Attacking the attack ads.

heh...no bites today I see.

say.. is that blanket made out of the hair of the babies he ate?

You guys are so funny .

Yes, yes, we are funny.

...and we're right...

...and we're Conservative....

Good night, Stephen.

I checked my Stephen Harper blanket last night and I'm not sure what its made from, but its nice and soft and warm, like a well worn sweater....

Seal pup innards perhaps?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/05/27/raphael-alexander-it-s-about-ambition-not-citizenship.aspx

Raphael Alexander: It's about ambition, not citizenship

Posted: May 27, 2009, 11:30 AM
by NP Editor

Raphael Alexander

At the risk of being reported to animal welfare authorities for
flogging a half-dead horse, I feel the need to speak to Michael
Ignatieff’s defence of himself against the Conservative ads that
question his commitment to Canada. I wrote before that Ignatieff’s
initial response was a good one, because he did not focus so much on
the substance of the attack ads, but deflected attention to the
economy. But the ads have certainly struck a nerve with Mr.
Ignatieff; or perhaps the Liberals feel they can “play” this issue to
their benefit, once again using the mythology of the ignorant and
intolerant Conservative to misrepresent the advertisements as an attack
on all Canadians who have spent time outside of the country.
I believe strongly that this is what has happened. Surely Michael
Ignatieff must realize that by responding to questions about
his motives for returning to Canada after 34 years abroad, he validates
the criticism. The oft-quoted and bastardized line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet
comes to mind once again: “The lady doth protest too much,
methinks.” Ignatieff is far too shrewd to intentionally play into the
hands of the Conservatives; I believe he's trying to play a game of his
own, by trying to spin the criticism of his absenteeism into a smear
campaign against the Conservative Party. How else to explain the following the quotation?
“It doesn’t matter about me, I can take anything they throw at
me, anything at all. I’m standing up not for myself, but everybody who
understands one thing about this country — we have one kind of citizen,
only one kind, and Stephen Harper doesn’t get to decide who’s a good
citizen and who isn’t.”
But Mr.Ignatieff is wrong. He’s all wrong about this. It does matter
about him, since the “attack” ad is about him, and only about him. It
isn’t an attack on dual-citizens, or expatriates, or on recent
immigrants at all. What is at stake in the advertisment, and what makes
it so very difficult to refute, is the question of why Ignatieff has
decided to return to Canada after a long absence. How was he pulled
away from a position at Harvard that he openly admits he wants to
return to? In a damning piece of historical evidence, Michael Ignatieff explained his initial “fall back plan” upon leaving Harvard to seek election in Canada:

Ignatieff’s future with the Kennedy School remains dependent on whether he is elected.
“If I am not elected, I imagine that I will ask Harvard to let me
back,” Ignatieff said. “I love teaching here, and I hope I’ll be back
in some shape or form.”

The entire scope of the Conservative argument is based on
questioning the commitment of a man who wants to become Prime Minister
of Canada. It is entirely relevant, therefore, to question that
commitment openly, when the person seeking the job has expressed an
interest in returning to Harvard in the event he is unsuccessful in the
goals he’s set out for himself in this country. If this doesn’t sound
like a rank piece of opportunism, I’m not sure there is a better
example of it.
The fact is that the Liberals cannot spin this to suggest Stephen
Harper is attacking other citizens of Canada. And as a matter for the
record, there isn’t just one kind of citizen in Canada. We are a nation
of immigrants, and many Canadians are dual citizens who belong to other
nations as well as Canada. Yes, they are all protected equally under
the Constitution, but the fact is that this country welcomes
dual-citizens openly. Michael Ignatieff said in an interview on C-SPAN
from June 17, 2004:
“You have to decide what kind of America you want. Right? You have to decide. It’s your country just as much as it is mine.”
Nobody has a problem with Michael Ignatieff declaring himself an
American and a Canadian. That is a decision entirely his own, and I’m
certain there are many Canadians who proudly identify themselves as
Americans as well. But the entire point of the Conservative campaign is
to question whether a man who identified himself as an American in
2004, who asked rhetorically what kind of country Americans want,
should be qualified to speak for all Canadians as a sitting Prime
Minister less than five years later.
The Liberals are trying to turn this into a bigotry show, by
implying that the Conservatives are divisive and want to create
separate classes of citizenship. That’s absolutely false. Nobody, at
any time, in any capacity, has ever said that Michael Ignatieff is less
Canadian because of his absence from Canada. His critics have been
nothing if not consistent and clear that the main concern is
that Ignatieff is only here because he wants to be Prime Minister, and
nothing else short of that goal will suffice. Being opposition leader,
or a dedicated representative to the constituents of Etobicoke, or just
a decent and hard-working public servant to Canadians is not going to
be enough for him. Canadians are right to wonder whether it’s “Prime
Minister or bust” for Michael Ignatieff, with the bust being more like
returning to Harvard, than whiling away his autumn years in the pedestrian life of a public servant — “in Canada no less”.
National Post
Raphael Alexander blogs regularly from British Columbia

It's about neither ambition or citizenship. It's about not wanting to talk about your own government's accomplishments and putting the focus on the traits of another individual instead.

umcrouc0 wrote:It's about neither ambition or citizenship. It's about not wanting to talk about your own government's accomplishments and putting the focus on the traits of another individual instead.

Hit the nail on the head!

And Iggie's accomplishments lets go over those.

1) ....umm hmm any?

umcrouc0 wrote:It's about neither ambition or citizenship. It's about not wanting to talk about your own government's accomplishments and putting the focus on the traits of another individual instead.

And this is different from Liberal ads how?

It's not.

Both are just politics.

Because it's "just politics" doesn't invalidate the point imo.

On numerous occasions Iggy has identified himself as an American, and he hasn't spoken to that issue yet. Strangely, with all his smarts (at least everyone says he's smart) he sure is dumb where it comes to that "politics" stuff. Slow learners finish last I hear.

JT Estoban wrote:It's not.

Both are just politics.

Exactly. Who said it was any different?

It is about greed and power thats all, and both or all parties will do what ever to hang on to it .

True, like the Liberals bringing in what they consider to be a "ringer" from the US. Guess we weren't supposed to know about that.

I supported the Conservatives 2 elections ago, and changed my mind this last election , just as I was about to vote! So I guess i have the best insite into who is better for Canada!
And the answer is, NONE OF THE ABOVE!

It doesn't matter!

Bravo they are all screwed . They are the most greedy of the greedy .

Here they go again:

OTTAWA — The Conservative party is launching a full-scale assault against Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff Monday, sources tell QMI Agency.

One of television ads, which show Prime Minister Stephen Harper at work late in his office, slams Ignatieff for saying he would be ready to defeat the Conservative government’s budget.

“With so much at stake why would we risk changing course,” the ad says.

The Conservatives' attack ads are almost all branded, “Ignatieff. He didn’t come back for you.”

The ads slam the Liberal leader for his willingness to lead a coalition and to raise taxes. They also question Ignatieff's loyalty to Canada.

“Ignatieff and his reckless coalition. He did it before, he will do it again,” one ad states.

“Micheal Ignatieff is back in Canada, but why?” another ad says. “While away, he called our flag a passing imitation of a beer label.”

The national television campaign is a direct response to the possibility of a looming election.

“Actions don’t lie; more tellingly, Ignatieff has just begun a national campaign-style tour, targeting seats he believes can be won by the Liberals. He’s even revealed his election 'ballot question',” an info-alert message from the Prime Minister’s Office said Monday morning.

“Canadians should be in no doubt: The opportunist Ignatieff has decided that an election this spring is his best hope of becoming prime minister,” the Conservative government’s talking point note says. “Prudence demands that we cannot ignore Michael Ignatieff’s intentions.”

In total, six different ads have been created, five directed at Ignatieff and one attacking NDP Leader Jack Layton.

“Jack Layton and his coalition with the Bloc Quebecois: He did it before, he’ll do it again and Canada will pay the price,” the ad says.

The ads will begin airing Monday across the country.

The Tories - already working on a potential election platform - have used attack ads to dial down the temperature before.

In September 2009, after Ignatieff declared, “Mr. Harper, your time is up”, and election speculation was in overdrive, the Tories released a new version of their “Just Visiting” ad targeting the Liberal leader.

althia.raj@sunmedia.ca

Suppose these ads will wipe that smirk from Iggy's face?

Anywho, this is not the way I want to see political parties campaign. Campaign on their merits not smears...

yeah, these ads seem to be more taunting the other parties and trying to make them force an election then anything else.

grumpy old man wrote:Anywho, this is not the way I want to see political parties campaign. Campaign on their merits not smears...

Agreed!

Anyone think we'll ever return to those days?

I for one, am not that optimistic. All parties would have to agree...and getting all parties to agree, well, this isn't a pay raise so why would they?

They use the attack ads in the first place because they work. It's like fast food to give you quick boost vs a true healthy diet - the attack ads don't raise the level of discourse, but they give the quick results that the parties want in the polls, that emotional response.