The first ad of the campaign
here it is folks; the first campaign ad from the libs:
You be the judge!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just an ornery guy, not quite a curmudgeon
The Video Collection
Local Political Events:
Blog Archive
- September (6)
- August (36)
- July (25)
- June (36)
- May (24)
- April (28)
- March (39)
- February (23)
- January (25)
- December (18)
- November (38)
- October (29)
- September (33)
- August (22)
- July (27)
- June (34)
- May (27)
- April (21)
- March (56)
- February (11)
- January (23)
- December (34)
- November (16)
- October (8)
- September (10)
- July (13)
- June (17)
- May (11)
- April (12)
- March (11)
- February (8)
- January (5)
- December (8)
- November (8)
- October (11)
- September (7)
- August (32)
- July (6)
- June (11)
- May (15)
- April (14)
- March (8)
- January (9)
- December (5)
- November (33)
- October (20)
- September (4)
- July (3)
- June (11)
- May (7)
- April (17)
- March (10)
Search This Blog
What I read on the Internet
hit counter
11 comments:
Despite lots of rhetoric, nowhere does he say why Liberals would or could do better than Conservatives. And if this is an ad, they are unlikely to win anyone over with it. Too long, too much preaching to the converted.
But it is clever to start early - this kind of ad is cheap and does not count in the tally of election expenses.
John, you're right. The rhetoric is there for all to see. Preaching to the converted ? Yes, and to a lot more than just Liberals at this point, I'd venture. The calculated reference to a " just society " informs us about the kind of transformational campaign Iggy is betting the farm on. The choices therefore will be stark. So John, I suggest this ad is not so much how the Liberals " could do better ", as to simply drawing an ideological " line in the sand ". The stakes are high, - he blows it and the Conservatives get a whack at four years of real unfettered government.
Line in the sand indeed! You can't tell the difference between the liberals and tories as it is, we need something to tell them apart.
Can't help but think of the story told by Tommy Douglas so long ago.
He explained that we electors are mice who keep voting for cats, and whether we elect black cats or white cats it makes no difference, they are still our enemy and we continue to vote against our own interests.
Some things never change.
Well, this - clearly - isn't an ad but instead the part of his speech posted to youtube.
When Obama spoke last year during much of the campaign and the lead up too it, his speeches were not all that different. Same rhetoric, same messaging to get the point across that we can do better.
Kim Campbell said it aptly that campaigns are no place to talk policy. Sure, a bad thing to say in a campaign - within circles we can say it but as a national slogan that not necessarily what one may want to brand themselves as.
So - that brings me back to Ignatieff's speech. Many conservatives will be overly critical on Ignatieff's tone or words when they themselves praised their own for speaking in the same way.
Politics right now in Canada is at an all time low - and much of that is due to the mentality of Harper and the conservatives that follow him. The practices they have engaged in, the ads, the division of Canada (literally) all to maintain their minority government is troubling.
Ignatieff may not be the answer, I have my own reservations - however, no longer can we listen and read the gross dribble coming from todays Conservative party (very different from the well respected Progressive Conservatives of two decades ago).
Critic, I would say your reference to T, Douglas gives away your bias. Think of another name for yourself.
So quoting a great Canadian displays bias - so much for keeping an open mind!
My dad always used to say the Liberals were the lesser of the two evils. Not sure what he meant by " lesser ", but I'm damn sure the greater meant PC. I can only imagine what he'd make of today's Conservative Party under S. Harper.
Tommy Douglas insults electors, referring to them as "mice who keep voting for cats ... they are still our enemy and we continue to vote against our own interests."
Every elector I have ever spoken with, not a one ever said they had cast their vote against their interest. Whenever I ask, electors say quite the opposite -- that they vote in their own interests.
How about anyone reading this blog; could they step forward and admit that they have often voted against their own interest?
C'mon, there must be some anonymous willing to lie.
Wally, you make the best choice you can based on what's available. Life ain't poifect, ya know.
Wally, I'll own up to voting against my personal interests when a different vote meant a benefit for what I believed to be for the greater good. I had no difficulty in doing so because, if it actually benefited the greater good, I too was going to be a beneficiary by inclusion, perhaps just not to the degree I'd have preferred. However, while it happens more often than you might think, it's not an everyday occurrence either.
Some of us, when we vote, understand that there are multiple interests to consider, one of which we call the common good.
Some of us don't.
A horse race.
Post a Comment