— Musings —02.18.2012 10:40 AM
Ignatieff on attacking a political opponent via his family
Wise words. Are you listening, Geoff and Jordan?
— Musings —02.18.2012 10:40 AM
Wise words. Are you listening, Geoff and Jordan?
Why are conservative slimy attacks on everyone acceptable? It’s almost as though it’s acceptable for one party to behave this way, while not for the rest. Don’t get me wrong. The attack on Toews is dead wrong. But you can bet that the conservatives WILL stoop to this level when it’s necessary as usual. And somehow they get rewarded for it. The daily hypocrisy has just become ok.
How about spreading misinformation about Iggy in Iraq?
Cotler, Colvin, Dion, Ignatieff, Guergis, Strogran, Keen, 34 million Canadians who are not child pornographers, to name but a few…….
Probably easier to name those who haven’t been slimed by a Conservative attack in light of Toews slanderous comment directed at all Canadians exercising their democratic obligations and freedom of speech.
Yo Gord… Does the name Irwin Cotler mean anything to you?
Or were the CPC’s slime-ball tactics again him OK in your books?
Spreading rumours of Cotler’s resignation. Saying Iggy was not back for you, saying Iggy will return to the US if he is not elected.
Environmental protesters are nothing but foreign agitators. Liberals’ opposition the the gun registry repeal is akin to Hitler’s policies. If you are against Bill C-30 you side with the child pornographers.
Lies, all of them, and lies are slimy.
But to be fair to Gord, Que Sera, Pat and The Saphos, and me too, Gord asked for only one example.
That’s a bit of a mixed bag there. Iggy said he would go back to the US, actually (although he hasn’t yet). A lot of the environmental NGOs in the Gateway crusade aren’t staffed/led by homegrown folks or local dollars (but have some local volunteers and some local funding). Cotler mused about retiring (although actively telling people it would be soon when that’s not the case is, well, not telling the truth). Even if massively ham-handed and ineptly drafted, the impetus behind Bill C-30 is child porn (at least according to Wente’s column, which ironically is the only place I’ve seen evidence in support of the proposed measures).
I agree that a lot of the partisan spinning of these attacks is one-sided. But I don’t see the moral equivalency with selective spin (and all sides are guilty of it – for a tamer example consider the NDP issue with babies in the House and the attempt to hang an anti-family narrative on the Tories, despite the fact that from the [neutral] Speaker’s POV it was a cameras in the House issue) and going deep, super deep, into personal history in a way that damages other family members.
This one was pretty “slimy”
http://www.benedictionblogson.com/wp-content//poopingpuffin.jpg
He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers,” Vic Toews… President Bush, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.
I’ve read about Toews’ comments on the importance of family life and traditional marriage, so he has brought that stuff up. I’ve also heard people rumbling about a Harper marriage issue, but he presents himself as though everything is peachy keen. Don’t try to suggest that the Tories walk their talk, and the Liberals don’t. Iggy may have used his family history, but that doesn’t mean you should attack it. If it did, the Liberals should have started spreading “Harper is on verge of divorce” information.
I’m not saying it is right. I would much rather everyone just concentrated on the policies that they support. The same reason I hate it when people bring up JFK’s womanizing – his personal life is his personal life, and as long as it doesn’t impact his performance, I don’t care. Same thing with Toews – I think it is a little hypocritical of him to make comments on the importance of the institution of marriage while having an affair, but if it isn’t compromising his job, then I don’t care. Let him defend his policy. I agree with Warren that this Twitter crap is an embarrassment, but that doesn’t mean it was okay to attack Ignatieff in the exact same way.
Warren: I was agreeing with you that the Toews attack was wrong, but only becuase it included the family in it. Yet I started thinking yesterday when I heard Baird talking aboout how low this was.
The Cons attacked Dion and Ignatieff at a low fundamental level. They implied that Dion was not a leader, that his charachter was week, that he was a wimp. They implied Ignatieff was arrogant, deceitful, and undemocratic.
I have spent time with both men and these charaterizations were wrong, lies. Both these men were completly and wrongly smeared by the tories.
All the information about Towes is true, no one is contesting that, since when is it wrong to put out the truth. Why is it low and charachter assasination to say the truth?
Not to mention that every piece of it came from public documents.
And let’s not forget that the attacks against both Ignatieff and Dion worked. We can take the high road til we’re blue in the face, but it clearly ain’t winning any elections.
But did Mr. Baird drag their wives and children through it as well? I hold no brief for Toews, but am with WK on how low you go. I also have no doubt that all this has started a war of retribution that will slime all sides before it is over. It’s not going to be pretty. And if it was the minion of a political party – I’d get out in front of this quick with the other side and call a truce. Same goes for young Trudeau. This will do no politicians, nor their party any good in the long run
Also this: we are better than the Cons. We are. And voters don’t dig this stuff. They’ll reward the team that leaves opponent’s families alone.
Uh, sorry for asking what may be an oblivious question, but who are Geoff and Jordan?
Two Iggy staffers who have been promoting the Toews family stuff – and attacking anyone (like me and my girlfriend) who disagree with their Segretti-style politics.
Ah, I figured they must be staffers of some sort. Yes, much as the lizard portion of my brain enjoys seeing Toews raked over the coals like this, it’s juvenile and ineffective. In the end the merits (or lack thereof) of the bill itself are what must be debated and changed.
Yepper. As I told that CBC reporter last night, Clinton had the highest approval ratings of any exiting President – 65 per cent. AFTER Lewinsky.
I see Vic Toews as more of a Newt Gingrich than a Bill Clinton.
JH says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:45 pm
But did Mr. Baird drag their wives and children through it as well? -end quote
Did the CONS attack Ignatiffs family – ie family being wives and children, parents, etc., etc. YES INDEEDY!
And it is time that everyone stop turning the other cheek to the CON attacks. And Baird has the audacity to complain when one of the CONS is served a similar dish that they are so fond of serving!?! all we hear are whining. Give them their own back. And don’t hold your breathe for Toews to start polling in the 65 per cent range.