The "What Do I Know Grit"
Besides the comments on "Obama-like" behavior, I think the rest of the story is just plain silly. To think that conservatives want to be "nice", now that they know that there will be a Democrat-dominated Senate, House, and Executive Branch... Hmmm... Wonder why they want to be nice NOW? Probably because they know they can't win an argument anymore. Conservative media types are terrified of losing their jobs. They are sensing that the change in mood in the country is leading networks to play to the "new majority". While some of the hard-core Foxhounds will keep their posts, networks like NBC, CBS, and ABC, will most likely bring in more Democrats for commentary. It goes without saying... When the "inside the Beltway" crowd is Republican, you want current and former Republican officials as your "inside persons" and commentors (as they know the party best). Now with Dems in power, you can bet the networks are trying to find experienced Democrats (Like Stephanopolous, etc.) and key Democratic Party workers to be talking heads on their talk-shows...Corporate culture has (in recent times) always focused on being "positive" and "nice". You win more customers with honey than vinegar, etc., etc. When Clinton came to power (Camelot II), there was a "love-in". When he was being attacked by Limbaugh and others during his second term (and the election preceding it), it was pretty nasty). When the Republican's first came to power everyone was "nice" too. Everyone was on the "same side" - especially after 9/11. Only recently - with anger towards Bush mounting and the truth about the wars coming out - did the shift in rhetoric become apparent. People actually decided to debate, rather than "all be on the same side".I really don't care for people saying that things have to be "nice". That's just another way of saying, we'll all just shut down the debate and discourse. I prefer a continued debate. This manufactured niceness was really apparent in recent elections (especially our last one), where any time someone contradicted another and there was a heated discussion, it was called "angry" and "partisan". Sure, some people got into the gutter. Still, there need to be debates, and we MUST discuss opposing opinions. Do it diplomatically, but don't say you agree, for the heck of it. Disagree if your principles don't allow you to agree...Peace!
And another thing... When is an "attack ad" not an "attack ad"? When it is telling the truth, and giving honest commentary on two disparate views of the world...If we left politics to the corporate clowns, we'd have a bunch of ads next election saying, "Vote for the other guy, because they're so nice..."What a joke!
Iggy isn't Obama...he's Count Chocula.What a stiff.You Libs are in big trouble. Especially if the PM turns off the taxpayer tap. Best get out your chequebooks!Oh happy days!
Iggy is Obama? Yeah right? Did Iggy not support Iraq war? He is more hawkish than Rumsfeld.
You lost me on this one, Jim.The article is about how Harper is the Canadian Obama and Ignatieff is not but probably needs to be, even though, as the article highlights, Iggy identified how he is DIFFERENT from Obama.I do agree with the point Iggy makes in the article though: we should be fighting Harper more than each other. Candidates should demonstrate and win over Liberals by showing how they are the most effective weapon against Deceivin' Stephen and Deficit Jim, their fiscal mismanagement, their lack of an economic plan and their flip-flops and accountability problems.
Iggy also supports coercive interrogation which John McCain even doesn't.
Still intent on being divisive and not being productive, eh sk?Give it a rest. Everyone, other than the anti-Iggy crowd, knows that is just plain not true.
Because you say so Ted, doesn't neccessarily MAKE IT SO.
Say what? Now you too are claiming Michael supports torture, Jim???? You've come a long way baby.
Post a Comment