Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Questions on my mind…

Question #1: Does anyone out there have a theory why the Conservatives are so determined to get their personal attacks/smears in during Members Statements, to the point of finding loopholes in the Speaker’s recent ruling forbidding them, when nobody in Canada (except the occasional media personality) watches this or even knows what’s being said during Members Statements?

Question 1 a): Are they just purposely trying to poison the atmosphere in the House?

Question 1 b): Do they think being able to quote Hansard back to their constituents showing them how good they can parrot Conservative attack threads (like Mike Wallace from Burlington today) is an election riding winner?

Question #2: Does Stephen Taylor and his Blogging Tory compatriots/Manning Institute fellows REALLY think that the “Ignatieff is un-Canadian” smear is really going to stick with the average Canadian – particularly in the midst of a severe recession? I’d suggest if that’s all you folks got, you’re in big trouble over there.

Update @ 9:31 pm: Question #3: Do the good folks of Peterborough really want a guy like Dean Del Maestro representing them? There are far sharper sticks in the woodpile then him, and I hope a plurality of people figure that out come next election.

6 comments to Questions on my mind…

  • Noni Mausa

    My vote goes with “poisoning the atmosphere.” And not just poisoning parliament, but the entire atmosphere of political engagement. This shows up in debates, in member’s statements, and in the commentary of Con bloggers and commenters.

    Some of the dialogue is so offensive, contrafactual, endlessly long, or stupidly argued, that any decently civil person will be put off by it as by a rat infested restaurant. It arouses true disgust, which is a visceral (not intellectual) response.

    Or a better example — no matter how wonderful your friend’s formal dinner parties are, if she always invites one — just one — crude, loud, unwashed, demented and possibly dangerous guest, that person will ruin the evening for the two dozen others, and probably make it hard for the friend to get RSVP’s in the future. Yet that noxious guest is only 4% of the guests.

    If “noxious guests” (in the form of offensive comments and stupid arguments) are always present in the political arena, decent people leave, surrendering the arena to those who can stomach the stuff, or leaving the arena effectively empty.

    This resembles wild animals that defecate on their kill to discourage other predators from stealing it

    At the same time, the use of this tactic drives decent people out of the party that employs it, sending the party into a vicious downward spiral.

    Befouling public discourse is NOT a minor annoyance — it is a real threat to the democratic process, and should be vigorously opposed wherever it occurs.

    Noni

  • Roll Tide

    Question #1. If no one watches, why make it an issue.

    Question #2. Stephan Taylor making that an issue makes as much sense as you making #1 an issue.

    In a nut shell both sides are having fun.

  • Oh yeah… one more point…

    As a post-grad with much web design experience, I’d have to point out the simple little fact that most of the SDKs out there come with the same choices for “language” selection…. I’ve often toyed with software which doesn’t have a Canadian (or even United Kingdom) flag for “English”. Just so happens that most of the SDKs are designed in Silicon Valley in the US of A…

  • Hey, thanks for the link. I can’t figure out why they think this will play in the Canadian public. As if we didn’t all see the Americans try this on Obama, with “spectacular” results. But hey, Ignatieff is no Obama, so he had better respond somehow.

  • I did click on the CORRECTIONS link on the Liberal Party site. It was produced by an outside agency that inserted the US flag. The flag was not chosen by Michael Ignatieff or anyone else in the Liberal Party. Had the Liberal Party chosen a Canadian flag for English, then the Conservatives would probably accuse the Liberals of being anti-francophone. Maybe Stephen Taylor should question why a Conservative party member like himself would be anti-American. Maybe the Conservatives don’t like Canadians who were born in the United States. Do Blogging Tories hate American-Canadians as much as they seem to hate Muslim-Canadians?

  • 1) They are playing to the “base”. When they talk to their would-be supporters, they can easily point to Hansard, put it on the web, in ads, etc., and be honest that, “but, we DID fight for our Conservative views in Ottawa… just the big bad lefties ruined it for us…”

    The meme will be that they are still conservatives at heart, but that the “lefties” in Parliament “forced” them to go into deficit (in a HUGE way). They will want to placate the fiscal conservatives in their midst, because these are the people who fund their campaigns, and help them on the doorstep, etc. They also want to play the “US NeoCon Theme” really hard, which outlines constantly attacking, never backing down, and never admitting you’re wrong. They want to make sure their base is clear that they are still “conservative” at heart.

    Support must be melting away faster than they care to admit…

    2) I think you’ve answered that one quite adequately… Bring ’em on!!!

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.