Yawn

Earth to Liberals: Nobody, and I’d venture to suggest with some degree of non-evidential confidence, that NOBODY (or somewhere hypothetically in that general region of statistical probability) gives a rat’s ass about patronage appointments!

Look, it’s just an expected part of doing business that’s deeply embedded in the fabric this country — always has been and most likely always will be. As they say, it’s not what you know, but who you know that really counts. And isn’t it more than a little hypocritical of the Liberals to be taking this particular line of attack given their vast and easily documented history of doing exactly the same thing (or even much worse) over their many years reigning as the supposed “natural governing party” of Canada? Give that one up…

In other news of fairly inept lines of attack, there’s the somewhat more intriguing question of where exactly the billions of dollars infrastructure money being doled out by the bucket-load with great abandon is actually being spent and whether its disposition across the nation is influenced by political considerations rather than the merits of various “shovel ready” projects.

With respect to this question, the other day, noted douchebag for Nepean–Carleton and unctuous little prick Pierre Poilievre, sadly outwitted and deflated the photo-op staged by Michael Ignatieff and his “esteemed colleague” Gerard Kennedy by simply pointing out that the project in question (turning a grain field in Burlington into a park) wasn’t even scheduled to begin until next year.

I have to admit that this is beyond stupid and it makes the Liberals look like a bunch of utterly lame wankers. Don’t you think their brilliantly evanescent “war room” (Hi, Warren!) could have done a little bit of preliminary research to discover that the canola field in question wasn’t even slated to be re-designated as park until next year? And perhaps a more curiously, it may have been pertinently asked why an apparently productive grain field is being turned into a park in the first place, and how that’s actually part of our infrastructure development program… Oops, sorry… wrong terminology — “Action Plan.”

This money should be directed at things that will make the country more competitive globally, and that will aid manufacturers and exporters (i.e., port improvements, transportation links, energy grid restructuring, etc.), and not just to “pet projects” of favoured constituencies like converting grain fields into freakin’ parks for goodness sake. Too late now to dispute the details, I guess, because most of it has already been committed, but it sure would have been nice if there had been some sort of an actual “plan” or “vision” involved in the direction of this money rather than simply opening up a temporary line of credit to various provincial and municipal governments.

Advertisements

62 Comments

Filed under Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Ignatieff, STEPHEN HARPER Govrnment of Canada

62 responses to “Yawn

  1. Omar

    I guess maybe the Liberal thinking is to point out the hypocrisy of the holier-than-thou, we will do things differently, Conservatives then to place distance from a practice they themselves honed to perfection. I tend to not get very worked up over patronage, because as you say, it is much a part of the national fabric as skate blades and maple syrup. Is the practice right? Probably not, but it all comes out in the wash eventually. When in power, eat like an Alpha.

  2. CWTF

    Don’t you think their brilliantly evanescent “war room” (Hi, Warren!) could have done a little bit of preliminary research to discover that the canola field in question wasn’t even slated to be re-designated as park until next year?
    Warren is too busy driving Liberal numbers down with his advice…

    You know you are in trouble if weasel boy Poilievre makes you look bad….

    As for patronage, it could be eliminated/reduced if the politicos actually put Canadians first instead of their little interests…

  3. I thought that the projects were all supposed to be shovel ready and the idea when the money was announced was that it was supposed to be spent immediately to employ people right away.

    No point in making jobs next year when the economy will be much better. (We hope!)

    And that’s the issue, isn’t it, that we will be spending less on unemployment benefits if we get more people working, and of course, more people will be able to pay their bills and keep their heads afloat. Yet, for some reason the CPC keeps delaying the start of these things? Dunno why.

    As for appointments, the biggest issue for me is that they have again delayed filling so many of these positions because they were going to develop some mysteriously, fair procedure. All fine and good, but in the meantime, IRB for example is way behind on case hearings. Meaning refugees are being left in limbo. Similar issues for many other departments. All that costs a LOT of money. Backlogs really never save anything although some believe they do.

    So why didn’t they just fill the positions from the start while they figured out this “new” method? That way, there wouldn’t be a backlog at least.

  4. The issue, I thought, was supposed to be shovel ready NOW, during the recession, not when it doesn’t matter.

  5. Isn’t Ignatieff’s motto, we can do better? Liberals are indeed far better at cronyism and disbursing of slush funds than Conservatives. Look at McGuinty’s Ontario!

    However, not sure that the it’s always been like this defence is sufficient to justify wanton vote buying and influence with public treasury when and if it is demonstrated.

  6. CWTF

    Isn’t Ignatieff’s motto, we can do better? Liberals are indeed far better at cronyism and disbursing of slush funds than Conservatives. Look at McGuinty’s Ontario!
    Wow very funny Spurs…. Comparing a Federal party to a Provincial party…

    As for patronage, none like “there’s no whore like an old whore” Mulroney….

    I do enjoy the “accountable” conservatives always ready to say “but, but, but the Lieberals did”…. So are you saying that Conservatives are just a little more inept than the Liberals are?

  7. Gayle

    Maybe the spotlight on patronage is an effort to expose his hypocrisy to his base. That is the kind of thing Reformers hate.

  8. Ah, the right wing have very short memories – have to refer to PM instructed attack stuff.

    Harper promised he’d be different. He also promised we could trust him because the senate would keep him in line.

    It’s not about the Liberals doing it in the past – it’s about Harper’s promise and he’s now worse.

  9. Omar

    One need only read John Crosbie’s book ‘No Holds Barred’ to get a sense of what Conservative patronage was all about during the Mulroney years. Not only does Crosbie lay out patronage as an acceptable tool of governance, he thunders and rails against those who feel otherwise. To say he feels political patronage is a corner stone of our federated Canadian democracy would be an understatement.

  10. CWTF

    It’s not about the Liberals doing it in the past – it’s about Harper’s promise and he’s now worse.
    The Conservative disconnect is amazing ain’t it?

  11. Anon

    Remind me again, but did Harper not promise us that he will run a government that will be purer than the driven snow? Here is but one reference:

    http://farnwide.blogspot.com/2008/04/purer-than-driven-snow.html

    Isn’t what the Libs are doing now, pointing out Cons patronage, what they actually should be doing as an opposition party? Harper very justifiably pointed out Libs patronage when he was in opposition.

    The alternative is the Libs get scared of raising any issue because they are afraid of being hit with ….but but the Libs did it first? Haven’t we seen enough examples of the latter and the result is Harper gets to frame the issue any which way he likes.

    Sure, it would be much better if the Libs were also to admit that they had made mistakes along these lines but that they will avoid these mistakes in future. So my questions are: why are the Libs not doing this? Are they planning business as usual if they ever get back in power?

    If it is the latter, then they deserve to stay in opposition.

  12. Anon – you still don’t get it. Harper’s whole campaign in 2005/06 was promising NOT to, cleaning up government, etc.

    The Libs did it first is a rather weak excuse for breaking a whole campaign theme.

    Johnnie hit me first stuff is for kids.

  13. Anon

    Rural Sandi — unfortunately, you do not get it yourself. I am pointing out Harper’s hypocrisy. I am saying that the Libs did it first thing does is not good enough. Please read my post again.

  14. I don’t believe most people (i.e., those who aren’t political junkies) remember what was said or done last week, let alone recall promises from three or four years ago. The whole notion of holding politicians to account for their past statements, intentions, or what have you, is entirely spurious for the most part. Most people — and again this isn’t based on evidence, but just anecdotal impressions — are more concerned about “what have you done for me lately” than bothering themselves over a coherent record of intellectual consistency.

  15. Anon

    Sorry, it should be: “I am saying that the Libs did it first thing is not good enough.”

  16. Sorry Anon.

    I could be wrong, but isn’t Harper the first to campaign on cleaning up government, accountability….in fact, the same theme as Bush (Luntz talking points, etc.)

  17. Anon

    Redtory: I agree that most people do not pay much attention and will probably not remember promises from 3 or 4 years ago. However, I believe that not holding Harper accountable to his promises, and part of this is by pointing out his hypocrisy (e.g. on patronage, Senate appointments, etc.), allows him to repeatedly successfully frame the Libs as the party of political patronage. Harper made political fortune (re. Adscam) out of promising that he would hold Libs accountable.

    RuralSandi: yes, Harper was hypocritical in regard to political patronages (among other things), which is why I feel that it is important for the Libs to point out the current slew of Cons political patronages (Senate, IRB appointment, etc.) even though Redtory is probably correct that most people care more about what you can do for me now.

  18. Sandi — …you still don’t get it. Harper’s whole campaign in 2005/06 was promising NOT to, cleaning up government, etc.

    I’d have to disagree with you here. Harper’s campaign in 2005/06 was about promising to deliver on a number of small-bore commitments such as reducing the GST, cracking down on crime, improving hospital wait-times, and so on. In other words, a handful of sensitive issues that were focus-grouped beforehand to be of importance to people surveyed. This was actually a page stolen directly from Clinton advisor Dick Morris.

    The overarching government accountability promise quickly got sidelined, gutted and eventually totally derailed to the point where things have actually gone backwards in terms of access to information and transparency. Does anyone really care about that? Apparently not. It’s just business as usual in terms of patronage, stuffing the Senate, lobbying, rigging parliamentary committees, ministers abusing their expense accounts, etc.

  19. Ti-Guy

    The Liberals are highlighting more Government failures than just this one, minor issue they got slightly undone by in a media-induced “gotcha” frenzy.

    I was listening the Ted “Onset of” Menzies’s lame response to a few charges levelled at the Conservatives by Gerard Kennedy on The Current last week, involving some stupid airstrip improvement that the locals didn’t even think was necessary. I’m sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases like that.

  20. Anon — Don’t get me wrong, the accountability issue is really irksome to me and I don’t care what the Liberals have done in the past, this needs to change. I, like many others I suspect, want openness, transparency and accountability from our government — and that applies not only to the officials we elect to represent us but the civil service bureaucracy implementing their directives and legislation. After all, together with peace and order, “good government” is supposed to be one of our defining characteristics as a country.

    p.s. Don’t sign in as “Anon” — It’s much nicer to refer to someone by name or at least a clever nick, okay?

  21. Ti-Guy — You might remember back last year that I half-jokingly suggested that we get one of our local bridges here replaced as part of some “stimulus” (i.e., politically driven pork-barrel) plan… Well, lo and behold this project was seriously under consideration for awhile until the $40 million contribution estimated for the project was nixed by the federal government earlier this month. So Poilievre’s simplistic assertion is dead wrong — and I’m sure there are many other cases of projects denied for various reasons and, by implication others approved for other… um, considerations.

    But more to your point, yes, there is a certain “gotcha” factor involved — but one that in this case backfired terribly on the Liberals. They were attempting to make the Harper government look bad and create a metaphorical framework to deliver Kennedy’s indictment of the Conservative’s “pay to play” stimulus plan and completely blew it because they couldn’t be bothered to get their facts straight or line-up their photo-op properly… Bad form.

  22. Ti-Guy

    but one that in this case backfired terribly on the Liberals

    Because all the Conservatives and their surrogates in the media said so?

    Sure, if this the only thing people are aware of, it looks incriminating.

    I’ll agree that the Liberal machine still has not quite understood how public opinion is driven by the type of media we now have, and people like Kinsella (clapped out, confused) are not helping, but I’m not sure if there’s anything that can be done at this point, except to adopt the exact same approach the Conservatives have. Control all imagery and communication, script every little detail, spend a huge amount of money (a lot it public) on propaganda campaigns, lie, lie, lie and deny, deny, deny and assume, rightly, that the public won’t even process any of it in a sophisticated way, if they bother paying attention at all.

  23. Gayle

    So speaking of lie, lie, lie, I recall when I first read about the judicial appointments the article noted the appointments were vetted by a committee made up of representatives from the provincial Bar, the federal government, the judiciary and police.

    Did something change, because I remember when Harper tweaked the selection process he did so by removing the judiciary from having any say whatsoever, and introduced the police and lay persons (ie. some CPC political hack) and gave them both a vote. In the end, the feds, the police and the layperson can outvote the lawyers, and the judges have no say.

    They removed the safeguards that would have protected us from having unqualified political hacks as judges by arguing we have too many political hacks as judges. Yet, the article made no mention of this.

  24. Tomm

    Great Post. Comments are OK but not adding that much.

    If the Liberal’s want to attack the CPC it is a waste of their time to point out hypocrisy if they think it will erode the CPC base. The CPC base is vibrating with energy. Nothing short of a nuclear explosion is going to move them toward Liberal’s or to disengage them. They’ve got nothing else.

    Pointing out that the “righter” wing Harper of 3-5 years ago doesn’t always agree with the more centre Harper of today is not only a waste of time but actually will cause new converts to get herded toward the CPC.

  25. Okhropir rumiani

    “Look at this field! Look at it! Dammit, there’s nothing going on out there!”

    Mr. Kennedy looked somewhat deflated after Weasel boy’s rejoinder.

  26. Ti-Guy

    Great Post. Comments are OK but not adding that much.

    Irony of the day…

  27. Tomm

    Ti,

    You don’t think this was a good post?

    If the Liberal’s are going to successfully engage the public in opposition to the government, isn’t it true they need to change directions?

    I think we could all list things that would stick to the CPC, but for whatever reason the Liberal war room are selecting things that not only don’t stick but are double edged issues where there are multiple ways of responding.

  28. Ti-Guy

    You don’t think this was a good post?

    I was referring to your content-free and predictable gush.

    I think we could all list things that would stick to the CPC, but for whatever reason the Liberal war room are selecting things that not only don’t stick but are double edged issues where there are multiple ways of responding.

    I already addressed that in a previous comment. Sensible people don’t just get their news about what the Conservatives are doing via the Liberal Party ads, press releases and what they can find on the Party’s web site.

    That’s how Conservatives get their news. In short, one-minute bursts while they’re watching SpikeTV.

    I rarely watch that stupid channel, but a few weeks ago, I noticed that that’s the type the venue the Conservatives are choosing to air their attack ads. Says a lot.

  29. I think Tomm makes a perfectly valid point. There’s nothing in the Liberals’ current attack strategy that’s going to dislodge the Conservative base — which I believe is absolutely fixed at about 30 percent. Barring a flagrant scandal or something terribly egregious and attention-getting (which isn’t likely to happen given that Harper is such a dull and thoroughly uninteresting character) they will hold tough to that base which assures them of continued duration in power for the foreseeable future.

  30. Ti-Guy

    they will hold tough to that base which assures them of continued duration in power for the foreseeable future.

    Well how do you suggest the Liberals attract irrational people?

    It’s problem every Western country faces, and the only way out of it appears to be proportional representation or a different type of media.

    Did you hear that Maclean’s photo-spread of Harper’s NAC show-stopping performance consisted entirely of photos from the Prime Minister’s own photographer?

    You seem to believe this is going to solved by some media campaign. Maybe, but not in the way I personally think is going do us any good.

  31. The CPC base is vibrating with energy.

    …which may shed some light on the orgasmic bliss which Harper unaccountably arouses in his followers, as well as his growing popularity with women. Perhaps Ignatieff should get his own vibrating base. Presumably, Dimitri Soudas is selling them from the back of his pick-up truck…

    Nothing short of a nuclear explosion is going to move them toward Liberal’s[sic] or to disengage them.

    Hmmm.

    Does anyone have the data on how a thermonuclear event over Alberta would affect Ontario? I’m just asking here…totally out of idle curiosity.

  32. Ti-Guy

    I wouldn’t take anything nearly as substantive as a nuclear explosion to dislodge the Conservative base.

    Remember: these are “Big Box Store” people. A nuclear event would be trivial compared, to say, a five cent increase in the price of a litre of gas.

  33. Tomm

    Sir Francis,

    I bow to your undiminished and unchallenged snarkiness. Sarcasm never truly existed until you entered the room.

    There are things that would sour the Conservative base off Harper. These have to do with corruption and integrity.

    If the government is found to be corrupt, that would begin the ticking of a thermonuclear device. If the government can be shown to lack integrity, ditto.

    Issues that carry this include things like an adscam like event, or a moral scandal that is not quickly dealt with.

    These are not at the control of the Liberal Party of Canada unless they set up their own sting operation.

    I would love to see Martha Hall Findley doing the dance of the seven veils to get Gerry Ritz into a back room for a little photo shoot.

    … although it may of course, backfire on them.

  34. Ti-Guy

    If the government is found to be corrupt, that would begin the ticking of a thermonuclear device.

    Unethical however, is A-OK. In-and-Out, the hundreds of millions of public funds the Conservatives have spent on partisan propaganda, the complex of shenanigans related to stimulus spending, the ever-worsening deficit projections… Hey. That’s just how the game is played.

    Remind me again why the Right accuses everyone else of moral relativity?

  35. Tomm

    Ti,

    Change your channel. Your stuck on an old rerun of Steve MacKinnon rerun.

    The average Canadian doesn’t mind that the federal government advertises. The average Canadian wants stimulus money pushed around. The average Canadian is pissed about the deficit, but sees Harper as the guy that LEAST wanted it. Can you even wrap your brain around a Dion led government right now? It makes the rest of us shudder.

  36. Ti-Guy

    You’re a very dishonest person, Tomm.

  37. Tomm

    Just responding to your rant.

    If the Liberal’s want to be successful, they need to quit pretending every decision made by the Conservative government is hell bent on dismantling this nation and instead build themselves a cohesive set of policies.

    Being hypercritical clearly isn’t working.

  38. Ti-Guy

    Just responding to your rant.

    By lying. By claiming that you have any idea what the average Canadian wants, by conflating political propaganda with the dissemination of information, by suggesting waste and pork-barrel spending is “stimulus” and by asserting that Harper, who was already responsible for a structural deficit before the economic collapse hit, hates deficits.

    “Spare me, oh Lord, from the tyranny of evil, dishonest men.”

  39. takedeadaim

    McGuinty and Harper are operating with the same home field advantage.

    as RT said, barring a scandal that cancels partisan leanings (choose your historical favorite), both McGuinty and Harper’s fate will be determined by ultimately the same thing that kept Chretien in power for so long.

    People look at their lives, and if they register as ‘good enough’, they don’t want the pot stirred.

    When its not your party of choice in power, it can be kinda infuriating.

  40. Navvy

    The CPC base is not going anywhere. As entertaining as it is listening to neocons say, “hey just wait ’till Harper has a scandal, then we’ll change our minds, honest!” we already know all we’ll ever get is, “but… but… adscam, gun registry, pfffffftttt.”

    The current CPC base is not something we’ve seen before in Canada. It’s a clone of the republican base to the south of us and it’s not going anywhere. Even a good chunk of the old PC folks in Ontario have become true believers.

  41. takedeadaim

    Navvy,

    30% of the country are republican clones?

    From memory, combining Reform and PC votes in the most successful election they had before merger would have still resulted in a Liberal minority.

    This means there were republican clones voting Liberal prior to the merger.

    I think the conservatives have a 30% base soley based on the country, or their reputation (outside of people that never liked them in the first place) isn’t in tatters.

    There’s a relativley large segment of the ontario voter base that supports McGuinty provincially and Harper federally.

    Use whatever historical explanation for that phenonmenon you want, it’s well short of human sized pods in the basement with red/white/blue elephant stickers on them.

  42. Tomm

    Navvy,

    Takedeadaim is correct. I am a huge fan of Harper but had no use for Bush. I would have voted Gore, Kerry, Obama, had I been American.

    The CPC base will not be moved easily. The Liberal Party of Canada has nothing in their arsenal that will move them.

  43. Ti-Guy

    Both Tomm and TDA don’t realise to what extent Canadians have gotten dumber in the last four years.

  44. takedeadaim

    Tomm,

    Nothing in their arsenal ‘yet’. i’ve thought for a long time that the 2009 budget that the conservatives drafted will eventually be there undoing.

    May take another 3 years, but if something sinks them it’ll be that.

  45. Ti-Guy — You seem to believe this is going to solved by some media campaign. Maybe, but not in the way I personally think is going do us any good.

    No, I’m quite frankly stumped by how to reverse the situation for the Libs, at least in the short run. Certainly not a media campaign… Shifting into Opposition mode was a good first start, but this initial attempt at launching the Ignatieff “brand” on TV and attacking the Conservatives since parliament resumed was an abysmal failure.

    I think maybe that just biding their time and allowing Harper to cock things up all on his own might be the best strategy. Meanwhile, keep building up their war chest, purge all the inconsolable dissidents that can’t get with the program (whatever it may be), and make the Conservatives’ life miserable in committee and the Senate.

    Initiating some provocative bills in the House or Senate might be an idea too — not things that would ever stand a hope in hell of passing but might fire some shots over the Conservatives’ bow and help define them.

  46. Tomm

    The Toronto Star had an editorial today that I think outlines a good place to start.

    Regardless, nobody is going to change their vote for these clowns until they tell us why we should vote for them.

    When the Conservative’s were in opposition they had a specific policy focus. But these guys are right of Harper one day, left of him the next.

    Right now the pitch is based on drive by smears of the government and “trust us”.

  47. I’d have to agree with that. The Liberals’ position at the moment is completely incoherent and insufferably vague. I’m an ostensible supporter and I couldn’t tell you what they stand for on anything… If there was an election right now, I’d vote Green or sit on my hands and abstain (just as the LPC caucus did for much of the last four years).

    But there isn’t going to be an election. It’s just posturing.

  48. Gayle

    The Reformers have no place to go – but they may stay home.

    I use my own family as a measure. My brother – a big fan of Harper – is growing tired of Harper’s tilt to the “left” and now wants the right to form a new party.

  49. Well, that would be fun, but I suspect they know where their bread is buttered and will stay put for the time being. Oh sure, they may grumble a bit, but their enduring hatred of Liberals outweighs any effort to undermine their “team”… plus, they’re lazy, so it’s all just a lot of hot air.

  50. Tomm

    Gayle,

    Your brother is engaged though. Until a second Reform Party gets created, he is probably attached by the hip to the new Conservative Party. They clearly have western roots and are also clearly the water carriers to minimize government intervention in people’s day to day lives.

    A new reform movement seems entirely unlikely.

    What this country needs is a new Liberal option. It actually makes me smile to think about Maude Barlow and the raging grannies starting a new party based on social justice.

    Speaking of necessary social justice, did you hear about the Famous Five getting permanent seats in the Senate?

    That works on so many levels.

  51. Ti-Guy

    and are also clearly the water carriers to minimize government intervention in people’s day to day lives.

    Of course they are. Saddling Canadians with a structural deficit guarantees future governments won’t be very much interested in intervening in private life.

  52. Tomm — What this country needs is a new Liberal option.

    Yes, I’m sure you’d enjoy that. Not enough that “the Left” is already split three ways…

    What we (i.e., those of us who don’t support the Conservative agenda — whatever that might be… destroying government through massive overspending?) actually need is the Liberal Party to start acting like the party we want it to be — a sensible, centre-left alternative unafraid to advance moderately progressive, sustainable policies in a way that encourages personal freedom while advancing initiatives that deliver on our social and environmental responsibilities.

  53. Tomm

    RT,

    You said:

    “What we … actually need is the Liberal Party to start acting like the party we want it to be — a sensible, centre-left alternative unafraid to advance moderately progressive, sustainable policies in a way that encourages personal freedom while advancing initiatives that deliver on our social and environmental responsibilities.”

    You mean the current crop of Liberal’s aren’t doing it for you?

    That was a joke.

    I think your statement could serve as the rallying cry for Dominic LeBlanc’s platform. I totally agree that there is a big void where a party that espouses that vision is suppose to sit.

  54. Tomm

    Ti-Guy,

    You’ve picked up the term “structural deficit” almost like it’s an old habit. A “tic” that you’ve always had.

    Yet, the term “structural deficit”, is a fiction made from whatever was left in the whisky bottle at the end of the Finance Critic’s late night speech writing for his leader. It is composed of vapour.

    Please explain to me your understanding of the term “structural deficit”. Then explain how you know it to be something caused by every western nation running giant deficits.

    Then, when you are done with that, please tell me that the option wasn’t to balance the budget in 2009. As soon as you say that, I will reach through the computer and choke you. Because you and every other Liberal supporter was screaming for hummer sized stimulus spending not 10 months ago.

  55. sapphireandsteel

    yeah irresponsible military spending and retail politics had nothing to do with wiping out our surplus Ti ;).

    Be-jeeezus talk about blaming others for Harper’s irresponsible spending. Noone told him to double ad spending er… propaganda investment.

    20 year military spending plans?

    Structural Deficit definition – A budget deficit that results from a fundamental imbalance in a government receipts and expenditures, as opposed to one based on one-off or short-term factors.

    source : http://lexicon.ft.com/term.asp?t=structural-deficit

    Now how does spending like a drunken soldier on military purchases for the next twenty years (without a plan and ballooning incredibly following each announcement/re-announcement/potted plant display) get so conveniently ignored by Conservative supporters yet they whinge on and on about Liberal demands for a stimulus. A stimulus they’ve rolled out with a minimum of transparency but a full helping of propaganda on the taxpayer dime. Really? Do you think many Canadians wanted to shell out $65million on ad buys to be relentlessly barraged with pro-Conservative advertising?

    Maybe you should leave the computer alone and choke yourself for being so blind to your own hypocrisy.

  56. Tomm — you and every other Liberal supporter was screaming for hummer sized stimulus spending not 10 months ago.

    Not actually. Some of us thought that a much smaller spending package would have been advisable. I think that Don Drummond (TD Bank) was recommending something in the range of $15-$20 billion. The putative LPC-NDP Coalition was calling for $30 billion. What we got instead from the “Conservatives” is currently estimated to be almost twice that much.

  57. S&S — Do you think many Canadians wanted to shell out $65million on ad buys to be relentlessly barraged with pro-Conservative advertising?

    No kidding. Can you imagine the outrage if the Liberals had done this? The indignant shrieking would have been interminable.

    There should be no government advertising at all, unless it’s a PSA.

  58. Ti-Guy

    You can’t explain anything to Tomm. He’s a very stupid and dishonest person.

  59. Tomm

    I feel very chastized.

    But let’s back up;

    S&S, Sure let’s live with the fiction that the deficit is “a fundamental imbalance in a government receipts and expenditures”. What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that it isn’t a two or three year plan, and Harper is planning to do this for many years into the future? Does it mean that the deficit is so large that we cannot recoup the interest after the spending ends because taxation/royalties just aren’t enough?

    S&S, let’s be honest, the use of the term “structural deficit” and the blindspots of the user, are simply self serving.

    RT, if you think that the coalition would have limited their spending to $30 Billion than you are a party of one. Nobody else believes that.

    Ti, Why am I the stupid and dishonest one when you feel liberated to throw out terms you have no ability or interest in actually defending?

    RT, I do agree that $65 Million may be good for the TV stations, but likely not good value for the taxpayer. Maybe they are working on the 0.1% program; where 0.1% of the total program is spent on marketing.

  60. Ti-Guy

    Why am I the stupid and dishonest one when you feel liberated to throw out terms you have no ability or interest in actually defending?

    Why should I have to defend the fact that Harper had put the country into deficit with high spending and tax cuts before the economic downturn hit (which is a textbook definition of structural deficit), just because you are capable of rejecting such things out of hand?

    It’s as I should have to defend the fact that the Earth is round simply because *you* say it isn’t.

  61. Tomm — I can’t argue a hypothetical, but I categorically reject the idea that the Coalition would necessarily have done any worse than your bunch of so-called “conservatives” *cough* have managed to fiscally cock things up.

  62. Bob

    Martin, you’re taking way too many meds.

    The Coalition of the Three Stooges are/were a joke with the hapless Dion as the centerpiece and now the Fibs have Ignoramous………………………….LMAO

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s