- Tom Flanigan's 'Tell All' about Harper and the Cons - continued
Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, by: Frances Russell, 12/11/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/ignatieff-quality-guy-flanagan-says-69835582.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
Hi Frances Russell,
This is a great article and a real eye opener:
" Michael Ignatieff to me is a world-famous scholar. I'd like to be a world-famous scholar. I'm not, so Ignatieff to me is a role model... I think he is a quality guy and I think Canada's lucky to have him as Liberal leader
. . .
Asked if he personally agrees with his party's characterization of Ignatieff, he replied: "I don't necessarily think that." But he insisted it was up to Ignatieff to repudiate the "just visiting" claim. And he doesn't know why the Liberals "don't make their own plausible case" against the prime minister. "It wouldn't be hard to write the ads."
. . .
Recently, Flanagan received a lot of media criticism for saying that political attack ads don't have to be true, they just have to be plausible.
During last winter's constitutional crisis, Flanagan wrote in The Globe and Mail that "Gross violations of democratic principles would be involved in handing government to the coalition without getting approval from voters." A week earlier, Harper, too, claimed the opposition could not take power without an election. "
Flanagan now appears to have shifted his position and backed away from Harper's. "I wouldn't rule out parties coming together to form a coalition and whatever Mr. Harper may have said in the heat of the moment I don't think should be interpreted as constitutional theory because he was in a fight for his life." However, he insists any coalition relying on the Bloc Quebecois must have prior electoral approval [apparently Flanigan hasn't totally made the transition from Harper Henchman to academic, I guess old habits die hard]
(IBID - I don't normally quote sections of articles but these are essentially quotes of Tom Flanigan and newsworthy)
For whatever reason Tom Flanigan has been "telling all" for a while now. I always suspected it was some sinister plan to somehow 're-habilitate' Harper and the Con's in the public eye - this is how they used to be but now they have changed, and bring him back to he conservative fold.
But now I think there is a real desire to be accepted as a legitimate academic as opposed to a Harper henchman, which has the effect of requiring him to talk about things in a truthful light as opposed to standard Con approach - everything is political, truth is irrelevant.
Flanagan saying that he doesn't necessarily think the attacks against Ignatieff are true but it is up to Ignatieff to repudiate them is something that should raise the eyebrows of every Canadian. As you [Russell] pointed out is in line with his previous statement that these attacks don't need to be true just plausible.
All Canadians should become aware of this. For Harper and the Con's it is power, grabbing it, clutching onto it, mongering it and Canada be damned.
"Research done by Angus Reid Strategies showed Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls." [IBID]
I agree with this 200%. The only thing we can get out of the 4 by-elections this week is verification of this - not by 11% but even 20% . As I posted (see below):
"If anything, this is a pathetic comment on the government of the day - people are so jaded and cynical about the current Harper and Con's they just don't feel its worth the effort - i.e. Harper and the Con's are still going to be running this country so what's the point."
I think this effect may explain the recent polls (see below):
"Also, perhaps people have resolved themselves to the polarized political landscape which allows Harper and the Con's to form the government - i.e. as things stand now it is not likely to change much with another election and so we should not have another election. People may indicate support for Harper and the Con's when questioned in a poll but what they are really saying is I don't want an election - what's the use."
PS: Jane Taber, If you would like to see some real political commentating ...
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/ignatieff-quality-guy-flanagan-says-69835582.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
Hi Frances Russell,
This is a great article and a real eye opener:
" Michael Ignatieff to me is a world-famous scholar. I'd like to be a world-famous scholar. I'm not, so Ignatieff to me is a role model... I think he is a quality guy and I think Canada's lucky to have him as Liberal leader
. . .
Asked if he personally agrees with his party's characterization of Ignatieff, he replied: "I don't necessarily think that." But he insisted it was up to Ignatieff to repudiate the "just visiting" claim. And he doesn't know why the Liberals "don't make their own plausible case" against the prime minister. "It wouldn't be hard to write the ads."
. . .
Recently, Flanagan received a lot of media criticism for saying that political attack ads don't have to be true, they just have to be plausible.
During last winter's constitutional crisis, Flanagan wrote in The Globe and Mail that "Gross violations of democratic principles would be involved in handing government to the coalition without getting approval from voters." A week earlier, Harper, too, claimed the opposition could not take power without an election. "
Flanagan now appears to have shifted his position and backed away from Harper's. "I wouldn't rule out parties coming together to form a coalition and whatever Mr. Harper may have said in the heat of the moment I don't think should be interpreted as constitutional theory because he was in a fight for his life." However, he insists any coalition relying on the Bloc Quebecois must have prior electoral approval [apparently Flanigan hasn't totally made the transition from Harper Henchman to academic, I guess old habits die hard]
(IBID - I don't normally quote sections of articles but these are essentially quotes of Tom Flanigan and newsworthy)
For whatever reason Tom Flanigan has been "telling all" for a while now. I always suspected it was some sinister plan to somehow 're-habilitate' Harper and the Con's in the public eye - this is how they used to be but now they have changed, and bring him back to he conservative fold.
But now I think there is a real desire to be accepted as a legitimate academic as opposed to a Harper henchman, which has the effect of requiring him to talk about things in a truthful light as opposed to standard Con approach - everything is political, truth is irrelevant.
Flanagan saying that he doesn't necessarily think the attacks against Ignatieff are true but it is up to Ignatieff to repudiate them is something that should raise the eyebrows of every Canadian. As you [Russell] pointed out is in line with his previous statement that these attacks don't need to be true just plausible.
All Canadians should become aware of this. For Harper and the Con's it is power, grabbing it, clutching onto it, mongering it and Canada be damned.
"Research done by Angus Reid Strategies showed Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls." [IBID]
I agree with this 200%. The only thing we can get out of the 4 by-elections this week is verification of this - not by 11% but even 20% . As I posted (see below):
"If anything, this is a pathetic comment on the government of the day - people are so jaded and cynical about the current Harper and Con's they just don't feel its worth the effort - i.e. Harper and the Con's are still going to be running this country so what's the point."
I think this effect may explain the recent polls (see below):
"Also, perhaps people have resolved themselves to the polarized political landscape which allows Harper and the Con's to form the government - i.e. as things stand now it is not likely to change much with another election and so we should not have another election. People may indicate support for Harper and the Con's when questioned in a poll but what they are really saying is I don't want an election - what's the use."
PS: Jane Taber, If you would like to see some real political commentating ...
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
posted by wlloydm at
9:16 AM
<< Home