L. Ian Macdonald is the latest member of the left leaning legacy media hand wringing over the "chosen one's" failure to take Canadians by storm. He offers this gem of advice:
"He needs to do more of what he was doing Friday in Lennoxville, connecting with voters by stressing his family's links to Canada."
So to recap:
Media to it's readers: "How dare Harper bring up Iggy being out of the country for most of his adult life. That's totally irrelevant, out-of-bounds and just downright mean!"
Media's advice to Iggy: "Psst...Iggy...start stressing you're links to Canada - being out of the Country for decades before coming here for the sole purpose of leading us, may appear a tad out of touch, distant and elitist."
Biff's advice to the left leaning media: If your chosen one can't even move past the most basic requirement for the top job - being "Canadian" - everything else is simply moot.
It's like trying to sell someone a horse as a racing thouroughbred, and the sales pitch gets bogged down on whether it's a horse or a mule.
Horse or mule, it's not getting out of the starting gate.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
NDP Making It's Move, Liberal Supporters Dazed, Confused...But Mostly Confused
As I discussed more fully here, with a unified right and stable party on the left, the Liberals are in an ideological void. With the NDP's new rebranding effort, I surmised it was part of a natural move to try and become the party of the left.
Now we're hearing word of the NDP preparing attack ads against Iggy. This should come as no surprise to folks who have been paying attention. Nevertheless, Liberal supporters seemed shocked at the move.
To my Liberal friends: buckle in and hold tight, because the NDP is making its move.
/
Now we're hearing word of the NDP preparing attack ads against Iggy. This should come as no surprise to folks who have been paying attention. Nevertheless, Liberal supporters seemed shocked at the move.
To my Liberal friends: buckle in and hold tight, because the NDP is making its move.
/
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Obama Compares Healthplan to Postal Service (As Compared to the Superior Private Carriers)
Note to Obama. When desperately trying to stop your massive government takeover plan from sinking like a rock in public opinion, try to avoid comparing it to the quintessential American example of government inefficiency and unreliability. And especially avoid noting how unreliable it is compared to it's privately run counterparts.
/
/
Obama: Digs Real Deep
"I have not said I was a single payer supporter"
That's what Obama said at his "townhall" today. He's also repeated that a number of other times recently. Why does he say it? Because folks are accusing him of favoring a single payer health system. There's a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, some argue that his plan, in substance, will lead to just that. The other more important reason is because he's said previously he's a supporter of it.
Not only has he said he supports a single payer system, he said it on tape, which in now spreading wildly around the net.
What's particularly disturbing about his statement today is that he doesn't just say "I don't" support such a system, leaving himself some room to argue that he has changed his mind. He denies ever saying it. Declaratory. End of story. Untrue yes, but nothing to even debate here, so says he.
Gee, one would have to have a pretty safe feeling about having a complicit media in the bag, unwilling to push the issue, to try to get away with that one.
That's what Obama said at his "townhall" today. He's also repeated that a number of other times recently. Why does he say it? Because folks are accusing him of favoring a single payer health system. There's a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, some argue that his plan, in substance, will lead to just that. The other more important reason is because he's said previously he's a supporter of it.
Not only has he said he supports a single payer system, he said it on tape, which in now spreading wildly around the net.
What's particularly disturbing about his statement today is that he doesn't just say "I don't" support such a system, leaving himself some room to argue that he has changed his mind. He denies ever saying it. Declaratory. End of story. Untrue yes, but nothing to even debate here, so says he.
Gee, one would have to have a pretty safe feeling about having a complicit media in the bag, unwilling to push the issue, to try to get away with that one.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
NDP Rebranding, Liberals be Afraid, be Very Afraid
The NDP is considering a name change. Normally name changes are part of a broader rebranding effort. It's the current political context that's making this move particularly important.
As discussed here before, with a consolidated right, and a longstanding party to its left, the Liberals are in a bit of a pinch. It's been awhile since we've actually heard a coherent comprehensive policy come out of the Liberal camp (the green shift was a one issue wonder, not even close to a full platform required from a national party) principally because the Liberals have nowhere to go without risking some of its base. Scare mongering about conservatives taking away Canada as we know it, combined with the position that they were simply the rightful power holders, the natural governing party, was the "policy" before the green shift. In other words, no policy at all.
Iggy has continued on with the policy avoidance, content instead to follow the headlines and hurl critiques from the sidelines. What we are left with is one party on the right, one party on the left, and one party blowing in the wind. The party on the left has room to grow, but capturing the moniker of being THE party of the left will require some serious effort and some serious politicking. The starting point is shedding its old image and rebranding.
It has begun. Liberals should be afraid. They should be very afraid.
As discussed here before, with a consolidated right, and a longstanding party to its left, the Liberals are in a bit of a pinch. It's been awhile since we've actually heard a coherent comprehensive policy come out of the Liberal camp (the green shift was a one issue wonder, not even close to a full platform required from a national party) principally because the Liberals have nowhere to go without risking some of its base. Scare mongering about conservatives taking away Canada as we know it, combined with the position that they were simply the rightful power holders, the natural governing party, was the "policy" before the green shift. In other words, no policy at all.
Iggy has continued on with the policy avoidance, content instead to follow the headlines and hurl critiques from the sidelines. What we are left with is one party on the right, one party on the left, and one party blowing in the wind. The party on the left has room to grow, but capturing the moniker of being THE party of the left will require some serious effort and some serious politicking. The starting point is shedding its old image and rebranding.
It has begun. Liberals should be afraid. They should be very afraid.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Canadian Press: Discussing CPC Leadership like "Sex Talk With Teenage Kids"
MSM, off the rails once again.
One part reflexive anti conservative worldview, four parts severe creepiness, and
presto,
you've got yourself another example of why the legacy media is breathing its last gasps.
/
One part reflexive anti conservative worldview, four parts severe creepiness, and
presto,
you've got yourself another example of why the legacy media is breathing its last gasps.
/
Some Context to the Cool Temps
Now that BC's "heat wave" is over, a look at the national temperature scene reveals that there doesn't appear to be any areas in Canada experiencing summer heat. All cool.
Where's the global warming? AGW proponents will surely point out that AGW involves worldwide temperatures and trends, and that localized low temperatures, even on a national scale mean very little. (Let's leave aside that worldwide temps have dropped since 1998 on a global scale for the moment).
Is the absence of warming in Canada meaningless? First of all, it's important to note the dire predictions of dramatically increasing temperatures weren't made last year, or even the year before that. They were made back in the late nineties. We were told that unless dramatic steps are taken (and none have been taken) that in fifty years we'd be in a sweltering wasteland of heat filled despair. Note also we were told that it had already started heating. In other words the trajectory was already in place, it wasn't starting 10 or 20 years hence.
Given that, shouldn't we at least be experiencing SOME NOTICEABLE increase in temperature a full ten years later? As Canadians we weren't to be expecting record lows across the country and spanning season upon season.
I also have a quick question for my global warming friends. If you think the Earth is warming, but that it's just not warming in much of North America, then where exactly are the areas experiencing this super heating - over and above the already predicted heating that must be offsetting the cold over in our neck of the woods. Is Europe now an oven? Central Asia? Anywhere?
/
Where's the global warming? AGW proponents will surely point out that AGW involves worldwide temperatures and trends, and that localized low temperatures, even on a national scale mean very little. (Let's leave aside that worldwide temps have dropped since 1998 on a global scale for the moment).
Is the absence of warming in Canada meaningless? First of all, it's important to note the dire predictions of dramatically increasing temperatures weren't made last year, or even the year before that. They were made back in the late nineties. We were told that unless dramatic steps are taken (and none have been taken) that in fifty years we'd be in a sweltering wasteland of heat filled despair. Note also we were told that it had already started heating. In other words the trajectory was already in place, it wasn't starting 10 or 20 years hence.
Given that, shouldn't we at least be experiencing SOME NOTICEABLE increase in temperature a full ten years later? As Canadians we weren't to be expecting record lows across the country and spanning season upon season.
I also have a quick question for my global warming friends. If you think the Earth is warming, but that it's just not warming in much of North America, then where exactly are the areas experiencing this super heating - over and above the already predicted heating that must be offsetting the cold over in our neck of the woods. Is Europe now an oven? Central Asia? Anywhere?
/
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Understatement of the Month Cont'd
Below I attempted to put in context the media's decision to run with "wafergate". Objectively speaking, whether or not Harper ate a communion wafer would not seem to have a dramatic impact on every-day Canadians and the broader general public, like say, a steep rise in gas prices would.
I can't see it being too important to the single mom who has to pick up her kids from school, feed them, then go back for her second shift. Nor would the newlywed couple, who has concern about the price of new houses or the cost of raising their new baby, be particularly interested in this unique event, certainly not as a "top story". I suspect the aging couple, faced with the decision of whether they must go into a nursing home, wouldn't have Harper eating a wafer in their top 100 list of important things to know about. In fact it's difficult to imagine any group or demographic finding this story meaningful to them.
Any group except one.
Libbloggers seemed to enjoy the event very much. Left leaning posters and commenters - the relatively small group of Canadians who, for purely politically partisan reasons have an interest in base attacks against the Prime Minister - went on and on about it. Indeed the story may have originated with a highly partisan Liberal blogger.
On its face it was a partisan hit piece, the only purpose being to smear one's political opponent. The only ones who'd find this of any real value were Harper's political opponents:
both those who overtly proclaim their allegiance to left and their opposition to Harper, such as Liberal party members and libbloggers, and those in the media who still hide behind the veneer of impartiality.
/
I can't see it being too important to the single mom who has to pick up her kids from school, feed them, then go back for her second shift. Nor would the newlywed couple, who has concern about the price of new houses or the cost of raising their new baby, be particularly interested in this unique event, certainly not as a "top story". I suspect the aging couple, faced with the decision of whether they must go into a nursing home, wouldn't have Harper eating a wafer in their top 100 list of important things to know about. In fact it's difficult to imagine any group or demographic finding this story meaningful to them.
Any group except one.
Libbloggers seemed to enjoy the event very much. Left leaning posters and commenters - the relatively small group of Canadians who, for purely politically partisan reasons have an interest in base attacks against the Prime Minister - went on and on about it. Indeed the story may have originated with a highly partisan Liberal blogger.
On its face it was a partisan hit piece, the only purpose being to smear one's political opponent. The only ones who'd find this of any real value were Harper's political opponents:
both those who overtly proclaim their allegiance to left and their opposition to Harper, such as Liberal party members and libbloggers, and those in the media who still hide behind the veneer of impartiality.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)