Three election ads ... three different MPPs ... not one mention of their party. If you didn't already know, you might not know these MPPs are Liberals (okay, the red is a clue, but I've never seen election advertising without a party logo etc.)
Hmmm . . . scared of their own brand maybe? If the provincial Liberals were at all certain of their own record, the national party's crash in May wouldn't affect their advertising (that is if the national disaster is their reasoning for the conspicuous absence of the Liberal name and logo).
Also of note, all of the supporting data for the *good news* they're touting, is from the Ministries involved in providing those services. No independent sources available?
Not to mention Andy's mom is selling him short --- if he's only one in a million to her, there's gotta be 11 just like him in Ontario alone. Just sayin'.
The ads are kinda cute, kinda clever, but absent the party name, they're telling us more than what they intended.
canadianna
btw -- Sorry for the poor quality of the first photo -- my passenger took it with my cell phone. I haven't the name of that MP, it isn't clear enough and I can't be bothered looking it up, but it was taken at McCowan and Sandhurst Circle in Scarborough.
You no longer need Quebec for a majority.Makes you wonder, now that Quebec has chosen the federalist, socialist option, instead of the separatist one, do the rest of us still wag?Don't get me wrong. I believe Quebec is a distinct society -- that's one of those truths that is self-evident. Its present colour compared to the rest of the nation is enough to prove its more European flavour. That said, I don't believe its language laws should be extended federally -- nor do I believe its distinct language should be imposed on people who chose a life in public service. I believe that's what interpreters are for.Anyway . . . my point started out being . . . hey, you don't need Quebec to achieve a majority anymore. Cool.canadianna
. . . whilst I make my graceful exit.No sour grapes for our humble prophet Michael Ignatieff. Naw, he's a loser, but not a sore loser:“This is a Prime Minister found in contempt of Parliament. This was a Prime Minister where the accumulations of what we believed to be abuses of power led to a point at which it seemed to me absolutely my responsibility as the leader of the opposition to stand up for the sovereignty of Parliament,” he said (when asked if he miscalculated by forcing an election.)
Ignatieff went on to say that the *just visiting* ads were:“absolutely unscrupulous campaign of personal attack.” and “I had a very large square put around my neck for a number of years.”
Sniffle.
But, not one to make a fuss, Michael said:"The only thing Canadians like less than a loser is a sore loser” and he is “leaving politics with “(his) head held high.”
No, Mike what we like less than a sore loser, is a sore loser who takes his parting shots but pretends his still travelling the high road. Today, and throughout the campaign, you accused Harper of contempt for Canadians, abuse of power, corruption, lies, secrets plans to . . . (fill in the blank with any number of scary scenarios) But you have my sympathy because you've endured being called a political tourist. That must've been painful. Why do you suppose that is. My guess? Truth hurts.
Michael, I think you stubbed your toe on the way out.
canadianna
This time, from the Toronto Star.When The Star turns orange, there could be no better sign that the Conservatives are the best party to govern. The formerly scarlet paper has twisted crowbars into pretzels to sell the idea that smiling Jack deserves your vote.This is not a shock, but the truth is, I'm kinda disappointed. I thought that despite the crash and burn of the Liberal party, its very own little rag would be able to find a way to stay red. I figured maybe they'd pull the Time Man of the Year cop out ... you remember the year when the winner was *you* ... I thought the Star'd set out a little blurb about the evils of each party, focussing tightly on Harper whilst treading ever so lightly on Ignatieff and then say something like . . . so hold your nose and vote . . . but only you can decide which party's policies/behaviour horrify you least.But no. They took the high road. At least, I figure they must be high . . . how else can they justify this radical piece of advice that would lurch the nation so far to the left it would become a socialist wasteland.
Okay. That's hyperbole, but come on, if The Star can keep a straight face and endorse Layton, don't expect me to keep a straight face. What a joke The Star is. And what a HUGE waste of paper. Literally. canadianna
Three election ads ... three different MPPs ... not one mention of their party. If you didn't already know, you might not know these MPPs are Liberals (okay, the red is a clue, but I've never seen election advertising without a party logo etc.)
