tell'ya, this modern technology thingy can read minds. Now if it could get me free sex....... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2011 14:56:54 GMT -5
Did this over lunch and I'm a Tory. But, according to the map chart the Grits aren't all that far behind. Hmm ... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 15:05:25 GMT -5
Yes. I'm fuzzy on the tax implications because we have someone doing it for us but from what I understand, parents can split their incomes to reduce their tax burden. Which I think it means that if one parent is making a hundred grand and the other 40, they will be taxed at 70 grand. I am NOT sure about this but that's what it sound like to me. Well, from what the lads here at work are telling me, this income split will occur once the federal deficit is gone. Apparently, according to Harper this will take five years ... err ... yeah .... Cheers. like I said earlier, just in time for the next election [if there is a majority government this time] |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2011 15:59:36 GMT -5
Well, from what the lads here at work are telling me, this income split will occur once the federal deficit is gone. Apparently, according to Harper this will take five years ... err ... yeah .... Cheers. like I said earlier, just in time for the next election [if there is a majority government this time] I don't know man. I think this concept applies to just about every plumb the parties offer up. Still, I'm not so sure he can pull it off to be honest. I mean, we just came through a financial meltdown not too long ago. Just doesn't seem feasible. cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 16:31:46 GMT -5
like I said earlier, just in time for the next election [if there is a majority government this time] I don't know man. I think this concept applies to just about every plumb the parties offer up. Still, I'm not so sure he can pull it off to be honest. I mean, we just came through a financial meltdown not too long ago. Just doesn't seem feasible. cheers. which is why, I think, he says "after the deficit is gone" and points to four years hence. if I were a high school student nearing university I'd be pointing to Iggy's promise of a thousand bucks a year. heard one radio commentator say that electronics stores will be excited by this promise because it'll mean more X-Box sales. how cynical is that . . . or is it just reality for first year students? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2011 17:06:39 GMT -5
I don't know man. I think this concept applies to just about every plumb the parties offer up. Still, I'm not so sure he can pull it off to be honest. I mean, we just came through a financial meltdown not too long ago. Just doesn't seem feasible. cheers. which is why, I think, he says "after the deficit is gone" and points to four years hence. if I were a high school student nearing university I'd be pointing to Iggy's promise of a thousand bucks a year. heard one radio commentator say that electronics stores will be excited by this promise because it'll mean more X-Box sales. how cynical is that . . . or is it just reality for first year students? ;D ... never thought of it quite that way, but yeah ... anything's entirely possible I guess I don't know where Ignatieff pulled that one out of, but it comes across as a blanket statement with no parameters. If we're talking about subsidized education then let's talk about Sweden. I have a teaching friend/mentor that just returned from Sweden and she told me that while post-secondary education is covered by government funds, it is not open to everyone. Rather, it's open to those who qualify for it. There are specific criteria potential students have to meet in order to attend university and if you don't meet that, then you're out of luck on taking advantage of that perk. The way Ignatieff comes across is that he's trying to buy the younger vote. It's not a criticism ... every party does it to varying degrees. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 17:21:56 GMT -5
which is why, I think, he says "after the deficit is gone" and points to four years hence. if I were a high school student nearing university I'd be pointing to Iggy's promise of a thousand bucks a year. heard one radio commentator say that electronics stores will be excited by this promise because it'll mean more X-Box sales. how cynical is that . . . or is it just reality for first year students? The way Ignatieff comes across is that he's trying to buy the younger vote. It's not a criticism ... every party does it to varying degrees. indeed oh, and ka-ching! the first Liberal billion has been promised [with many more to come]. 'course, he's going to cancel the planes and the prisons and the corporate tax cuts to pay for it . . . then, when the corporations move out of the country, where do you think the money is going to come from? parameters? what you talkin' 'bout, Willis?heard an interview with some U student, who said something to the effect of "that's nice, but what about tuition fees that keep going up?" just waiting for Iggy to promise a chicken in every pot. and Jack to instruct the Bank of Canada to start issuing credit cards. then again, I guess you can promise anything when you aren't going to win. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2011 18:44:21 GMT -5
just waiting for Iggy to promise a chicken in every pot. and Jack to instruct the Bank of Canada to start issuing credit cards. then again, I guess you can promise anything when you aren't going to win. Rooster Jack and Iggy are taking a page out of the Rhino party. I'm waiting for one of them to promise to repeal gravity and subsidize orgasms. |
|
|
|
Post by Roggy on Mar 29, 2011 21:05:29 GMT -5
Did this over lunch and I'm a Tory. But, according to the map chart the Grits aren't all that far behind. Hmm ... I guess throw me smack dab in the middle of the Libs and Cons. I tend to agree on economics, defence, environment with the Cons, but trend to NDP with social issues (Abortion, Gay Marriage etc). |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 30, 2011 5:35:20 GMT -5
Did this over lunch and I'm a Tory. But, according to the map chart the Grits aren't all that far behind. Hmm ... I guess throw me smack dab in the middle of the Libs and Cons. I tend to agree on economics, defence, environment with the Cons, but trend to NDP with social issues (Abortion, Gay Marriage etc). I'm going to try it again. Just read online that it's possible the survey is biased toward the Liberals ... hmm ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 30, 2011 5:52:27 GMT -5
funny Dis . . . I've read complaints that it is biased towards the Conservatives!
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 30, 2011 7:31:19 GMT -5
Yes. I'm fuzzy on the tax implications because we have someone doing it for us but from what I understand, parents can split their incomes to reduce their tax burden. Which I think it means that if one parent is making a hundred grand and the other 40, they will be taxed at 70 grand. I am NOT sure about this but that's what it sound like to me. Well, from what the lads here at work are telling me, this income split will occur once the federal deficit is gone. Apparently, according to Harper this will take five years ... err ... yeah .... Cheers. Once the deficit is gone AND Harper gets a majority ... HA's example is correct. You will be able to split income up to $50,000. It's that $50,000 that has me shaking my head and not believing it. That's quite the spread. To illustrate, splitting $50,000, there would have to be $100,000 gap between two people's incomes. I think if this ever comes to be, that $50,000 will be more like $20,000. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 30, 2011 7:35:01 GMT -5
I guess throw me smack dab in the middle of the Libs and Cons. I tend to agree on economics, defence, environment with the Cons, but trend to NDP with social issues (Abortion, Gay Marriage etc). I'm going to try it again. Just read online that it's possible the survey is biased toward the Liberals ... hmm ... Cheers. After the first 5-6 questions, I was thinking that the questions were all biased towards the Conservatives ... and I was quite surprised to see that it had me as a Liberal. Wondering if I should take it myself again and answer some of the questions where I went in the middle .... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 30, 2011 7:48:42 GMT -5
I took it again .... still Liberal, apparently I am a social conservative and economic left.
I was surprised when I compared my answers to the Party Policy ... I was surprised that the Liberals "strongly disagree" with the Carbon Tax , and there were a few others like that there ....
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 30, 2011 8:09:31 GMT -5
I took I was surprised that the Liberals "strongly disagree" with the Carbon Tax that one cracks me up, since they are the ones who championed it . . . last election. and on their web site: we will implement a "cap and trade" system. cap and trade does nothing for the environment -- it is merely wealth distribution. if you think that taking carbon will work, then set a limit and tax what goes over the limit, period. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 30, 2011 8:30:03 GMT -5
Ah, the fun stuff: Yesterday, in another case of Conservatives attacking people instead of problems, Conservative candidate for Saint Boniface Shelly Glover launched a personal, ageist attack on Liberal Winnipeg South Centre MP Anita Neville.
This is what Ms. Glover said: “We need some fresh blood. We need some new people who come with some new ideas… and I’m afraid Ms. Neville has passed her expiry date.”
After Ms. Neville and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons demanded an apology to all seniors for this slur, Ms. Glover refused to apologize or retract her statement. In a weak attempt to cover up her gaffe, Ms. Glover’s spokesperson said that “Shelly was referring to her length in office, not her age.”
Sorry Ms. Glover, but a lie doesn’t cover up a slur. Your new line is just not credible link on the Liberal siteThe Cons might just point to a lie doesn’t cover up a slur and say it is another case of Liberals attacking people. The Conservative response to the claim, though, is to suggest that the “passed her expiry date” was taken out of context in the news report. The "gaffe" aired on Global Winnipeg Evening News. Anchor Peter Chura introduces the segment by stating, "A high-profile Tory suggested that a Liberal MP is just too old for the job." The actual interview: (ALL TIMES CENTRAL) Around 2 p.m. Monday Global News reporter Nelly Gonzalez interviews Ms. Glover outside her campaign headquarters. Here is a transcript of their exchange, based on raw video: Ms. Gonzalez: We know that, with Anita Neville, that there's a mystery candidate that hasn't been announced yet.... What do you know about that, and what do you think the chances are of your party regaining that seat?
Ms. Glover: I think Anita Neville is in trouble. I've only been in Parliament for two-and-a-half years, Nelly, and I'll tell ya, there are a lot shenanigans going on in Parliament. We need some fresh blood, we need some new people who have some new ideas and who are willing to stand up for their constituents. And I'm afraid Ms. Neville has passed her expiry date. Her constituents are constantly coming to my office because they can't receive service in French, because they can't get a call back. I think Ms. Neville is going to be defeated.I’m starting to think like Dennis Miller on the Saturday Night Live news: who knows? Who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 30, 2011 11:10:30 GMT -5
Ah, the fun stuff: Yesterday, in another case of Conservatives attacking people instead of problems, Conservative candidate for Saint Boniface Shelly Glover launched a personal, ageist attack on Liberal Winnipeg South Centre MP Anita Neville.
This is what Ms. Glover said: “We need some fresh blood. We need some new people who come with some new ideas… and I’m afraid Ms. Neville has passed her expiry date.”
After Ms. Neville and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons demanded an apology to all seniors for this slur, Ms. Glover refused to apologize or retract her statement. In a weak attempt to cover up her gaffe, Ms. Glover’s spokesperson said that “Shelly was referring to her length in office, not her age.”
Sorry Ms. Glover, but a lie doesn’t cover up a slur. Your new line is just not credible link on the Liberal site The Cons might just point to a lie doesn’t cover up a slur and say it is another case of Liberals attacking people. The Conservative response to the claim, though, is to suggest that the “passed her expiry date” was taken out of context in the news report. The "gaffe" aired on Global Winnipeg Evening News. Anchor Peter Chura introduces the segment by stating, "A high-profile Tory suggested that a Liberal MP is just too old for the job." The actual interview: (ALL TIMES CENTRAL) Around 2 p.m. Monday Global News reporter Nelly Gonzalez interviews Ms. Glover outside her campaign headquarters. Here is a transcript of their exchange, based on raw video: Ms. Gonzalez: We know that, with Anita Neville, that there's a mystery candidate that hasn't been announced yet.... What do you know about that, and what do you think the chances are of your party regaining that seat?
Ms. Glover: I think Anita Neville is in trouble. I've only been in Parliament for two-and-a-half years, Nelly, and I'll tell ya, there are a lot shenanigans going on in Parliament. We need some fresh blood, we need some new people who have some new ideas and who are willing to stand up for their constituents. And I'm afraid Ms. Neville has passed her expiry date. Her constituents are constantly coming to my office because they can't receive service in French, because they can't get a call back. I think Ms. Neville is going to be defeated.I’m starting to think like Dennis Miller on the Saturday Night Live news: who knows? Who cares?Sounds like she might be taking her cue from her leader actually. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Mar 30, 2011 13:20:30 GMT -5
I have reservations about the F-22, HA. I can elaborate on that more later (between classes right now). As it is now, the F-35's can only be serviced in the USA and when we mention them for arctic operations they're like any other VTOL aircraft out there; they suck when put up north. Very quickly, take a look at the total cost of the F-35's and then take a look at the F-18 Super Hornet, which is one of the best aircraft in the US arsenal. $85 million a pop as opposed to .... Have to run man. Cheers. Dis, the F-35 comes in two versions. The VTOL and CTOL one. We are getting the conventional one. As for the Super Hornet. If you have air superiority and force of numbers, I agree, but if you intend to interdict at long ranges, no. You need speed and stealth. Interestig topic. Discussing the F-22 is moot. The Americans are ending the production of the plane and it is not available for export. Even if it was, it costs $200 million per. The Japanese and Australians, for example, lobbied extensively to buy it and were turned down. The Aussies had to settle for Super Hornets and Japanese had to update their F-15s. I don't have much of a problem acquiring the F-35 as long as it's what's needed. The current government and DND hasn't defined exactly what that need is. Do we need a multi-role plane or an interceptor for air defense? Instead, they've focused more on the economic spin-offs which are potentially quite large. The key word is potential. Performance wise, the plane is not much better than any generation 4.5 airplane out there currently and uses the same weapons as Superhornet. The avionics are comparable to Eurofighter, Gripen and the latest Sukhoi and that's really the the difference maker on any plane nowadays as opposed to stealth which can be easily countered, imo. If the F-35's suite is so good, why are the Israelis, for example, insisting on putting their own electronics in the first twenty F-35s they are buying? Besides the cost of acquisition which is still uncertain, and maintenance costs including parts which are completely unknown, I agree that the biggest controversy regarding the F-35 is the refusal by the Americans to give any of the buyers access to the avionics source code. This means every upgrade in weapons and any update to the avionics package has to be done in the U.S. by Lockheed-Martin. So, aside transient servicing and typical second line maintenance on the airframe etc..., the U.S. controls the lifecycle and maintenance schedule. Not an attractive proposition for nations like Britain, for example, which has invested billions in the plane's development and uses different weapons than the U.S. or Israel which insists on the ability to integrate their own radar, electronic countermeasures etc...in the long term. An open competition would bring all that out... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 30, 2011 21:54:22 GMT -5
Are you guys not getting it about that poll? We are ALL Liberals, we just don't know it yet.  You want proof? On the CBC tonight, they had a bunch of students taking the poll and low and behold, one of the students thought she was right of center but surprise....she is a Liberal. The last comment was "she has to think about her position now". Gee, I wonder why? This can't possibly be a media source whoring their agenda. To say the CBC is biased is as certain as the Laffs not winning the Cup this year. They are afraid that a Conservative majority is going to cut back their taxpayer suckling and as a matter of survival, they will do whatever it takes to keep that from happening. Worst to come....a day or two before the election date, they will announce that their polls PROVE that we are all Liberals....so what's your problem? Why aren't you voting that way? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 30, 2011 22:05:02 GMT -5
Discussing the F-22 is moot. The Americans are ending the production of the plane and it is not available for export. Even if it was, it costs $200 million per. The Japanese and Australians, for example, lobbied extensively to buy it and were turned down. The Aussies had to settle for Super Hornets and Japanese had to update their F-15s. From what I know....they suspended the production, not ended. All the tooling is still there but I doubt that 50 fighters will re-ignite it. It was suppose to be made available to two countries, Canada and Japan. All others were potential competitors or technology leaker's (Israel, UK). They also do not want any production transfer. The major advantage he F-35 over 4.5's has is stealth capabilities. That's huge when facing a capable 4th generation air-to-air opponents or more sophisticated AAMS's like late S-300's and S-400's.....and worthless if Libyan like missions are it's future. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 30, 2011 22:55:30 GMT -5
I took I was surprised that the Liberals "strongly disagree" with the Carbon Tax that one cracks me up, since they are the ones who championed it . . . last election. and on their web site: we will implement a "cap and trade" system. cap and trade does nothing for the environment -- it is merely wealth distribution. if you think that taking carbon will work, then set a limit and tax what goes over the limit, period. The financial sector is orgasming over the possibility of playing with billions of dollars of funds screwed out of the Canadian taxpayer. Year in and year out, they will have billions more falling into their hands.....from our wallets. If the banks gleefully endorse it, FEAR IT. I don't want to get into this but I had a debate with a sky faller. One of his crying binges was that some low laying area's are going to be flooded. Well, for the last 15,000 years oceans rised over 400 feet and the last 100 years alone, over 8 inches . Those areas are going swimming no matter how many trillions we pour into stopping the sky from falling. His brilliant answer? "Ok, but it will still help them cope!" With what? Boats made of money? Talking about wealth redistribution from hell....... Anywho, back to politics..... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 31, 2011 11:11:23 GMT -5
I can't believe the results. It says that the party I support the most are the Conservatives and least is the NDP. I tell'ya, this modern technology thingy can read minds. Now if it could get me free sex....... I've done it three times now and the last two times have shown me to be a hard Liberal. And it didn't matter how far "right" I answered the questions. After the survey they give you another fill-in-the-dots survey. I selected everything the Tories support and I ended up even further away from their party than before. A friend here at work decided to punch in 'everything BLOC' and he still ended up as a Liberal by quite a margin. There's backlash coming out now on the survey. I found a link yesterday that questions the validity of the compass survey: CBC's voter quiz tool flawed, prof says
By Samantha Butler, QMI Agency
Last Updated: March 29, 2011 6:31pmKINGSTON, Ont. — The CBC appears to have a new spin on the old joke about the answer to all multiple choice questions being "C". This time the answer is usually "G", as in Grit. Queen's University political science professor Kathy Brock says the state broadcaster's Vote Compass online survey tool is flawed and tells people they're Liberal by default. Vote Compass, a 30-question survey on the CBC's website, is supposed to show Canadians which party's political views are most like their own. Brock said she completed the survey three times using three distinct strategies, and was aligned each time with the Liberal party. "If you're giving opposite responses and getting the same result, that's not correct," she said. Brock said the first time she did the survey she selected the "somewhat agree" response to every question. The second time, she selected "somewhat disagree," and the third time she chose "strongly agree." The final questions in the survey pertain to leaders. They ask respondents to rank candidates for prime minister based on trustworthiness and competence. Brock said she selected the "I don't know" option for all the leader questions, every time. "Every time, it told me I was politically centred and should vote Liberal," Brock said. Cliff van der Linden, a Toronto researcher who developed the tool, said Brock received those responses because the questions are equally split between the left and right side of the political spectrum. "So if you answer all one way or another, you're going to end up answering half left and half right -- and end up in the middle." Brock argues the Liberal party doesn't necessarily represent the traditional centre of the political spectrum today. "The Conservatives have also been moving towards the centre lately," she said. "We're talking about the centre of the Canadian political landscape as it applies to these 30 statements," van der Linden said. He said all four parties were asked to verify the statements. Van der Linden acknowledges the party platforms are more nuanced than the questions in the survey, but says "Canadians aren't engaging with those platforms, and haven't been for years." "Over half a million Canadians have taken this survey in three days." Van der Linden said an expert research team, based out of the University of Toronto, devised the tool using a "rigorous scientific process." The tool is meant to generate discussion and give all Canadians a say, he said, but not to provide voting advice. Brock says it's a "gimmick" that "impoverishes the level of discussion in our democracy." "It might stir up some debate, but it doesn't encourage people to think deeply." Van der Linden said the tool has been widely used in Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands for the past 10 years. "In Europe, this is a fixture of democratic discourse," he said. sbutler@thewhig.com www.calgarysun.com/news/decision2011/2011/03/29/17799041.html (link) |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 31, 2011 11:24:44 GMT -5
I've done it three times now and the last two times have shown me to be a hard Liberal. And it didn't matter how far "right" I answered the questions. After the survey they give you another fill-in-the-dots survey. I selected everything the Tories support and I ended up even further away from their party than before. A friend here at work decided to punch in 'everything BLOC' and he still ended up as a Liberal by quite a margin. There's backlash coming out now on the survey. I found a link yesterday that questions the validity of the compass survey: "rigorous scientific process."..rigorous scientific.bullsh!t I know the platform for both parties and I also expected the bias so that's why I landed up as a Conservative. Unless you answer everything from the extreme right, then your a "Liberal". Even when I answered it like an NDP tool, I'm still a Liberal. It's garbage like this that makes anyone on the right want to take a sledge hammer to the CBC. Then like every criminal in jail, they scream "we're innocent". Their time will come and it's of their own making. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 31, 2011 11:27:58 GMT -5
funny thing: was listening to CBC this morning [yes, I listen to their morning show] and they had a number of call-in and e-mail complaints about the thing . . . everyone was complaining that it was too Conservative!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 31, 2011 11:33:43 GMT -5
funny thing: was listening to CBC this morning [yes, I listen to their morning show] and they had a number of call-in and e-mail complaints about the thing . . . everyone was complaining that it was too Conservative! Why were you listening to the Communist Broadcasting Comrades? And why were you expecting anything but counter bias? More importantly.....Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 31, 2011 11:56:34 GMT -5
funny thing: was listening to CBC this morning [yes, I listen to their morning show] and they had a number of call-in and e-mail complaints about the thing . . . everyone was complaining that it was too Conservative! Why were you listening to the Communist Broadcasting Comrades? And why were you expecting anything but counter bias? 1. happy wife happy life . . . her station 2. gotta know your "enemy" believe in community . . .gonna hold that against me? huh? are you? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 31, 2011 12:09:21 GMT -5
believe in community . . .gonna hold that against me? huh? are you? ;D Oh no, not at all. I too believe in the community. That's why I keep an eye on the neighbors wives and (legal age) daughters concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 31, 2011 14:00:09 GMT -5
funny thing: was listening to CBC this morning [yes, I listen to their morning show] and they had a number of call-in and e-mail complaints about the thing . . . everyone was complaining that it was too Conservative! When I was taking the survey I thought it was too Conservative too ... by that, I mean that the questions appeared to me to be centered on the Conservative policies that I thought most people liked. I was expecting it to say Conservative, and it surprised me that my "check mark" was to the left of the Liberal sign .... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 31, 2011 20:06:31 GMT -5
From thestar.com .... not sure if that's a Lib or a Con media source ...
A chicken and a liar.
What on Earth possessed Harper yesterday to challenge Iggy to a duel? And less than 24 hours later refuse to show up? And then lie about the incident?
Here's Harper's "explanation" in Halifax today for why he's turning chicken in revoking his own challenge yesterday to Ignatieff for a one-on-one debate:
We were open to all kinds of options. Our first preference was a direct debate with the leader of the coalition. Mr. Ignatieff insisted that his first preference was to have his coalition partners with him at the debate. That’s the format that was proposed. We’ve accepted it.
We've learned - or re-learned - these past few days how hard Harper has worked to rewrite the history of his many flirtations with a coalition of opposition parties including his own to deny power to the party winning the most seats. We've heard less about his climbdowns on writing to Ralph Klein with a brainwave on Alberta separatism (the scurrilous "firewall" letter of which Mr. H no longer speaks), and that Belgium, sight unseen by Harper, has a better form of government than Canada (still without a government a year after its most recent election, there's talk in Brussels of the country splitting up on ethnic lines as the former Czechoslovakia did); and JIm Flaherty's transports of admiration for a now-insolvent Ireland's ultra-low corporate-tax regime, which should be applied post haste to to Canada. The Tories forget all these things, and the MSM, appreciating that people change and ideas are in flux, hasn't dwelt on them.
And that, as an incident like this shows, was wrong. Since we've not challenged Harper on his past, we're all condemned to relive it. In the fake costing of 65 jet-fighter planes (Harper cost, $17 billion; real cost, $29 billion) to the non-costing of new and expanded prisons that would be required by Harper's proposed tougher sentencing guidelines. (The outside estimates are roughly $9 billion.) It was a vote on that contempt of the people's house, and not the budget, that brought this government down last Friday.
But this episode is astonishing, a Harper rewrite of events that unfolded just yesterday. To the question of how far Harper will go in insulting the voters, there is no apparent answer.
Soon after Harper suggested the notion yesterday of squaring off with Iggy alone in a televised debate, Iggy's immediate response in fact was:
"A one-on-one debate? Any time, any place."
Iggy tweeted that response to the world, aware of the consequences of backing out.
Harper or his war room quickly decided the leaders' hustings challenge of a one-on-one debate was not such a great idea. So within hours, Harper was pulling back his own idea, in the most disengenuous way.
Harper yesterday tweeted Ignatieff:
"Curiously, my team proposed 1:1 to TV consortium today; however, your team did not speak up."
That is, excuse me, horse dung. The "teams" take their orders from the leaders. If the teams were tied up in logistical knots about an agreed-upon mano-a-mano, they'd just have to figure it out. Because their leaders were on record agreeing to a duel, and voters give a rat's ass about logistics.
Each would invite accusations of cowardice if he backed down. So Harper has tried his best to depict Ignatieff as being the one to back out of a one-on-one debate.
And that's a lie.
Kinsella dumps all over Harper today as a "chicken."
It's worse. In this incident, Harper has shown himself to be cowardly and a liar.
I don't use either word lightly. I admonished Duceppe for his Day 2 labelling of Harper as liar for distorting the intent of the notorious 2004 letter signed by Harper, Duceppe and Layton, making themselves available for the G-G's consideration as a coalition government seeking to deny Martin the chance to lead a minority government. There's enough wiggle room in the wording of that document to make "liar" uncalled for.
The PM's conduct yesterday and today are different. The PM lied to Canadians. A bald-faced lie, and not about the actual intent of an arcane document seven years ago. But on the question of who said what when in recent hours about a challenge to a duel - something any voter can relate to.
I don't get it. Partisan sentiment aside, what Harper and Ignatieff said is on videotape and printed-out tweets. Common sense says you can't try the gambit of the cheatin' good 'ol boy of C&W songs, who, contronted by his wife, asks: "Who ya gonna believe, me or your cheatin' eyes?"
For the umpteeth time in a campaign not a week old, Harper has stepped on his own message. But it's Week 1 and no one's paying attention. At least that's one of the truisms of the game. I have a feeling, though, that this item has legs, as Variety would say.
If the folks at Grit ad agency Red Leaf aren't splicing up footage right now for ads running during the NHL playoffs they should be fired.
Update
No name yet for the Tory campaign plane. Scott Feschuk suggests Chicken Wings.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 31, 2011 22:10:45 GMT -5
Toronto Star positions itself with AK
Glove and Mail fashions itself like Eller
National Post is definitely a Plek
|
|
