Interesting you think so http://saskboy.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/intention…
I wrote that a few weeks ago too.

Which is why I'm giving reporters some flak on Twitter for not limiting Harper's coverage when he limits their questions. Tell the public that they were unable to get answers from Harper regarding questions they wanted to ask, and spend time covering parties that answer questions instead. He'll come around quickly, or lose votes.

Look up the concept of the fourth estate and a free press being integral to democracy, Garnet.

If they aren't answerable to the people, and that happens through the press and answers to the opposition, then elected officials are actually a negative influence on democracy.

No outcry, but disdain and disengagement. In fact, as has been noted by the Republican gurus who perfected the style and approach of ads Harper mimics, the very aim of such as is to depress the voter turnout of the other side. And the proof is in the pudding on that with voter turnout under Harper reaching record lows.

Unflattering black and white photos of all the other leaders in those little TV tube thingies.

Yes, but those are clips from the attack ads the other parties are running that the Greens are criticizing. Surely it's acceptable if one is criticizing attack ads to show the ads that one is criticizing.

I say let freedom of speech ring.

Exactly. For example, many people use their freedom of speech to express their frustration with attacks ads.

It most surely does.

Yes, but does it include the freedom to be misleading, even dishonest? I wonder about that every time I see one of the Conservative attack ads.

So taking others words so completely out of context that they no longer have any relation to reality is honest?

I'm thinking of the attack ads against Dion and Ignatieff in particular. I say that as somebody who never has and likely never will vote Liberal.

What I find particularly egregious right now is the insinuation that Michael Ignatieff returned to Canada because of some nefarious plot. I really don't understand why he returned or why he got into politics, except that he must have believed quite strongly that he had something positive to offer and had a duty to serve.

I mean, look at the facts. He was famous, making good money in a prestigious position, and had a reasonable schedule. Even if he becomes PM, what does it offer? Long hours, being brutally attacked on an hourly basis, very little freedom, and not much money.

Nonsense. I don't like the way the Liberal back rooms work, and I don't like Iggy much at all, but the insinuation that he came back as part of some nefarious plot is inherently dishonest. Why did he come back? Like I said, I don't know.

I do know that the Conservatives have taken his statements out of context though. If the Liberals, or any other party, were to run a similar ad campaign against Harper…taking old statements out of context…you'd be jumping up and down a screaming at them to stop.

Do you not understand the word "insinuation?"

And the record is clear. He went abroad and distinguished himself as a journalist and and academic. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, but it is the kind of thing we should be proud of. It's not at all the kind of record that would suggest that he's "just in it for himself." In fact the course of his career, not to mention his family background, would suggest that he felt he had something to contribute.

You don't have to agree with that contribution. I certainly don't. In fact I think he's wrong on most issues most of the time. That doesn't mean he's "just in it for himself" though, it just means I don't agree with him.

And I never said that running the ads was illegal, although it should be. I said it was dishonest.

And who says nobody else wants an election? I do. I'm a voter who won't be voting Liberal, and I definitely want an election. There are a lot of others who have said the same.

No, the record shows that he returned and competed in a leadership race which he lost. He then became leader by default when Dion stepped down and there was no opposition to his leadership bid.

It wasn't perfect and I certainly have questions about it, but not nearly as many questions as I have about how Harper became leader of the Conservatives.

Most Canadians never want an election if you trust the polls. We'd likely still have Pearson in office, his corpse propped up in a chair, if that was the standard for dropping the writ.

The standard is the confidence of the House though. Ignatieff has clearly lost confidence in Harper. My impression is that a majority of MPs, and all opposition leaders, have lost confidence in Harper. We'll know by March 22…maybe sooner.

It's speculation, but not without some foundation. He came back after Liberal insiders offered him support for any future run. If Paul Martin hung on, he may well have gone back to Harvard. Again, speculation. Yet the Reverend here calls it dishonesty. How can that be? It's a characterization based on a take on events, and it can be defended or rebutted at any point. All part of the free market of ideas in a political democracy, if you ask me. And Harper certainly faced just as much, about a hidden agenda and quotes from decades past, as Iggy does now. I didn't hear protests from the left back then.

That's a curious bit of logic. It's like a priest giving a homily in front of his congregation and, in denouncing the use of foul language in today's society, utters every single swear word in the book.

It's amazing to see how some people will bend over backwards to defend one kind of attack ads, while denouncing all the rest.

There are all kinds of ways in which this ad could have been positive. It could have had a personal plea from May. etc. Instead, they released a textbook negative ad against all the other parties, all in the name of being against attack ads. Amazing.

In other words, you have nothing to say on the topic except to attack me personally. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. You guys give me all the material I need.

You fancy yourself a coherent human being? lol. Next.

If you're suggesting that I'm guilty of such, you're more than welcome to point out where.

Some of these knee-jerk accusations get a bit tiring to deal with, you know. Can't you guys do better?

Where have I denounced any set of attack ads? This is what you accused me of. Here's the original quote you threw back at me:

""It's amazing to see how some people will bend over backwards to defend one kind of attack ads, while denouncing all the rest."

I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of an attack ad attacking other attack ads, and the hypocrisy of those not willing to admit this is one. Do you even know how attack ads look like? This is textbook: ominous music, dark black and white pictures of opponents, not one positive message in it.

In other words, you can't justify the accusation you made against me. This is what I'm talking about. Gets tiring at times.

You specifically accused me of holding two sets of attack ads to different standards, and have yet to prove such a claim. So, instead of doing so, you choose to, yet again, attack me personally. Why is that?

Now, if I missed where you justified your claim, by all means, show me where. Otherwise, stop being such a sore loser about it.

I think you are reaching too far, since nowhere in the ad do they say they'd do things different. More specifically, they don't say how they would do things differently. And let's not forget, this is an attack ad. Not one positive message in it. Just darkened images of all the other party leaders. Textbook attack ad.

At a news conference Ms. May said she wants to do politics differently. And if her party finally wins a seat, she’ll use it to end heckling in the Commons.

Proportional misrepresentation.

I was quoting, to the best of my recollection, what May said in the french Leader's debate – her type of "new politics". As I recall, her main participation in that debate was "attack, attack". This type of language is offensive to me. I believe it was about something Harper said about emissions, or whatever.

The other point that you appear to be alluding to is I presume concerning the in and out scheme. Unrelated. But it sure smells bad. Throw the book at them if the facts stand up, I say.

Ms. May led the attack on Harper’s climate change policy, particularly when the Conservative leader said his greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020 was one of the most aggressive in the world.

“You accepted intensity targets,” Ms. May told Harper. “It’s a type of a lie. … Your plan is a type of fraud.” http://greenparty.ca/releases/01.10.2008

Accuses Harper of fraud on the environment

"Your plan is a type of fraud — I don't know how to say it in French," May said, only to learn from the moderator that the word is essentially the same in both languages. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/…

Good for May; she knows her stuff on the environment, and the Conservatives are completely atrocious in that area, especially cutting funding for research. Like we don't need to know what our climate is going to do.

Yeah, likely the best thing is tossing corporate honchos directly into the hoosegow, but that's a hard sell politically.

Me too, but the guys with the money run the world.

Oh God, thanks for reminding me of the intensity target b.s. Totally agreed with her on that. What else have you got?

I understand intensity targets just fine Dot. They are variation on the old shell game, developed by corporate hucksters who put their personal greed ahead of the well-being of people.

That is a distortion, at best, of the issue at hand.

I understand intensity targets well enough that you really can't get away with conflating consumer goods with overall industry targets.

Yeah, the ones Harper favours are even worse than the ones Bush wanted.

With just a hint of hops…

3 strikes and yer out….game over. LOL

Now now….

A) I'm not trying to exclude the feds.

B) What's your source for the command centre in Barrie?

One additional point. If you watch this video, starting about the 7 minute mark, you will hear Chief Bill Blair stating, unequivocally, that it was his people – his most experienced, senior commanders – who were making the decisions at the G20. Perhaps he's not being honest, but in the absence of any credible claims to the contrary, I'm inclined to take him at his word.

He's not being honest. They ran the streets in Toronto. That's it.

The streets of Toronto are where the crimes against civil rights were committed. Which was the starting point for this entire discussion.

I should have said making the policing decisions in Toronto at the G20. I was paraphrasing Blair but perhaps wasn't clear enough that he was talking specifically about the police riots rather than the entire G20 summit. The actual summit didn't even take place in Toronto, after all.

My point all along has been that the cracks about "solidiers in the streets… with guns… in our cities" is a deliberate partisan distortion of the reality of the thing. And it pi**es me off a bit.

Assuming it is effective, and believed, it probably helps, marginally.

But in her newly adopted riding, dunno. This sole focus on getting one person elected, at the expense of local campaigns across the country, is the best argument I can see for abolishing the per vote subsidy.

seriously, how many Canadians are presently represented in Parliament by MPs who refuse to appear at a single all-candidates meeting, to sit down for an interview with the editorial board of the local fishwrapper, etc… The examples I can think of off-hand happen to be Conservatives (Cheryl Gallant springs to mind), but I'm sure other parties have their own examples too.

So this is…proof of an effective use of a $10,000 pr campaign?

How dare she tempt the media with an interesting hook! The nerve!

Seriously, are you saying "It's sole purpose is to get May in the news, and get some "earned" press." as if it's a bad thing?

I'm guessing you need help the same way we all do.

Hey, you having a decent day? Can I give you a hand. That's my Canada.