Last night, in Winnipeg North, the Conservative candidate was a no show for the candidates debate. Important to note, this complete affront to the notion of democratic accountability isn't unique, the Conservatives have pulled this stunt, time and again, across the country. Taken further, incorporate Fantino, his "protective custody" style of campaign, and you are left with what just might be the biggest fraud of party since confederation.
Where are you Reform hypocrites, blogging bories, all you white horse mount pure types, as you watch the transparent, accountable party operate like a totalitarian regime? Not only are Harper's Conservatives not accountable, transparent, populist, they make the former Liberal regimes look downright progressive by comparison. It's absolutely stunning, that the Tim Horton's party can operate in such an elitist, detached, snub your nose, bite me electorate, fashion. And yet, they can....
18 comments:
Populism is nearly always a fraud perpetrated by geo-political bagmen.
And the supporters of right wing populism, are so blind to the corrupting influence of money, that they think they are genuine libertarian free thinkers. Stuff and nonsense.
The Tories sure have their skeletons, and their issues, but totalitarian? The worst ever? Come on.
I hear you about the Tory no-show in Winnipeg North. But you know what though, Steve? Much the same argument can be made for a certain Liberal party leader (the leader of the Official Opposition by they way) that has the highest record of absenteeism of any MP in Paliament today, as well as stating publically that he doesn't bother voting on private members' bills.
By the way, I seem to recall (correct me if I am wrong) about a blog post you wrote about the risks of Ignatieff's speaking engagement tour. Is what Ignatieff doing able to justify the terrible optics of promoting himself and the party as his reason for being absent so much? Because you know the Tories are going to use that as a cudgel to beat Ignatieff with during the next election campaign.
Are you for real??
That you try to make the comparison, wherein said opposition leader is ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM AVERAGE VOTERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY is hilarious. You provide the antithesis and you actually try to use that to undercut my argument? Ummm, you just reinforced my point, with that contrast.... Wow.
Wow? I reinforced your point with what I was saying about Ignatieff? Of course I was; that was the reason for me saying it in the first place; namely that the Tories don't exactly have a monopoloy on all that. We all know that, and you do too. So trying to say something like "the worst ever" is a little trite, and won't resonate.
As for "answering questions" while on the Liberal Express Tour, the Thinker's Conference, and now to the Open Mike Tour, that is all well and good. However, rightly or wrongly, eventually people are going to wonder why he isn't in Parliament doing his job as leader of his party and leader of the Offical Opposition, and why while other people in the Liberal party are there day in and day out, grinding it out, holding the fort in Parliament while, rightly or wrongly again, Ignatieff is out promoting himself, because God knows, he isn't exactly doing a bang up job. You yourself know about the risks involved in doing that, you even blogged about it. Well, these are the chickens coming home to roost. And if he still out doing his Open Mike while the other people are taking an ass kicking over the Afghanistan extension, watch out.
I'm not trying to undercut your argument, because I agree with what you are saying. But that sword isn't a fencing sword - it has another edge to it.
Sadly, they do it because they can.
The general population isn't listening to people like you and me - they might read the newspaper or watch TV news, and they're not seeing any real opposition.
They need to see Ignatieff asking these tough questions. They need to see Bob Rae smashing a cabinet minister's tail lights with a crowbar. Make some noise. Get noticed. Pin the slippery buggers down.
"Wow? I reinforced your point with what I was saying about Ignatieff? Of course I was; that was the reason for me saying it in the first place; namely that the Tories don't exactly have a monopoloy on all that. We all know that, and you do too. So trying to say something like "the worst ever" is a little trite, and won't resonate."
I am making the point that these guys are the worst on accountability and transparency and YOU use Ignatieff being accountable and transparent to say they are all the same. WOWSERS. If you can't see the massive error in logic, my goodness... I feel like smacking my head against a brick wall to be honest. All you've done is show how the Libs aren't the same here, do you get that?? On second thought, please don't answer :)
I criticized, or more correctly worried, that Ignatieff out of Ottawa might hurt us (turns out I've been wrong, it's made no difference, partly because Harper hasn't been there either). To extrapolate that argument here...hello!
"Sadly, they do it because they can."
We need somebody to connect the dots, in a succinct manner and passionately make the case. If you can get through to the electorate, they will reject this dodge and weave, but nobody can seem to find the magic resonation formula.
"Where are you Reform hypocrites, blogging bories, all you white horse mount pure types, as you watch the transparent, accountable party operate like a totalitarian regime?"
They are blaming the "liberal biased MSM". You see, once you brainwash people into believing everyone is against you, you can do anything you want.
That's true, they rationalize it all by saying the MSM is out to get them, so they have to hide. What an amazing denial filled, paranoid existence, the zealots lead.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Ignatieff+Harper+wedded+Afghan+goal/3839906/story.html
By hanging together, they may ensure they do not hang separately. Deprived of the oxygen of publicity that Liberal opposition would bring, it will be left to the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois to keep up the attack that the extension without a parliamentary vote represents an abuse of democracy.
This will hurt the Liberals more than the Conservatives, given that Mr. Harper's lack of respect for Parliament is one of their central complaints.
This is exactly what I mean. Now that the Liberals are in the proverbial bed with the Tories over the Afghanistan extension, it is rather inconvenient to call this government "totalitarian" and "the biggest frauds".
And, by the way, the Liberals have been trying for a while now to dispel the myth of them being a part of an Opposition Coalition. How is cozying up to the very people making that accusation, especially after calling them "the biggest frauds", and "totalitarian" helping that case?
Why are you NOW using Afghanistan to now say "this is exactly what I mean"? Scrambling now, well okay...
zzzz.
Scrambling, Steve?
http://warrenkinsella.com/2010/11/liberals-unhappy/#comment-16844
You're a joke.
Glenn, you characterise yourself as a time wasting, wheel spinning, five star light weight. You apparently don't know or worse ... YOU don't even care about contributing something called VALUE. You clearly delight in making a MINUS value contribution to this most RELEVANT + IMPORTANT discussion !!!
Steve, it goes to show you how brain drained, brain washed and an example of the Puppet supporters of Harper who are probably being fed the talking points that they are most likely paid to spin across the blog world. no other explanation makes any sense of why they would make themselves appear the way they seem to portray themselves.
One has to feel somewhat sorry for these mindless people who can accept lies so easily. Its their children one has to feel for, if they are even old enough to have them that will eventually need to pay for their actions.
One has to think that they stay up all night waiting for their cult idol to send them their talking points so they can print their senseless dumbed down opinions.
any one who will vote for a candidate that doesn't even appear to the public to avoid answering questions should be a red flag warning them that this person is not going to be available to their constituents when and if they need them or trust them.
"Lamoureux directed his question on how to better accommodate immigrants into Canadian society to Javier — which drew loud laughter and applause from the partisan crowd."
I suspect that "partisan crowd" had something to do with Javier's no-show.
But regardless, it doesn't matter what reason she had. The CPC has handed you guys a gift narrative--Tory candidate afraid to face the voters. Or however you want to frame it.
So run with it as best you can, and good luck. On the plus side, she avoids giving you guys any damaging quotes. It all gets sorted out by the electorate. It's no big deal, one way or the other, if she shows up.
As with everything in politics, whatever you do is a double-edged sword, and your opponents will use it against you as best they can.
I agree with you Marie. Facts are concealed, worse, kill the census. And, there are 30% of us who vote for the snake-oil salesman. They're everywhere. They tell racsist jokes, oppress women and childen, destroy any progress we were making...Paul Martin? Visionary. M. Dion? Visionary. IMO. Now? It seems -- each man for himself. What Jerry Prager and Marc Bernard said is right on.
All crowds are partisan at these things.if she had shown she could have brought her own partisans. Just like the other candidates did.
Post a Comment