Haven't had much time this last week, but looks like a federal election's going to happen, which will be interesting. Hopefully, there'll be time for some in-depth posts on some of the issues, but not much time tonight either.
I just read Frances Russell in the paper today and had to comment. Seems the conservatives are evil for their "personal attacks" on Ignatieff. By personal attacks, she means the conservatives questioning that Ignatieff's rich, aristocratic grandparent's is the same normal immigrant experience as your grandfather coming off the boat with nothing, which is not untrue.
But, what I found amusing, is that a large portion of the last decade or so of Frances Russell's career has been devoted to negative and/or personal attacks on Harper and the Conservatives. Many of her articles have been little more than a continuous re-iteration that Harper is a controlling, domineering, social conservative with a hidden agenda who's bent on destroying democracy and turning Canada into the US. The blatant hypocrisy is amazing.
For example, just a few weeks ago, she said Harper was contemptuous of Canada and that he wanted to turn Canadian politics into American politics. This is almost exactly what she's condemning the Conservatives for doing to Ignatieff in today's article.
Unlike many commentators, I don't think negative ads and negative politics are that big a problem, as long as they are more or less truthful. I care about who is leading me and would rather all their dirty laundry be aired, so we can see what kind of person they are. It also makes campaigns more exciting. Although, I would prefer more actual policy discussion, as opposed to soundbites and partisan wankery.
Also, contrary to her and Ignatieff's claims these kinds of attack ads are hardly unprecedented. For a Liberal example, the soldiers with guns in our cities ads of 2006. More attacks like this could be gained from ads by all parties. There's nothing unprecedented about this.
No comments:
Post a Comment