Sunday, September 21, 2008

What A Novel Concept

It's probably the most ridiculous policy debate in Canadian history. A party who's policy has been panned by EVERY expert imaginable, domestic and foreign, is on the offensive. A party's who's plan, even if you accept it as feasible, purposely DELAYED until after an election to avoid scrutiny, is on the offensive. A party who consistently distorts the truth, allowed to spew one-side nonsense, without being held to account, is on the offensive. I've never seen anything like it, you offer crap, you won't tell us how that crap will affect the economy, and you're allowed to get away with it, even worse still, you're allowed to attack others relentless. Well, at least some people are asking questions:
Tories should present alternative to Green Shift
Carbon tax. Tories won't release details of their plan

As the Liberals struggle to show their Green Shift carbon-tax proposal as just one of many election campaign pledges, environmentalists say it's time the Conservatives switched from attacking the Grits and started explaining and defending their own carbon-pricing plan.

"This is the first time in the history of Canada that we're having a debate about the environment as a central question in an election," said Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada.

"But it's been all about the Liberals' plan and that's happened as a result of fearmongering rather than a constructive public debate about the relative merits of the different plans of the different political parties."

Environment Minister John Baird defended the government's strategy in an interview and said he has been vigorously promoting Turning the Corner - the Conservative proposal to set carbon-pollution reduction requirements on big industry in 2010.

Baird declined, however, to commit to releasing the government's final regulations on industrial polluters before the Oct. 14 vote and said the costs of the government plan that would trickle down to consumers cannot be calculated because commodity prices are subject to the international marketplace.

The Liberals have accused the government of hiding the regulations and the potential cost until after the election.

Baird "wont commit" to releasing the details until after an election. That stance is completely unacceptable, and the real tragedy, the Conservatives are getting away with it. "Turning The Corner" is really "Hiding In The Corner", and yet, these characters are given incredibly latitude to attack other plans, that are quite forthcoming. Please name me another policy debate where this dynamic is legitimate?

Let's hope we start to hear more of the above, because really it's the Canadian people that are getting the shaft, the Baird Shaft. But that's okay, moronic scribes would rather target the honest, leaving the people who BURY free to roam. Outrageous, and yet reality. It's a disgraceful debate, and a testament to a lazy, reactive media that has proven itself to be easily manipulated.

15 comments:

ottlib said...

Steve:

Our national media has decided who they want to win this election and that is why they are giving the Conservatives a free ride.

Looking at the article it was posted 4 hours ago. That is 0400 Eastern Time and it is a Montreal paper.

How much do you want to bet this article did not make it into the print version of the Gazette?

People still get most of their news from reading newspapers and watching television and for the most part the national media are making certain stories like this one are not making it into either medium.

Demosthenes said...

Ottlib: CTV et al are in the tank for the Tories because they want (more) American-style media deregulation in Canada, and are hoping against hope that Harper will kill the CBC.

(Well, and there are apparently personal relationships involved, but I'm not sure about that.)

As for the OP, it might be novel in Canadian history, but it's bog-standard American politics. Remember, the Liberals aren't up against Tories anymore. THAT ship has sailed.

They're up against Republicans in all their evil and deviousness, and they've been playing THIS game for a very, very long time.

Prairie Kid said...

ottlib . . . When are you going to stop blaming the referee for losing the game and look in the mirror?

I know it's feels kind of strange not to have the majority of the media extolling the virtues of the Liberal party but private media can say what they want. If you don't want to hear anything bad about the Liberals, watch CBC and CTV and read The Toronto Star.

liberazzi said...

Its up to Libs to push these stories through. We know we have an uphill battle, but we have to keep working at it. Having said that I am off to do my bit.

RuralSandi said...

I noticed that they don't really challenge Layton either. Whenever they ask a question, Layton goes on his kitchen table garbage.

Why do they not challenge Layton on the corporate tax issue? He's lying. He toots Gary Doer, saying the NDP approach works, but the fact is Doer does give corporate tax breaks.

How about Denmark - corporate tax breaks and carbon tax and they are successful. Europe's cap and trade is having its problems.

How about Sweden - corporate tax breaks.

These are socialist countries that Layton loves and yet they aren't as socialist as Layton is.

When are the media going to do their job?

RuralSandi said...

Prairie Kid...CTV does a soft and cushy interview with Harper - none of the other leaders.

Duffy has on "conservative" radio talk jocks.

Duffy does the continual wink, wink, nudge, nudge gossip of anything against Liberals.

Ben Mulroney works for CTV.

Lloyd Robertson and Duffy were close friends of Mulroney.

CTV never really challenges Layton, nor do they even attempt to challenge Harper.

and, Canadian taxpayers do also fund to some degree CTV, Global, etc.

Give your head a shake and realize what is going on.

I heard and wonder if anyone could clarify for me if it's true that the heads of CTV were once FOX news people.

RuralSandi said...

Meant to add this: When discussing the issue of Elizabeth May in the debates....

MORE: What’s particularly galling is that every one of the players who made this entirely self-interested decision are funded in whole or in part on the public dime: the political parties, the CBC and Radio-Canada, but also Global, CTV and TVA, who make off with massive implicit and explicit subsidies. They’re conspiring against the public interest, on the public’s dime!

I wonder, if this obvious bias is allowed in the rules of the CTRC is the media are getting big funding from taxpayers of "all political" stripes.

Anonymous said...

The liberal message is a good one, Dion just isn't getting the traction he needs to get.
I agree the press isn't taking Harper on. The issue of leadership is a good one on which to take him on since it plays to his perceived strength: Don't confident leaders surround themselves with strong, competent ministers? Let's look at the track record of his government, minister by minister, file by file. It's a fair question. Canadians deserve as much.

Joseph said...

Good Post! Why aren't you enjoying your vacation? ; ).

Compliments of the blog "jacked up", Here is an excellent post calling out the environmental groups who thus far seem to be sitting out the campaign just when they ought to be hitting the streets - and the media - harder than ever to make sure the agenda for which they've long fought reaches fruition.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080920.WBSilverPowers20080920121444/WBStory/WBSilverPowers/

I particularly like how the writer castigates the groups for naively commending the idea of a lively "debate" when they ought to be grasping the agendas that have been put forth instead.

Think maybe those groups might have some part to play in highlighting the debate in progress instead of speaking in generalities on the sidelines?

Joseph said...

Of course, I must admit the article - buried though it may be - is exactly the kind of action the writer might commend.

It's a start though, in my opinion, they took the summer off. Everything will be viewed through a different lens - and with a lot of other noise - during a campaign.

Mike said...

GOOD NEWS for once, however fleeting...

http://www.nanosresearch.com/election/CPAC-Nanos-September-21-2008E.pdf

CONS 36, LIBS 31, NDP 20.

Cons had an 11 point lead two days ago. Unfortunately, no one in mainsteam media reports Nanos. No trend out, but with the headline in the Star this morning talking about a 16 point Tory lead and other polls showinng the same I really hope this is the START of a trend.

Steve V said...

I don't know if anyone saw the media peppering Layton on the Pot TV angle, but it was quite clear that he isn't used to any scrutiny. Layton didn't handle the questions well, he was visibly irked, demonstrating no seasoning when it actually comes to being under the microscope. It was actually pretty interesting to watch.

prairie kid

This will be the THIRD election in a row, where you can statistically show that the Libs received more unfavorable, less favorable, coverage than the Cons. That's the reality, there is no referee, these people are active participants in the process. If you have any doubt, go visit BT's (I can't bear too), and you'll find the "left wing media" crap is non-existent, just like in 2006 and 2004. Just the facts please.

Möbius said...

This will be the THIRD election in a row, where you can statistically show that the Libs received more unfavorable, less favorable, coverage than the Cons.

If you think this is true, then "statistically" show that it is.

IMO, the media has acted as it should to sell papers/adverts, etc. It also senses weakness. I don't think it's pro-anything other than it's own profitability.

This campaign, and the last, are the worst I've seen by the LPC. Mr. Martin was hampered by Sponsorship, Mr. Dion by his failure to oppose effectively.

Steve V said...

"If you think this is true, then "statistically" show that it is."

I've already done a post, which statistically details the coverage for the 2006, 2004 campaigns, done by McGill University. It uses a very basic calibration, and it demonstrates quite clearly who received favorable coverage/negative coverage from all the major news outlets. Go check it out, I frankly can't be bothered getting it for you.

Just the facts please.

900 ft Jesus said...

O’Neil’s article also appeared in the Times Colonist (Victoria), section B1 (election coverage).

For the Montreal Gazette, it appeared on A11 (news section)

Steve, what are you doing blogging? Autumn, in Algonquin park???!!!!
(thanks, though ;)