Monday, April 07, 2008

Don't Shoot The Messenger

Nik Nanos is the latest target of the Blogging Tories for the unheard of- giving Harper a piece of advice, based on his findings. The horror:
not tell us how we are supposed to react or predict how we will react ... and worse yet, tell an elected official how he should reacted based on polls that haven't been taken

This reaction, based on Nanos advising Harper to act swiftly on Lukiwski, to counter-act any potential damage to the Conservative brand:
"The prime minister needs to deal with this issue directly and try to put it behind him as soon as possible," Nanos said. "I think the prime minister has to personally say, 'I don't accept these comments, I repudiate them and it's not part of the party or the government or where its mind is at on a lot of these issues right now."

"If the Prime Minister is not forthright and he doesn't take things head on, I think the opposition is going to pounce. If he deals with this swiftly and directly, then there's not going to be a lot to poke at."

The Nanos recommendation is based on this:
Nanos said mainstream Canadians have been uncomfortable with social conservative attitudes on issues like sexual orientation.

Nanos also said that this issue wouldn't hurt the Conservatives with their base, but it could raise red flags with target voters. Our little BT friend, who immediately lumps Nanos into the communist conspiracy to usurp the Conservatives, fails to see the statements for what they are- good advice. All Nanos is saying here, based on his research, there is a latent unease with the Conservatives, this story feeds a negative impression, which could cost him with the electorate.

Funny, I don't remember any outrage when Nanos suggested possible Liberal erosion because of the abstaining strategy. No, then Nanos was bang on I'm sure, feel free to tell us "how we might react".

Anyways, in the end, Harper did nothing.

10 comments:

Scott Tribe said...

Personally, I don't want Nanos offering advice to Harper either, but for the opposite reason of our BT acquaintances - I'm afraid Harper might actually take it.

Gayle said...

I had no doubt Harper would not do the right thing here, because if he did he would be accepting the liberals are right.

I expect that Lukiwski will resign in due course.

Marc said...

"I expect that Lukiwski will resign in due course."

Hopefully, Liberal MP's Tom Wappel, Roy Cullen and Andrew Telegdi, who continue to sit in the Liberal caucus, will resign along with him.

Steve V said...

marc

We're talking about the Conservatives, but thank-you for the boring, typical DODGE AND WEAVE.

wilson said...

Nik's job is to read the public mood. He's pretty good at it. All media types want to get their opinion/advice out there.
Take it or leave it.

A little perspective here.
10 years AFTER the 'party tape' was made,
the majority of Liberals voted AGAINST gay rights,
tho Libs/msm try to paint a picture that it was the Conservatives only, dragging their knuckles:

June 8, 1999 - The federal government votes 216 to 55 in favour of preserving the definition of "marriage" as the union of one man and one woman.

(that's a huge majority against SSM)

And I looked up how Dion voted, yup,
he was noted as a pro-lifer and voted yes, to keep the traditional definition of marriage.

That was only 8 years ago.
Has Mr. Dion changed?
How do we know for sure?
Maybe as a pro-lifer he has a hidden agenda.??
Should he have to explain why almost EVERY Liberal, the party of the Charter,
in 1999 voted against gay rights?
Or is this where Liberals declare themselves superior beings, and they have changed, but not Conservatives?

Also in March 2000, (Liberal) Justice Minister Anne McLellan anounces that Bill C-23 will include a definition of marriage as
"the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

On April 11 the bill passes with a vote of 174 to 72... (Dippers and Bloc voted against)

The SSM bill passed by only about 20 votes in 2005.

That's 3 short years ago, SSM had Parliament divided.

To lay to rest the SSM issue,
PMSH brought forward a vote on re-visiting the SSM issue, and it was defeated, as expected.

Steve V said...

wilson

Since when is Lukiwski's comments a referendum on SSM?? Big difference between voting against that, and the venom in Lukiwski. It's all such a non-issue, because the two things are seperate.

MarkCh said...

Only the Conservatives are vulnerable on the issue of homophobic back-benchers, just as the Liberals are vulnerable on abstentions while the conservatives could abstain on a Liberal budget and not suffer for it. The Liberals have a pre-existing narrative of "weak leadership", and the cons have one of "knuckle-dragging".

Anonymous said...

Not sure why every Tory in the blogging community is trying to deflect criticism of Lukiwski with tired lines like, "yeah, well the Liberals have done it to." Great. Fine. Whatever. That misses the point. Lukiwski has already said his comments were out of line and wrong, so why try to cover his ass? Just get over it.

Gayle said...

Markch is right.

Also, the biggest difference between the SSM vote and Lukiwski's comments is that most people who voted against SSM did not believe they were discriminating against gays. When the Courts said they were they changed their position (like Dion). I am not saying they were correct the first time, but I do believe that one can honestly oppose SSM while not believing they are discriminating.

Contrast that with Lukiwski's comments. There can be no doubt they were intended to be the hate filled venomous comments we all see them to be.

Steve V said...

It's actually funny that the Cons try to use a couple Lib MP's to distract from Lukiwski. I'll give you a few Liberal MP's and raise you an entire Conservative caucus. 95% of bigots in Canada vote Conservative. As a matter of fact, take out the knuckledraggers and we would probably be ahead in fundraising.