Adscam in the Blogosphere - Printable Version
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Adscam in the Blogosphere (/showthread.php?tid=5817)
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Adscam in the Blogosphere (/showthread.php?tid=5817)
- Stephen Dame - 04-07-2005
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Do you think it significant that the Globe, CTV, and so on are reporting on adscam and publication bans, but not reporting opinion polls?
Good point. I hadn't thought of that, I'd expect them to bring in the pollsters once the story spreads.
I noticed that the CBC's "streeters' were overwhelmingly "I don't know/care" from folks young, old, black, white, coast to coast. I dunno what's worse... corruption, or the fact that people don't care about politics period.
Tomorrow should be very interesting as you can bet the papers will be going apoplectic (sp?... how bout 'Ape Shit') over this, and we'll see if on Monday regular people are more concerned with Gomery or whoever the hell the "Queer Eye's" made over this weekend. I think we both know...
- prz - 04-07-2005
I am sure the polls are coming. I am guessing they didn't release polls this week because because of the publication ban.
I did see one funny number today. The conservatives are up to 16 percent in Quebec which is double from their previous 8 percent last summer.
- skippy the wonder dog - 04-07-2005
Actually, CTV tonight mentioned polls very briefly.
The polls in Ontario don't favor the Conservatives yet.
That, no doubt, is why they were mentioned very briefly. It's just embarrassing to beat the drum when the polls seem to suggest that the public doesn't care.
You'll see the polls reported when public opinion swings in the desired direction.
Cynically yours,
etc., etc.
- das_hips - 04-07-2005
The way I see it, is that when it comes to politics, most Canadians (most citizens of any Western democracy) are sheepish. They lay faith in the TV news and the neighbourhood word-of-mouth water-cooler type of convo. When all this is said and done, the media and the three other parties are all going to continue to harp on the definitive evil and corruption of the Liberal party. Martin will point to the results of the inquiry, those exposed will be hung to dry; Canadians will once again feel comfortable, even if the tarnished liberals who get the boot are more patsies of political scape-goating than anything... come election time, whether it be in 6 months, 12 months or three and a half years, Canadians will base their vote on the results this Liberal spear-headed minority government has produced. Even the NDP and the Cons haven't been disapproving of what has been accomplished thus far... money is getting spent where it should, reports of an $8 Billion surplus, injections of the billions in health care, and cash is flowing down to the municipal and provincial government.
Last election during the debates it really came to me that I am not all that concerned with this scandal, one of the predominant Liberal trashing topics. Like was said above, politics is full of these types of situations; back-scratching chameleons who generally play fair ball, but any government is going fall prey to this. In the grand scheme of things $140 million isn't a whole lot, and I'd prefer a flat-out loss without any tangible results than a committment to Star Wars that would cost in the billions.
That's just me though...
- VioletlightHeron - 04-08-2005
From an American point of view, I have to agree with the idea that there are going to be corruption problems in any party that takes power and stays there for a significant amount of time. There are going to be functionaries and leaders within a party that confuse their personal political gain with what's good for the country as a whole. However, one aspect of Adscam that troubles me is the ability of the Liberals to keep themselves in power using taxpayer funds while using the campaign finance laws to keep the opposition parties in check. I don't agree with the government financing the political parties at supposedly equal levels. Sounds great in theory, works lousy in reality and it doesn't make for a healthy democracy. I'm more in favor of open reporting of campaign contributions across the board and letting the voters decide whom is buying whom and whether they agree with that interest group's agenda.
On another note, can anyone explain to me the history of fear of the Conservative Party by Ontario and Quebec voters and reasons? I think the Liberals get away with smearing the Conservatives as "social conservatives" by using it as an anti-American allusion of Republicans. It seems to me that there is a belief by some Canadian voters that Republicans are one big monolothic theocracy when that is the farthest thing from the truth. We've got libertarian nut jobs, isolationist nut jobs, neo-conservative nut jobs (that's me), country club nut jobs :lol: :lol: (obviously sarcasm for those scoring at home
) and we don't always play nice with each other which is somewhat similar to Democrats except in one key area: We generally agree that government is not the arena to fix every economic, social and cultural problem that America has.
- j-monster - 04-08-2005
Some of the comments here serve to illustrate one of the real challenges the Conservatives will have to face in the next election (whenever it is)... convincing people that they are indeed fit to govern. This was a challenge they failed to meet last election... towards the end the Liberals played the "scary, hidden agenda" card, the MSM jumped all over it, and the Conservatives couldn't overcome the fear generated and were sent reeling.
This is one reason why they are smart to not call an election now... not only does it give the Gomery inquiry the time to finish (and with possibly even more damning testimony to come, it could damage the Liberals even further), but it gives the party time to publicize their policies and their plan for running this country, over and over, as much as possible. Contrary to the opinion of many, I believe the Conservatives' agenda is neither hidden nor scary. I believe the party is not filled with racists and sexists who are looking to erect a "Star Wars" at the first opportunity, but rather it is composed of principled people who will do what is right for Canada... but the party needs to convince more Canadians of this in order to get the mandate it seeks.
One thing I do believe is scary is the depth to which the Liberals have stooped to steal our money in this scandal. I cannot believe that people would downplay this scandal and say it is no big deal, $100-200 million or whatever isn't a lot of money. People, they didn't just put our hard-earned tax dollars into a program that is controversial or maybe doesn't work... they literally STOLE our money! These allegations are truly shocking, and even if only half of what is being said is true, we should be outraged by this. It should be enough to kick the Liberals out of office for a long time... but I am not naive enough to believe this is all it will take, because many people have this deep-seated unease with the Conservatives. That's why it's absolutely critical that the Conservatives publicize their policies over and over and convince the electorate of why they will be beneficial to Canada. Otherwise... well, I shudder to think of what could happen.
- j-monster - 04-08-2005
VioletlightHeron Wrote:On another note, can anyone explain to me the history of fear of the Conservative Party by Ontario and Quebec voters and reasons? I think the Liberals get away with smearing the Conservatives as "social conservatives" by using it as an anti-American allusion of Republicans. It seems to me that there is a belief by some Canadian voters that Republicans are one big monolothic theocracy when that is the farthest thing from the truth. We've got libertarian nut jobs, isolationist nut jobs, neo-conservative nut jobs (that's me), country club nut jobs :lol: :lol: (obviously sarcasm for those scoring at home
VLH, as a Canadian, I'm looking for someone to explain this to ME. :lol:
Nice to know there's at least one other conservative on this forum... I'd hate to be the only one. :wink:
- skippy the wonder dog - 04-08-2005
VLH, when Reform originally split away from the Progressive Conservatives it attracted some genuine whackjobs. Manning had to purge the party to get rid of the holocaust deniers and white supremacists and so on. That put a taint on the party for a long time.
Then there were a number of policy positions that simply didn't sit well outside the west. The party continued to talk about immigration reform, for example, which didn't do much to dispel the notion that it was still run by whackjobs.
Nothing to do with your supposed Canadian stereotypes of Republicans -- that's a brand new problem for the Conservatives. Not everything that happens in Canadian politics is defined south of the border.
- VioletlightHeron - 04-08-2005
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:VLH, when Reform originally split away from the Progressive Conservatives it attracted some genuine whackjobs. Manning had to purge the party to get rid of the holocaust deniers and white supremacists and so on. That put a taint on the party for a long time.
Then there were a number of policy positions that simply didn't sit well outside the west. The party continued to talk about immigration reform, for example, which didn't do much to dispel the notion that it was still run by whackjobs.
Nothing to do with your supposed Canadian stereotypes of Republicans -- that's a brand new problem for the Conservatives. Not everything that happens in Canadian politics is defined south of the border.
If I remember correctly, weren't some of the white supremacist gangs in the GTA that were involved in "that night in Toronto" headed by nutjobs who were members of Manning's Reform Party?
Can you be more specific on what the Reform/Alliance/ Conservative position on immigration reform was? I'm not saying what goes on in Canadian politics should be defined south of the border, but I think it's a bit hypocritical of Martin to smear the Conservatives as Bush's lapdogs or something to that effect on missile defense when in Martin's case he dithers about making a decision and then does it for the purely political reason of bolstering Liberal support in Quebec among the francophones. The whole Parrish thing was laughable in that he only booted her out of the caucus when she decided to say disparaging things about him.
- skippy the wonder dog - 04-08-2005
There was a lot of noise about restricting immigration, which many people interpreted as racism, as evidence that Reform was being driven by its nutjob wing.
I don't recall the specifics of the noise, but it doesn't really matter. It's how people interpreted it that counts here.
- fingernailsonhull - 04-08-2005
j-monster Wrote:VioletlightHeron Wrote:On another note, can anyone explain to me the history of fear of the Conservative Party by Ontario and Quebec voters and reasons? I think the Liberals get away with smearing the Conservatives as "social conservatives" by using it as an anti-American allusion of Republicans. It seems to me that there is a belief by some Canadian voters that Republicans are one big monolothic theocracy when that is the farthest thing from the truth. We've got libertarian nut jobs, isolationist nut jobs, neo-conservative nut jobs (that's me), country club nut jobs :lol: :lol: (obviously sarcasm for those scoring at home
VLH, as a Canadian, I'm looking for someone to explain this to ME. :lol:
Nice to know there's at least one other conservative on this forum... I'd hate to be the only one. :wink:
You're not the only one. You've got an ally here. It baffles me that central Canada continues to vote for such corruption. Somehow, the Liberals have the Canadians convinced that to be Canadian is to be anti-American, or, at the very least, anti-Bush. Since the Conservatives somehow always manage to get portrayed by the liberal media as the "Americanization" party, they always lose votes. This is part of the reason why I have a real problem with one of this country's major media groups (CBC) being funded by the government. And here come the anti-privatization posts...
- Lizard King - 04-08-2005
Im not big on politics and the whatnot, I read the paper everyday and watch the news to keep up with whats happening in the Country, but thats about where it ends for me, and I dont really have a strong opinon on either party. But there is this debate about who's better, and who should you vote for-Liberal or PC, and to a lesser extent NDP in Canada. What I want to know is why cant there be some kind of happy middle of both the parties or is this just a pipe dream? I know you cant please everyone, but isnt there a way to bridge these gaps and run a country in a good way, without all the bull***t? The thing about the US that I dont understand is why there really is only 2 political parties to choose from, I know there is marijuana parties and green parties and others, but Im talking about a real and viable alternative, why doesnt it exist? Is this because of traditions and people wont be swayed by the "new party on the block", so to speak, would it just not fly with the American people? Sorry if this a weak post, politics just aint my bag.
- 365steve - 04-08-2005
j-monster Wrote:Good call VLH. I'm torn on the publication ban... I can understand the need to not taint the jury pool and ensure a fair trail for Jean Brault and the others up on criminal charges, but it is disappointing that the Canadian media can't do its job and inform the Canadian people of this damning testimony. Anyway, no need to potentially hurt Lance and others over this issue.
I have been able to follow this issue and check out the US site which shall remain nameless for now, and if what is being said is true, then it is amazing how deep the corruption has rotted the Liberal party. Surely when it gets publicized (and it's only a matter of time now), it would be inconceivable that the Liberals would enjoy widespread support as they have for so long.
Newbie here.
All the Liberals need in an upcoming election are five words: External Affairs Minister Stockwell Day.
- skippy the wonder dog - 04-09-2005
Way-ell, it took about a week, but the Globe started to get the poll numbers they wanted and now they're reporting them.
Looks good for Harper. Liberal lead cut to four percentage points.
But it really is symptomatic of the Conservatives' problem that the Liberals are still in the lead at all. You would expect something like this would wipe them out.
- prz - 04-09-2005
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Way-ell, it took about a week, but the Globe started to get the poll numbers they wanted and now they're reporting them.
Looks good for Harper. Liberal lead cut to four percentage points.
But it really is symptomatic of the Conservatives' problem that the Liberals are still in the lead at all. You would expect something like this would wipe them out.
There is an interesting fact about that poll. Only 25 percent of respondents were polled after the publication ban was lifted. So really the poll doesnt properly reflect the impact of the testimony.