Everything about Dion seems soft, from his handshake to his policies. His appearance at the Citizen editorial board Friday confirmed the fears I had when the Liberals chose him as their leader. Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country.
That seems a bit harsh, but I think Dion failed to define himself at a critical time after the leadership convention. The CPC was only too happy to do that for him with the recent ad campaign.
Jean Lapierre, recently released from the bondage of caucus, suggests the same:
While the new leader has his party united solidly behind him, Mr. Lapierre cautions that Mr. Dion missed an early opportunity to sell himself across Canada and notes with some alarm that making the environment the critical theme of the campaign could fail.
"The mistake the Liberals are making on the environment is to say Harper is doing everything the Liberals were going to do. I don't understand why they're taking credit for what he's done. Where's the wedge to win votes?"
Some might suggest that the CPC party is running scared; that the ad campaign is evidence of desperation. I think it is brilliant strategy that will crystallize for the Canadian public what MSM already suspects - Stephane Dion defines the Peter Principle.
As an environment minister, his performance was uninspiring at best. Now as accidental leader of the LPC, he is attempting to attach every issue to his devotion to Mother Earth. He may sincerely believe this, but it almost approaches a religious fervour. With the CPC becoming born-again environmentalists, his one trick-pony approach has been usurped. John Baird is emerging as the new Guardian of Gaia, thereby freeing up Harper to deal with Canada's other pressing concerns.
Stephane Dion is still wearing his academic rose-coloured glasses, while Harper's reality vision is crystal clear. Being a Prime Minister requires an ability to juggle various complex files and concerns at the same time. The position demands someone who can think on their feet; speak clearly without stumbling either in content or delivery. An effective Prime Minister must be able to inspire confidence and competence.
And when a traditionally liberal-biased media can no longer hide the truth, even the LPC must be starting to realize that their sparkling new firecracker of a leader is actually a disappointing dud.
* * * *
Update: I need your help. I just finished reading an article in the Record by Geoffrey Stevens, who teaches political science at Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Guelph. His op-ed, "Conservative attacks ads are a sign of fear", gives his very partisan POV why the ads are a mistake. Here is the part that bothers me though:
Is that true? Is most of the ad campaign really financed by the taxpayer? Because that seems to be what he is saying. Does anyone have the facts here? I would love to call him up on it if he's wrong. Thanks.
On the face of it, it seems absurd to spend good money (most of it taxpayers' in this age of public subsidies to parties and tax credits for contributors) to attack the opposition in political peacetime. There is no election in progress and none on the horizon, although accidents can always happen.
Is that true? Is most of the ad campaign really financed by the taxpayer? Because that seems to be what he is saying. Does anyone have the facts here? I would love to call him up on it if he's wrong. Thanks.
* * * *
Update: So Dion's little motion passed (that sounds somewhat vulgar..) So what does that mean? Why did Parliament waste time on this, since it is not binding?
Liberals a Little Late to Kyoto Party (H/T National Newswatch):
And the Vancouver Sun has something to say about Dion's lust for power...
Liberals a Little Late to Kyoto Party (H/T National Newswatch):
...To see Dion attack the Harper Conservatives over Kyoto is to witness hypocrisy practised at an advanced level. He knows that the Conservatives are vulnerable on this file, that public concern about climate change may be at an all-time high and that, if he wants to be prime minister, the Liberals must outflank the Greens and NDP in verbalizing the type of environmental outrage that can translate into votes...
And the Vancouver Sun has something to say about Dion's lust for power...
46 comments:
Why don't the Cons run on what they have done instead of this bashing?
Strategy. We'll see how it works.
It's also telling that they've chosen as their central plank, a portfolio where their record literally could not be worse.
Liberals... in the streets with Guns....
Joanne - yes, the ad campaign is largely funded by the taxpayer; you get a 75% income tax break on contributions to political parties.
So - if you send PMSH $100 to keep running the ads, it only costs you $25, the other $75 comes from partly from you but also from people like well, Red Tory.
Wonderful, isn't it?
Richard, very interesting. Thanks.
So why wouldn't other parties take advantage of this supposed loophole? Are they just too principled? ;)
the other $75 comes from partly from you but also from people like well, Red Tory.
Now there's some sweet irony!
"Is that true? Is most of the ad campaign really financed by the taxpayer?"
Joanne, see lines 409 and 410, Schedule 1 of the Federal Tax Calculations ... The tax credit, i.e. refund, for Federal political contributions works out to 75% of the first $400, then 50 % of the next $350, then 33.33 % of the next $525. So he's right to the extent of the percentage returned, depending on the amount of contribution. I try to contribute $400 per year, and don't mind waiting until around next May when I get $300 back. This is the most effective way for someone like me to stick it to the Liberals for all their waste, corruption, lies and gross incompetence. It's going to take a concerted team effort to keep the crooks out of power, especially when the mostly mediocre, compromised MSM keep covering up and apologizing for the Libs.
So why wouldn't other parties take advantage of this supposed loophole? Are they just too principled? ;)
clearly one party got accustomed to working with 100% "other people's money". why bother with 75%?
the other - gave through the union ;)
Jeesh - are CJ and I the only ones paying for the ads??
I'm enjoying them more than the Bombardier ads we're paying for ...
clearly one party got accustomed to working with 100% "other people's money". why bother with 75%?
the other - gave through the union ;)
Zing! lol!!
Good post and nice debate Joanne. It was PM Chretien, a Liberal I might add, who changed the way federal elections are run -- with taxpayers money combined with doncations. It is not all taxpayers money. Now, since the writ has not been dropped, and we are NOT currently in an election campaign, my understanding is that those ads were completely paid for by private political donations.
Why don't the Cons run on what they have done instead of this bashing?
Don't worry, cwtf, the CPC will. Since you don't like "this bashing," I assume that you will be just as critical of any Harper-bashing in any Liberal election ads. If you confirm my assumption in any way, I promise to take you at your word.
"Is that true? Is most of the ad campaign really financed by the taxpayer?"
So its true, conservatives are using tax payers money to finance their negative ad campaign.
Why don't the Cons run on what they have done instead of this bashing?
Don't worry, cwtf, the CPC will.
you're still not answering why they are CURRENTLY running on bashing others, as opposed to what they've 'accomplished'
Yeah , I feel soooo bad that the Libs are in the shape they are in. Having a leader that isn't a leader , that can't speak English . It is just soo hard to see them soooo broke, it's truly heart breaking. I sure hope that those pretty green ribbons make them feel better about themselves because we would not want to see them suffer from a inferiority complex and lower their self esteem.
This could effect their self confidents and subject them to aquire a government funded support group to help soften the hardships of reality.Although Stephan would be wonderful to help assist a Romper room class excite themselves by waving his hands around. This may prove to be an essential stepping stone to help and regain any loss of self esteem.
Is that true? Is most of the ad campaign really financed by the taxpayer? Because that seems to be what he is saying. Does anyone have the facts here? I would love to call him up on it if he's wrong.
You're wrong. its funny how you still haven't admitted it.
Why Stephane Dion is unfit to lead this country....
This seems to be the current trend with conservatives --- bash others. --- you guys still have the "opposition", you're so good at it, you'll end up there. and perhaps the gym at stornway will be useful for harper.
I'd like to see an editorial, just as long as Randall's, explaining why Harper is a good leader.
So its true, conservatives are using tax payers money to finance their negative ad campaign.
From what I can gather from my 'expert' sources, there are big tax write-offs involved for people donating to political parties. Of course, anyone can take advantage of this.
The trick is that the parties have to get people to donate in the first place. I hear the Green party is doing very well in that department lately.
I wouldn't say it's using taxpayer money so much as getting to keep some of your own.
It's not "taxpayer's" money that is being used. It's money that people donated to the Conservative Party. When you donate to a political party, you don't designate how it will be used.
So, he's misleading the public once again, trying to imply that the money used to air these ads is taken out of the general tax pool money.
Nope....it's money that people donated privately (of their own free will) to the Conservative party.
This was discussed on one of the expert panels on either Question Period or Don Newman's show. One of the experts stated how much more money the Conservatives had been donated rather than the Liberals. He also stated that because of the election laws, much of it had to be used prior to an election.
anon #83
Thanks, Anon #83. As you say, at the very least it's a subtle attempt to mislead the reader. I wish I had seen that panel discussion.
Joanne,
From what I know, every party receives money per vote cast. I think it's $1.25 per vote received in the last general election, per year.
So, from what I can gather, the person is correct, the ads are partially tax payer funded, but his argument is rather faulty as everything the party's do now could be seen as partially tax payer funded. Every party's attack ads next election are going to be tax payer funded so its rather dumb to bring it up now, as it is sort of implying that the CPC is abusing the system, which they technically are not.
Zac
Joanne, on the topic of hospitals and health care, and a certain granddaughter, take a look at my most recent post.
Thanks for that, Zac. Why are you logging in under anon? Is the verification causing problems again?
you're still not answering why they are CURRENTLY running on bashing others, as opposed to what they've 'accomplished'
I was talking to cherniak_wtf. He (cwtf - I hope you're a he; if not I'm sorry) seems fine with my answer. You should learn to be just as patient, my friend.
For those still not getting it...CPC is putting out money that people have freely contributed to them to share some info on what is happenning in the Lib party....because MSM cover it.
anon#31
"Unfit for Command - The Swiftboating of Dion. Nice Try!"
Just thought you might like to hear one idea for the counterattack, when it comes.
Keep at it though!
Here is the fundraising letter.
The Conservative Party of Canada paid for their own ads. It is hard for fiberals to understand spending one's own money, they are so used to stealing and spending taxpayer money.
So you don't get a line 410 tax credit, roy?
Joanne, the person who mentioned the Conservative load of cash from donations vs the Liberal tiny load of cash from donations, was just one of the many "experts" on one of the many "expert panels."
I never knew we had so many "experts" on so many different subject in Canada. I'm being sarcastic.
anon #83
Are the donations for the superbowl ad allowed under line 409/410 as a tax credit, or are they not?
Wow, now we have an Anon #31 as well as #83. Things are looking up. We might actually start having some continuity here. Thank you!!!
WHy bother with the ongoing and unending list of what's wrong with DiDi?
Even the LIberal party core know that the one and only reason he won the leadership convention is because he was NOT Ignatieff.
The libranos picked a non-performer Chretienite over a guy who does not represent the leftists version of political correctness.
Wow...I left out two words at 6:17 and it changed the context.I will try again:
The CPC made the ads because MSM DID NOT cover the Libs.
anon#31
Are the donations for the superbowl ad allowed under line 409/410 as a tax credit, or are they not?
Of course my donations are tax deductible, but that is how our political system works. Unless you are a fiberal and you steal the money from a useless government program and then claim its not that important that the stealing went on.
So the donations are deductible like all political donations.
Therefore taxpayers subsidized the superbowl ads. I don't see it as a big deal, but someone asked earlier.
Money stolen by some bad apples in the Liberal party does not criminalize the whole party, no matter how much as you may wish it to be so.
c_wtf said... "Hearing that tune from the Cons get old, don't it?"
Almost as old as "Scary Harper"?
c_wtf said... "A advertising campaign on National unity in the province of Quebec....
So, are you saying that you are pro-sovereighty there?"
Since they didn't produce any ads and kicked back a significant portion into Liberal coffers (that's why it was called a scandal, remember?) I think describing the sponsorship program as useless is pretty fair and accurate which makes your conclusion/accusation look pretty ridiculous but I expect you're kinda used to that.
J(TB)
The Liberal motion on Kyoto is simply them remaining consistent on anything they've said regarding Kyoto: it's non-binding and therefore won't actually compel the government to implement it.
RGM
RGM, thanks. Are you having problems logging in to comments?
Joanne (true blue)
Re: Geoffrey Stevens[?]
I think that Chretien's formula was something like $1.75 0r $2.65 or something like that, for every vote obtained by a major party in a nation wide general election.
BTW: Geoofie was also a very big shot in that self-declared national rag the Blaot and Wail. Sorta like being a big fish in a small pond.
Very petulant of him to try to get the gullible, who might be able to read his bleatings, to walk away from the article thinking that the Conservatives have been following the Liberals' illegal leads by snicking off with tax dollars.
His implication makes it sound that harper ad brain-trusts were scamming $$ along the lines of AdScam, Shawinigate etc.
I note that I do not recall Steve frothing at the mouth about the Libs using tax money when they launched their doomed dummy ads of last campaign " Conservatives. . . with guns. . . and slingshots. . .spit-balls and pea-shooters . . .on our streets. . . in our cities."
Geoffie is a hard-wired liberal hack and a flake. Here's a predicted scenario to watch for:
You gather all the truth you can find. You write a brilliant expository piece, laying bare Geoff's biased and slanted doctrinaire diatribe. He'll come back, backpeddaling all the way. Then he'll quote a vast legion of his friends who are conservative supporters yadda yadda yadda yeay!. . .all who happaen to agree with him. . . and so on.
My contention is that most friends he does have, are probably along the lines of most of those folks touted to have been Volpe supporters. Only I suspect that Pizza Joey's Volpester supporters have more of a pulse, and are slightly olderthan seve-year-olds.
e. & o.e.
TangoJuliette.
And oh yes.
Dontcha just love how Dion pronounces "Garth" as "Gart'" to rhyme with "f*rt" ??
I know that I do -hoo-hooo-hoo-hooooo!
liberal supporter said...
...Money stolen by some bad apples in the Liberal party does not criminalize the whole party, no matter how much as you may wish it to be so....
Tango Juliette sez:
Gomery Commission testimony indicates that twenty-one plus, Liberal candidates received stolen monies in large brown envelopes, to finance their election campaigns. That's more than twenty percent of the totasl current (progressive?) liberal caucus. If you are not prepared to identify the more than twenty one MPs who benefitted from this illegal funding, and thereby gained their ill-gotten seats in The House, then the tax-paying public has no other option than to be highly suspicious of EVERY Liaberal riding association, as well as the entire LPC maichine, and see the whole lot of you as the thieves you really are. Much as that might not sit too comfortably with "Liberal Supporter." Them's the realities of the case, as we sees them right now, sweet-cheeks.
And BTW. Tango Juliette is just another way of saying "highly suspicious and extremely pissed-off Canadian taxpayer and retired veteran."
And BTW (pt.II) Yes, I had sufficient tunnel vision to think that this whole income trust thing sounded like it might be just too darned good to be true. You know, Like they've always warned us for more than the past sixty years. I therefore conducted my affairs, and directed my investments, accordingly. Just exactly how much buck$, zoltie$, ruble$, $hekel$, loonie$, twonie$ and dinero$ were lost by yours truly on that unfortunate reversal by the Conservative government.
Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Zero. Rien. Squat. SFA, bugger all and sweet diddly.
And WTF izzit with TallyBan Jack!-O ??
This past week-end had him recorded as saying that two of the current Federal Cabinet Ministers were part of a former Ontario Conservative government that presided over the "worse case of widespread development of two-tiered and privatized medicine in the history of Ontario."
Certainly not in the Ontario I've lived in for more than the past thirty years.
Oh wait. Maybe it was just in that one very specific vicinity in Toronto where Jack and his honey, both well-payed politicians, were living in low priced, government subsidized housing originally intended for the poor, the homeless and the downtrodden. Like the NDP dupes, maybe?
Very petulant of him to try to get the gullible, who might be able to read his bleatings, to walk away from the article thinking that the Conservatives have been following the Liberals' illegal leads by snicking off with tax dollars.
His implication makes it sound that harper ad brain-trusts were scamming $$ along the lines of AdScam, Shawinigate etc.
Tango, that is exactly my concern.
I've written to him asking for some kind of explanation, but I'm not hopeful about getting a response.
I am disappointed, but not surprised that the Record would publish something so disingenuous.
c-wtf:
". . . Hiding the truth? Why don't the Cons run on what they have done instead of this bashing? . . . "
Yeah! Why can't the Conservatives follow the lead of the brilliant Liberals on this issue?
The Libs deny their own ineptitude on the environmental file. They try to accomplish this denial scam with green scarves and ties and ribbons and buttons and bows, and cuddly hounds named Kyoto and GHG etc., but they NEVER will admit that their own "productivity" on their promise (as per Kyoto) to reduce GHG emissions, has failed miserably, with their actual achievements being a horiffic 36% INCREASE in GHG emissions.
1.) The Liberal failure to accomplish anything here, is the true measure of what constitutes being a denier. (BTW: the Lib's tawdry expropriation of the "Denial/denier" taunting label, from the lexicon of Holocaust survivors, is vile at best, and sick and twisted at its worst.) By calling Harper a "denier," the Libs feel that they have deflected scrutiny away from their own hypocritical failings.
2.) The Libs are the ones running scared right now. Their "Truth" arsenal is sadly depleted. They are not, they CAN NOT run on their own record, 'cause the Truth here will kill them. (like what happened to the 6 to 10 billion dollars already lost in their scam, wrapped in green Kyoto clothing?)
3.) The Libs unfortunately have attempted to condemn the recent Conservative ads as being "Attack" in nature, when all the ads are, essentially, nothing more than a replay of a number of Liberal politicians divisively fighting among themselves. * Note to Lib self: If you air your dirty linens in public, you gotta, if you've got your head, even remotely attuned to reality, reasonably expect that some of your personal crap is going to become fodder for conversation with the neighbours.
Ask the Conservatives. The Liberals ate the Conservatives' lunch, time and time again, with hitting attack ads, lines, innuendoes and constant comment and chatter, when the Conservatives were being pilloried for their near-obliteration in the '93 elections, and for their ongoing battles between the Alliance, the Reform and all their various little faction thereof. The Lib-favouring MSM was especially brutal to Harper the summer he lost to Chretien, after being caught wearing his Brokeback Yahoo outfit at the Stampede flapjack flipping festival. I especially recall Jane Taber's snotty series in the Globe, called Where's Harper? She predicted that his career was over. Done. Toast. Finito. She read the entrails again, producing the same dire forecast for the Conservative party of Canada, as well as for the Political Right in Canada. The words and tone of her columns were blatantly echoed by many others of the punditocracy, and certainly mocking bleated by most Liberal politicians of the day. It all read like it came out of the Central Command HQ at the Big Red Bunker in Shawinigate, or wherever the hell you guys hide it.
So. Your question of why the Conservatives don't run on their record instead of this bashing? Maybe the Conservatives are, in actual fact, really running on their own record here. And part of this record of survival also incleds a little bit of pay-back bashing for some of the Liberal muckracking of the past.
Quit your "whine and cry" victim posturing. It's unbecoming. You look so cute and helpless -- like near-drowned rats pulled out of the sewers.
This all just makes you look like another case of where the Liberals, awash in arrogance and in their sense of entitlement, thinking that they had the Conservatives whipped, decided to come to this gunfight armed only with a small switch-blade knife and a leaky water-pistol. Go back to the woods -- you ain't got the goods.
Like "croc" Dundee says, in paraphrase: "THAT is not a knife -- THIS is a knife."
ATo which I add: '...and these are heavy duty, high-calibre, hi-velocity assault weapons."
Sit down, lean forward and put your heads between your knees.
Get comfortable in this position:
Now -- kiss your smarmy, thieving, Liberal butts "GOODBYE!!"
Joanne (t B):
GS does what the Lib generals expect of him. Expect nothing better than what you see from him on any given day.
Remeber too, the the KWRecord is nothing more than a part of the farm team for the libparty Daily Pravda, the Toronto RedStar on-the-Don. Good luck on your correspondence with Geoff. Let me know if he follows the pattern which I noticed over the past few elections. He's just part of a vast network of biased dudes, and dude-ettes, in high-paying lib patronage posts of influence.
tj
TJ - Your take on GS is likely quite valid.
Contrast all this with Mulder's post here.
Post a Comment