Election 2011
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,290
- Points
- 1,160
Rifleman62 said:
Wheeler vs Angus Watt
As of now.....
Wheeler's position:
Canada needs fighters. Yay.
Canada needs long range fighters with supercruise. Presumably like the F22 that we can't buy.
The F-35 is a piece of crap like the F-111 and all other Multi-Role Aircraft.
But so is the Super Hornet and all other 4th Generation aircraft
We should wait until the US builds a really good aircraft at some indefinite point in the future.
- Reaction score
- 4,248
- Points
- 1,260
He's not a fan of the F22, either.Kirkhill said:
Whenever that happens, right? And as long as the yardstick for "acceptable" doesn't keep moving, right?Kirkhill said:
- Reaction score
- 1,393
- Points
- 1,160
Two articles from the National Post. Readers comments at links.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/05/kelly-mcparland-liberals-hide-their-agenda-on-canadas-military/
Kelly McParland: Liberals hide their agenda on Canada’s military
Postmedia - Kelly McParland - Updated: Apr 5, 2011
I have no clue whether the F-35 fighter jet is the one Canada needs, whether it’s worth the money, or whether we need fighter jets at all.
I doubt anyone does: it’s almost entirely an issue of opinion. If you think Canada needs the capabilities the F-35 can deliver, then it’s worth the money. If we don’t, it’s not.
The real question is whether we should have an Air Force that can be sent into battle in places like Libya or Kosovo in the first place. And that’s where the hypocrisy of Michael Ignatieff’s position on the F-35 really comes into focus. Because if there’s a hidden agenda on the federal political front, it’s the Liberal position on Canada’s military.
If you believe Canada should have an air force capable of combat, then you have to equip it. You don’t send pilots into combat in the cheapest planes you can find. When the navy concluded it needed new submarines a decade ago, it tried to save money by buying used boats from Britain, and spent much of the past 10 years just trying to keep them seaworthy. Buying second-rate planes to save a few bucks is a waste of money and a risk to lives.
But maybe we don’t need an air force capable of combat. Peter Worthington, who is no weak-kneed lefty, argues that unless we plan to attack another country, Canada’s need is for aircraft capable of patrolling our northern borders, not fighters. (Even if we caught the Russians straying, would we shoot at them? Not likely.) Although we’ve used the existing CF-18s in Libya and Kosovo, neither deployment was really necessary. We could have contributed to those conflicts in other ways. It’s a valid point: Canada is an enormous country and perhaps we should focus solely on protecting our own borders, building ships that can perform rescue duty, chase away illegal fishing vessels or escort occasional refugee ships. Rather than fighters, maybe we should spend the money on support aircraft, rescue helicopters and transport planes for humanitarian missions.
It’s a debate worth having. The Conservatives position is clear: they believe Canada is mature and wealthy enough to contribute to world policing, and should have the equipment to do so.
The Liberals appear to believe the opposite, but are afraid to say so. It is evident from the platform released on Sunday that Michael Ignatieff favours a return to the decades of Liberal practice under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, which oversaw the slow but persistent erosion of Canada’s military, to the point of international embarrassment. We lacked troops, we lacked equipment, we lacked influence. Canadian soldiers heading overseas had to hitch rides on foreign aircraft. We couldn’t deliver our own equipment on aid missions.
It’s hard to find a single plank of the Liberal position on the F-35s that doesn’t creak with empty talk and insincerity. The Liberals say they would immediately cancel the purchase and think about it again later. They can’t say when. They promise they would “save billions of dollars”, but can’t say how. They say they will “put further steps on hold during a review of all military procurement,” which means more delay and more uncertainty for the forces. They promise any future purchases — when they get around to it — would undergo a “transparent competitive process to procure equipment that best suits our needs,” without spelling out what they see as Canada’s “needs.”
We’ve been here before, of course. Jean Chretien campaigned for the 1993 election on a promise to cancel the Conservatives’ $4.8 billion purchase of replacement helicopters for the military’s decrepit Sea Kings. Like Ignatieff, he claimed they were too expensive and unnecessary. Once elected, he carried out the promise, paying $500 million in penalties and dooming Canadian troops to two more decades aboard dangerous aircraft that spend as much time being repaired as they do in the air. Chretien could never admit the mistake, of course, so it wasn’t until he left office that Paul Martin could place the same $5 billion order for new helicopters.
Ignatieff is in the same position, and for the same reason. The new party platform concentrates on supporting UN operations and promises a “new leadership role in peace operations,” the same puffery used by previous Liberals governments to justify starving the forces. “Peacekeeping” means sending troops to areas where they won’t have to fight, and might not even have to be armed. The UN has been “peacekeeping” in the Congo through years of slaughter, doing nothing to halt the horrors there. It did nothing to avert similar bloodshed in Rwanda or Darfur.
“Peacekeeping” is a pleasant code word that hides the Liberal intent to save money by cutting back again on the military. There is nothing wrong with that, if, and it’s a big if, the party is willing to be open and honest about its policy and its implications, and let Canadians pass judgement. But it’s not. Like Trudeau and Chretien, Ignatieff isn’t willing to have that debate, so he hides behind spurious claims about the high cost of jet planes and pledges to look for a better deal. He knows, (or should know) that cancelling the F-35 purchase means cancelling any purchase for years to come. Like Chretien, he could never admit the decision was a mistake, so no new plane would be ordered for the life of an Ignatieff government.
The Liberals’ policy on the military is to have no policy, and hope no one notices. Mr. Ignatieff has a weakness for tough talk (“Mr. Harper, your time is up.” “Anywhere, any time”), but he plainly lacks the nerve for this debate.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/05/matt-gurney-liberals-come-down-with-a-case-of-eh-101-deja-vu/
Matt Gurney: Liberals come down with a case of EH-101 deja vu
Matt Gurney - Apr 5, 2011
The Liberal platform is out, and they’re very clear about one particular issue. The Liberals will:
Cancel the mismanaged, $30 billion deal for F-35 stealth fighter jets. When it is necessary to buy new fighters, we’ll spend billions less than the Harper government would have. But the higher priorities will be investments in middle-class families, and building a stronger economy for the future.
They later explain further. After taking office, the Liberals will cancel the fighters, reinvest that money in the afore-mentioned “higher priorities”, conduct a full review of the military’s needs and hold competitive tenders for any equipment that we might need, when we need it.
There’s something very familiar about this.
Oh, yeah: This sounds a lot like when Jean Chretien cancelled an order for 42 EH-101 “Cadillac helicopters” that the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney had ordered in 1987, to replace the Canadian navy’s fleet of 1950s-vintage Sea Kings. Chretien campaigned on cancelling the choppers, and was even willing to eat a half-billion dollar fine from the builder to do it. So it was done, and the Liberals patted themselves on the back, and only belatedly realized that, whoops. We badly need new helicopters.
To their everlasting credit, the Liberals were quick to correct their mistake, needing a mere 11 years, three elections and one contentious leadership change before getting around to ordering replacement aircraft. The new birds, ordered in 2004, still haven’t arrived and likely won’t go into service for another two years (assuming no further delays). During that time, the Sea Kings have continued in service, occasional serious crashes and embarrassing mishaps not withstanding. Assuming they are replaced in 2013, that will mean the Sea Kings have served for 50 years. And they weren’t a brand new design when we got them, either — the American design the Sea Kings were based on first flew in 1959. That year was midway through Dwight Eisenhower’s second term, when Barbie dolls were introduced and when Stephen Harper was born.
Having not learned their lesson, the Liberals seem intent on repeating this mistake. The suspect line of their policy is “when we need new jets.” That’s now. Military aircraft have long lead-times — order ‘em today, you might get them in five, six, maybe even seven years. Might. Our existing CF-18 fighters were recently upgraded, but are due for retirement in 2020, by which point they’ll be 5o-year-old technology inside nearly 40-year-old aircraft. We can perhaps extend that by a few years, but only by a few, n0t the 20 years the Liberals’ cancellation of the EH-101 set us back.
The Liberals oppose the F-35 purchase — or at least oppose the fact that it was a sole-source contract, not open to tender (though somehow I doubt that after a tender, they’d be happy to admit that, gosh, the F-35 was the right plane all along!). If they want to campaign on stopping the F-35, they can, and there’s no doubt a few votes to be had there. But in order to be responsible caretakers of the armed forces, the Liberals must at least concede that new jets are needed soon, and must be ordered as soon as humanly possible. It would blunt their claims that the Tories are the big bad party that wants to spend billions on jets if the Liberals were honest enough to admit that they’re still going to spend billions on (possibly) different jets, but it’s the responsible thing to do. Their refusal to be honest with the Canadian public about the needs of our air force, even while calling the Tories secretive and dishonest, raises the grim prospect that another decade of darkness might lay ahead for the Canadian Forces.
National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/05/kelly-mcparland-liberals-hide-their-agenda-on-canadas-military/
Kelly McParland: Liberals hide their agenda on Canada’s military
Postmedia - Kelly McParland - Updated: Apr 5, 2011
I have no clue whether the F-35 fighter jet is the one Canada needs, whether it’s worth the money, or whether we need fighter jets at all.
I doubt anyone does: it’s almost entirely an issue of opinion. If you think Canada needs the capabilities the F-35 can deliver, then it’s worth the money. If we don’t, it’s not.
The real question is whether we should have an Air Force that can be sent into battle in places like Libya or Kosovo in the first place. And that’s where the hypocrisy of Michael Ignatieff’s position on the F-35 really comes into focus. Because if there’s a hidden agenda on the federal political front, it’s the Liberal position on Canada’s military.
If you believe Canada should have an air force capable of combat, then you have to equip it. You don’t send pilots into combat in the cheapest planes you can find. When the navy concluded it needed new submarines a decade ago, it tried to save money by buying used boats from Britain, and spent much of the past 10 years just trying to keep them seaworthy. Buying second-rate planes to save a few bucks is a waste of money and a risk to lives.
But maybe we don’t need an air force capable of combat. Peter Worthington, who is no weak-kneed lefty, argues that unless we plan to attack another country, Canada’s need is for aircraft capable of patrolling our northern borders, not fighters. (Even if we caught the Russians straying, would we shoot at them? Not likely.) Although we’ve used the existing CF-18s in Libya and Kosovo, neither deployment was really necessary. We could have contributed to those conflicts in other ways. It’s a valid point: Canada is an enormous country and perhaps we should focus solely on protecting our own borders, building ships that can perform rescue duty, chase away illegal fishing vessels or escort occasional refugee ships. Rather than fighters, maybe we should spend the money on support aircraft, rescue helicopters and transport planes for humanitarian missions.
It’s a debate worth having. The Conservatives position is clear: they believe Canada is mature and wealthy enough to contribute to world policing, and should have the equipment to do so.
The Liberals appear to believe the opposite, but are afraid to say so. It is evident from the platform released on Sunday that Michael Ignatieff favours a return to the decades of Liberal practice under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, which oversaw the slow but persistent erosion of Canada’s military, to the point of international embarrassment. We lacked troops, we lacked equipment, we lacked influence. Canadian soldiers heading overseas had to hitch rides on foreign aircraft. We couldn’t deliver our own equipment on aid missions.
It’s hard to find a single plank of the Liberal position on the F-35s that doesn’t creak with empty talk and insincerity. The Liberals say they would immediately cancel the purchase and think about it again later. They can’t say when. They promise they would “save billions of dollars”, but can’t say how. They say they will “put further steps on hold during a review of all military procurement,” which means more delay and more uncertainty for the forces. They promise any future purchases — when they get around to it — would undergo a “transparent competitive process to procure equipment that best suits our needs,” without spelling out what they see as Canada’s “needs.”
We’ve been here before, of course. Jean Chretien campaigned for the 1993 election on a promise to cancel the Conservatives’ $4.8 billion purchase of replacement helicopters for the military’s decrepit Sea Kings. Like Ignatieff, he claimed they were too expensive and unnecessary. Once elected, he carried out the promise, paying $500 million in penalties and dooming Canadian troops to two more decades aboard dangerous aircraft that spend as much time being repaired as they do in the air. Chretien could never admit the mistake, of course, so it wasn’t until he left office that Paul Martin could place the same $5 billion order for new helicopters.
Ignatieff is in the same position, and for the same reason. The new party platform concentrates on supporting UN operations and promises a “new leadership role in peace operations,” the same puffery used by previous Liberals governments to justify starving the forces. “Peacekeeping” means sending troops to areas where they won’t have to fight, and might not even have to be armed. The UN has been “peacekeeping” in the Congo through years of slaughter, doing nothing to halt the horrors there. It did nothing to avert similar bloodshed in Rwanda or Darfur.
“Peacekeeping” is a pleasant code word that hides the Liberal intent to save money by cutting back again on the military. There is nothing wrong with that, if, and it’s a big if, the party is willing to be open and honest about its policy and its implications, and let Canadians pass judgement. But it’s not. Like Trudeau and Chretien, Ignatieff isn’t willing to have that debate, so he hides behind spurious claims about the high cost of jet planes and pledges to look for a better deal. He knows, (or should know) that cancelling the F-35 purchase means cancelling any purchase for years to come. Like Chretien, he could never admit the decision was a mistake, so no new plane would be ordered for the life of an Ignatieff government.
The Liberals’ policy on the military is to have no policy, and hope no one notices. Mr. Ignatieff has a weakness for tough talk (“Mr. Harper, your time is up.” “Anywhere, any time”), but he plainly lacks the nerve for this debate.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/05/matt-gurney-liberals-come-down-with-a-case-of-eh-101-deja-vu/
Matt Gurney: Liberals come down with a case of EH-101 deja vu
Matt Gurney - Apr 5, 2011
The Liberal platform is out, and they’re very clear about one particular issue. The Liberals will:
Cancel the mismanaged, $30 billion deal for F-35 stealth fighter jets. When it is necessary to buy new fighters, we’ll spend billions less than the Harper government would have. But the higher priorities will be investments in middle-class families, and building a stronger economy for the future.
They later explain further. After taking office, the Liberals will cancel the fighters, reinvest that money in the afore-mentioned “higher priorities”, conduct a full review of the military’s needs and hold competitive tenders for any equipment that we might need, when we need it.
There’s something very familiar about this.
Oh, yeah: This sounds a lot like when Jean Chretien cancelled an order for 42 EH-101 “Cadillac helicopters” that the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney had ordered in 1987, to replace the Canadian navy’s fleet of 1950s-vintage Sea Kings. Chretien campaigned on cancelling the choppers, and was even willing to eat a half-billion dollar fine from the builder to do it. So it was done, and the Liberals patted themselves on the back, and only belatedly realized that, whoops. We badly need new helicopters.
To their everlasting credit, the Liberals were quick to correct their mistake, needing a mere 11 years, three elections and one contentious leadership change before getting around to ordering replacement aircraft. The new birds, ordered in 2004, still haven’t arrived and likely won’t go into service for another two years (assuming no further delays). During that time, the Sea Kings have continued in service, occasional serious crashes and embarrassing mishaps not withstanding. Assuming they are replaced in 2013, that will mean the Sea Kings have served for 50 years. And they weren’t a brand new design when we got them, either — the American design the Sea Kings were based on first flew in 1959. That year was midway through Dwight Eisenhower’s second term, when Barbie dolls were introduced and when Stephen Harper was born.
Having not learned their lesson, the Liberals seem intent on repeating this mistake. The suspect line of their policy is “when we need new jets.” That’s now. Military aircraft have long lead-times — order ‘em today, you might get them in five, six, maybe even seven years. Might. Our existing CF-18 fighters were recently upgraded, but are due for retirement in 2020, by which point they’ll be 5o-year-old technology inside nearly 40-year-old aircraft. We can perhaps extend that by a few years, but only by a few, n0t the 20 years the Liberals’ cancellation of the EH-101 set us back.
The Liberals oppose the F-35 purchase — or at least oppose the fact that it was a sole-source contract, not open to tender (though somehow I doubt that after a tender, they’d be happy to admit that, gosh, the F-35 was the right plane all along!). If they want to campaign on stopping the F-35, they can, and there’s no doubt a few votes to be had there. But in order to be responsible caretakers of the armed forces, the Liberals must at least concede that new jets are needed soon, and must be ordered as soon as humanly possible. It would blunt their claims that the Tories are the big bad party that wants to spend billions on jets if the Liberals were honest enough to admit that they’re still going to spend billions on (possibly) different jets, but it’s the responsible thing to do. Their refusal to be honest with the Canadian public about the needs of our air force, even while calling the Tories secretive and dishonest, raises the grim prospect that another decade of darkness might lay ahead for the Canadian Forces.
National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,518
- Points
- 1,260
As an aside, sorry for the slight tangent (rant) here:
In 1993 I wrote a letter to to editor to denounce the Liberal party (Chretien's) position that the EH 101 was an unneccesary purchase. It is my contenton now, as it was then, when a Sea King crew goes down the PM and the Leader of the Opposition accompany the notification team(s) to explain to a grieving family WHY THE HELICOPTER CRASHED.
Rant ends.
In 1993 I wrote a letter to to editor to denounce the Liberal party (Chretien's) position that the EH 101 was an unneccesary purchase. It is my contenton now, as it was then, when a Sea King crew goes down the PM and the Leader of the Opposition accompany the notification team(s) to explain to a grieving family WHY THE HELICOPTER CRASHED.
Rant ends.
- Reaction score
- 5,970
- Points
- 1,260
This may be a “trend” or just a “blip” – from an article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail that notes that some of Harper’s perceived problems may be caused because ”… the Conservative Leader has come under increasing fire from journalists on the campaign trail, who have criticized the Tory machine for … limiting the number of questions reporters can ask”:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-slips-in-leaders-poll-after-liberals-unveil-platform/article1971777/
So some (most?) journalists have made themselves part of the story: they don’t like the Tory campaign rules so they slag the leader - very professional, boys and girls, but almost exactly what we expect from you.
Edited to add:
Here is link to a better version of the Nanos leadership index.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-slips-in-leaders-poll-after-liberals-unveil-platform/article1971777/
Harper slips in leaders’ poll after Liberals unveil platform
JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The release of the Liberal election platform and questions surrounding Stephen Harper’s bubble campaign aren’t doing the Conservative Leader any favours. But they’re not doing Michael Ignatieff any favours either.
The Nanos daily tracking poll shows Mr. Harper still strongly ahead of his Liberal and NDP counterparts, though not as robustly as in previous days. His leadership-index score in the wake of Sunday’s launch of the Liberal manifesto is trending downward, though the three-day average, which is how rolling polls are best assessed, continues to have him hovering around a score of 100.
The leadership score is based on questions put to voters on which leader they consider more trustworthy, competent and visionary.
By that measure, NDP Leader Jack Layton has regained second place in the leadership count, polling ahead of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff for three days, though the two are so close as to make second place a distinction without a difference. Both continue to score only half as well as Mr. Harper.
But the Conservative Leader has come under increasing fire from journalists on the campaign trail, who have criticized the Tory machine for ejecting anyone from rallies who isn’t certifiably a Conservative supporter, and of limiting the number of questions reporters can ask.
And questions continue to dog Mr. Harper as to why Bruce Carson, a former aide, was allowed to work for him despite his criminal record.
(What critics seem to have forgotten is that it is not Mr. Carson’s past that landed him in trouble, but his alleged lobbying activities after he left Mr. Harper’s employ.)
There are also tentative questions to be raised about whether overall Conservative support is declining and Liberal support increasing, though again the three-day averages continue to have the Tories hovering around 40 per cent and the Liberals hovering around 30 per cent, with the NDP back at about 16 per cent.
There is an old joke that, in some places, anything that happens twice in a row gets called a tradition. Trends, however, take a bit longer to call.
So some (most?) journalists have made themselves part of the story: they don’t like the Tory campaign rules so they slag the leader - very professional, boys and girls, but almost exactly what we expect from you.
Edited to add:
Here is link to a better version of the Nanos leadership index.
- Reaction score
- 1,393
- Points
- 1,160
Rifleman62 repeating himself:
In the olden days, they could have been labeled "Plugs". Why, the term "Plug" I do not know. Plugs have a use.
In the olden days, they could have been labeled "Plugs". Why, the term "Plug" I do not know. Plugs have a use.
- Reaction score
- 2,827
- Points
- 940
Plugs are simply cylindrical versions of the wedge; and a wedge is one of the simplest tools used throughout the ages. ;DRifleman62 said:
- Reaction score
- 1,393
- Points
- 1,160
Plugs/wedges have a use.
- Reaction score
- 5,970
- Points
- 1,260
This is amazing! The crux of the story is in the final paragraph: “But even so, the idea that any publisher should think they have a God-given right to anyone’s money is absurd … That’s definitely something they may have wanted to think about before letting the editor run as a Liberal candidate. We live in a free and democratic society, but I’d suggest she screwed up by not stepping down sooner.”
Now read the headline and story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:
If, as I suppose many do, one only reads the headline and first few paragraphs the message is: Evil Conservatives ”shutting out media outlets that don’t publish favourable coverage.” But that, of course, is not the story, not at all – it’s not even related to the story.
I know many (most?) journalists dislike Stephen Harper for both his personal style and the substance of his policy, but this is over the top.
By the way, ThreeHundredEight.com has the Tory leading the Liberal by 59.2% to 20.8%. I guess she needs all the help she can get from her fellow journalists.
Now read the headline and story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:
If, as I suppose many do, one only reads the headline and first few paragraphs the message is: Evil Conservatives ”shutting out media outlets that don’t publish favourable coverage.” But that, of course, is not the story, not at all – it’s not even related to the story.
I know many (most?) journalists dislike Stephen Harper for both his personal style and the substance of his policy, but this is over the top.
By the way, ThreeHundredEight.com has the Tory leading the Liberal by 59.2% to 20.8%. I guess she needs all the help she can get from her fellow journalists.
- Reaction score
- 4,690
- Points
- 1,160
Is the editor still on paid staff while running for office? If so, that's a huge conflict of interest and I complete agree with the Tory MP for shutting them out. If the candidate resigned, or took an unpaid leave from the job then MAYBE their complaints are founded.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
PuckChaser said:
Regardless, you target your ads where you think you will get the best returns. The beauty of the system is that newspaper owners may want to decide editorial policy with their revenue stream in mind. It doesn't take a big reach to conclude that a newspaper whose editor is an opposing candidate is hostile.
- Reaction score
- 1,393
- Points
- 1,160
ERC, why do you continue to call the humanoids who write their slanted opinion, label it reporting events, journalists?
The Editors, and Publishers are in the same class. They set the objectives and allow the opinion to be published.
The Editors, and Publishers are in the same class. They set the objectives and allow the opinion to be published.
- Reaction score
- 1,393
- Points
- 1,160
Another example. Whining re "attack ads" (no not the ones about soldiers in the street, with guns) is not enough. The CPC released a different ad. The result below. Is there nothing that the CPC/Mr. Harper does correctly???
See CPC Ad: Our Country http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rEkFG5MNTk
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-accused-of-following-tea-partiers-script-in-triumphant-new-ad/article1972359/
Plagiarism?
Tories accused of following Tea Partier's script in new ad
Globe and Mail - 5 Apr 11 - Simon Houpt
A slick new Conservative television ad that seeks to present Stephen Harper as a statesmanlike leader bears an unusual number of similarities to a recent commercial for the Tea Party-backed Republican former governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, and his 2012 presidential run.
The 60-second Tory spot titled Our Country, which unfolds like the trailer for a Hollywood political thriller or a boastful Molson Canadian ad, mixes archival scenes from Canada’s glorious past, including the 1988 Olympic torch relay and a black-and-white newsreel snippet of marching soldiers, with sweeping images of the country’s awesome geography, fighter jets and a multicultural passel of faces.
All are set against a backdrop of a thumping orchestral score and the speech Mr. Harper delivered to the Conservative Party faithful last January on the fifth anniversary of his 2006 ascent to the Prime Minister’s Office, in which he declared: “We want Canada to be a True North that is as strong and as free as it can be, in every way that matters – the best country in the world.”
But hours after it was released on the Conservative Party’s YouTube channel Tuesday, the Liberals uploaded a video to their own YouTube channel titled “Harper ad strikingly similar to Tea Party Governor ad,” which stitched the Conservative spot to the end of Mr. Pawlenty’s commercial promoting his political action committee and his memoir Courage to Stand: An American Story. The book was released in January by the Illinois-based Christian publisher Tyndale House.
The Pawlenty ad is a noisier, flashier, more expensive version of the Conservative spot, though both feature fighter jets, flag waving, ringing speeches by the leaders and clips of important national hockey games. (Mr. Pawlenty’s has the 1980 U.S. Miracle on Ice, while Mr. Harper’s uses Paul Henderson’s Game Seven winner from the 1972 Summit Series.) Where Mr. Harper says Canada “must be great for all Canadians, it must be a country of hope and an example to the world,” Mr. Pawlenty’s features a clip of the Berlin Wall falling and the Statue of Liberty.
Each also features the men striding purposefully through a hallway as the music track turns bombastic. And both conclude with white-on-black title cards promoting their protagonists, like those used in trailers for Will Smith or Matt Damon action movies.
When Mr. Pawlenty’s ad hit the Internet in January, its near-apocalyptic tone was widely mocked for feeling like a trailer from the action-movie director Michael Bay, who has helmed both the Transformers series and amped-up ads for Victoria’s Secret.
The Pawlenty plagiarism allegations threaten to derail the Conservative attempt to pivot in their messaging, from using their ads to sow fear over Michael Ignatieff to a more hopeful stance.
But Mr. Harper wouldn’t necessarily enjoy all of Mr. Pawlenty’s offerings: In an ad released last month prior to his appearance at a Tea Party Summit in Arizona, Mr. Pawlenty praises the movement as “a great addition to the conservative coalition.”
A Conservative spokesman said: “We are proud of the ad. We are proud of our country. We don't comment on strategy.”
With a report from Paul Attfield
Rebuttal: http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/2011/04/ignatieff-plagiarized-obama-campaign-ad.html
See link to see the Iggy/Obama ads.
Ignatieff Plagiarized Obama Campaign Ad? You Tell Me...
So the Liberals are trying to spin the newest Conservative ad, which is not an attack ad, as being plagiarized from a Tea Party Ad. Seems both ads feature the respective National Flags. Who would think a campaign ad would have a shot of the countries flag. Both feature various shots of scenery from each country, as well as film clips of the countries history. Sure, I guess this is the first time any party in the history of politics thought to use those items in a campaign ad. And of course the media laps it all up.
So following that same storyline, let's compare an Ignatieff ad from 2011 with a Obama ad from the last U.S. election. Wanna bet any of the Canadian media report on it? I doubt it.
See CPC Ad: Our Country http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rEkFG5MNTk
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-accused-of-following-tea-partiers-script-in-triumphant-new-ad/article1972359/
Plagiarism?
Tories accused of following Tea Partier's script in new ad
Globe and Mail - 5 Apr 11 - Simon Houpt
A slick new Conservative television ad that seeks to present Stephen Harper as a statesmanlike leader bears an unusual number of similarities to a recent commercial for the Tea Party-backed Republican former governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, and his 2012 presidential run.
The 60-second Tory spot titled Our Country, which unfolds like the trailer for a Hollywood political thriller or a boastful Molson Canadian ad, mixes archival scenes from Canada’s glorious past, including the 1988 Olympic torch relay and a black-and-white newsreel snippet of marching soldiers, with sweeping images of the country’s awesome geography, fighter jets and a multicultural passel of faces.
All are set against a backdrop of a thumping orchestral score and the speech Mr. Harper delivered to the Conservative Party faithful last January on the fifth anniversary of his 2006 ascent to the Prime Minister’s Office, in which he declared: “We want Canada to be a True North that is as strong and as free as it can be, in every way that matters – the best country in the world.”
But hours after it was released on the Conservative Party’s YouTube channel Tuesday, the Liberals uploaded a video to their own YouTube channel titled “Harper ad strikingly similar to Tea Party Governor ad,” which stitched the Conservative spot to the end of Mr. Pawlenty’s commercial promoting his political action committee and his memoir Courage to Stand: An American Story. The book was released in January by the Illinois-based Christian publisher Tyndale House.
The Pawlenty ad is a noisier, flashier, more expensive version of the Conservative spot, though both feature fighter jets, flag waving, ringing speeches by the leaders and clips of important national hockey games. (Mr. Pawlenty’s has the 1980 U.S. Miracle on Ice, while Mr. Harper’s uses Paul Henderson’s Game Seven winner from the 1972 Summit Series.) Where Mr. Harper says Canada “must be great for all Canadians, it must be a country of hope and an example to the world,” Mr. Pawlenty’s features a clip of the Berlin Wall falling and the Statue of Liberty.
Each also features the men striding purposefully through a hallway as the music track turns bombastic. And both conclude with white-on-black title cards promoting their protagonists, like those used in trailers for Will Smith or Matt Damon action movies.
When Mr. Pawlenty’s ad hit the Internet in January, its near-apocalyptic tone was widely mocked for feeling like a trailer from the action-movie director Michael Bay, who has helmed both the Transformers series and amped-up ads for Victoria’s Secret.
The Pawlenty plagiarism allegations threaten to derail the Conservative attempt to pivot in their messaging, from using their ads to sow fear over Michael Ignatieff to a more hopeful stance.
But Mr. Harper wouldn’t necessarily enjoy all of Mr. Pawlenty’s offerings: In an ad released last month prior to his appearance at a Tea Party Summit in Arizona, Mr. Pawlenty praises the movement as “a great addition to the conservative coalition.”
A Conservative spokesman said: “We are proud of the ad. We are proud of our country. We don't comment on strategy.”
With a report from Paul Attfield
Rebuttal: http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/2011/04/ignatieff-plagiarized-obama-campaign-ad.html
See link to see the Iggy/Obama ads.
Ignatieff Plagiarized Obama Campaign Ad? You Tell Me...
So the Liberals are trying to spin the newest Conservative ad, which is not an attack ad, as being plagiarized from a Tea Party Ad. Seems both ads feature the respective National Flags. Who would think a campaign ad would have a shot of the countries flag. Both feature various shots of scenery from each country, as well as film clips of the countries history. Sure, I guess this is the first time any party in the history of politics thought to use those items in a campaign ad. And of course the media laps it all up.
So following that same storyline, let's compare an Ignatieff ad from 2011 with a Obama ad from the last U.S. election. Wanna bet any of the Canadian media report on it? I doubt it.
- Reaction score
- 5,970
- Points
- 1,260
Rifleman62 said:
Because I regard journalist as a pejorative term; it describes someone who cannot qualify for any real job - except as a stenographer who takes the press releases from big banks, trade unions, political parties, manufacturers, special interest groups and telephone companies and submits them for publication with only one change: the journalist's name and today's date at the top. We don't have a "smiley" for a sneer but that's the expression on my face almost every time I type the word j o u r n a l i s t.
- Reaction score
- 1,393
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks for that. I should have known.
- Reaction score
- 6,064
- Points
- 1,160
Kalatzi said:
Yes. He's done so well with California hasn't he? :
- Reaction score
- 5,970
- Points
- 1,260
Here is the latest, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com:
http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/
So, although the national changes are very, very minor – limited to another slight drop in Green support – there is some good news for the Tories in vote rich ON which is offset by bad news in BC.
But, it appears that the Liberal platform has not, yet, changed the broad outlook.
http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/
April 6, 2011 Projection - Conservative Government
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011
Split House ensues
Two new polls in the model, one from Nanos Research and the other from the Innovative Research Group, do very little to shift the projection. In fact, at the national level, there have been virtually no changes at all.
The Conservatives continue to lead with 38.6% and are projected to win 154 seats, unchanged from yesterday. The Liberals remain at 27.6% and 71 seats, while the New Democrats are also unchanged at 16.8% and 32 seats.
The Bloc Québécois is still at 9.4% nationally and 51 seats, while the Greens are down 0.1 points to 6.3%.
Regionally, things are pretty static. The biggest set of changes has come in British Columbia, where the Conservatives have dropped 0.4 points to 40.3%, followed by the Liberals at 24.2% and the NDP at 23.4%.
In Ontario, the gap has widened by another 0.3 points as the Liberals drop 0.2 and the Conservatives gain 0.1.
In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals have made another gain and now stand at 36.6%, within one point of the Tories.
There have been no seat changes since yesterday.
The two new polls this morning have a few little interesting tidbits in them, however, so check back soon for the daily poll summary.
So, although the national changes are very, very minor – limited to another slight drop in Green support – there is some good news for the Tories in vote rich ON which is offset by bad news in BC.
But, it appears that the Liberal platform has not, yet, changed the broad outlook.
Similar threads
