RCI on biases: EKOS and Candian Taxpayers Federation
Lemmie get this straight: Frank Graves of EKOS cannot call the shots like they are and interpret the facts - even if they should benefit one political party over another (statistically speaking); but the Canadian Taxpayers Federation can speak for Western and rural Canadians on behalf of the Conservative party and that's okay?Graves was right in his comments and analysis; regardless of whose feathers they ruffled. If we're going to look at where voter intentions lie and on what issues draw or repel party support then that is within the realm of legitimate things presidents of research firms should speak on. I've never heard Alan Gregg apologize for speaking hypothetically in his analysis of the numbers. And, of course, the CBC has to be brought into the debate and their "credibility" smeared by the so-called "taxpayers" federation just because they didn't report on how awful of a human being Graves and dismissing his comments outright.
Whether Graves should have used the term "culture war" or not, he has a point and that's why - in my opinion - right wingers are all in a tizzy. That being said, this culture war needs to be framed by the Liberals and cannot be too heavy on the republicanism that is rampant throughout the neo-Conservative Party of Canada. Why? Because that has been beaten to death and there are no new talking points they could use - just noise from 2004 and 2006 elections.
Moreover, who cares if Alberta doesn't like the message? They're not voting Liberal anyways.
The Conservatives want to be viewed as the pragmatists and fiscal heroes - which, for all intents and purposes, they are not. This record and false-image ought to be exposed by the LPC during a campaign; but chiefly, which is the thrust of Graves' comments. - it is presenting the electorate with a different vision of Canada is what needs to be at centre stage of the next election.
Lastly, the incompetence of Harper's ministers needs to be a pillar of a Liberal platform of good governance - Harper wants an election to revolve around HIM, it's time to shine the spotlight on the sniveling turds that occupy the other 143 seats on the governments side. These are the people doing Harper's work which is, in essence, his vision of Canada: bumbling, scandal ridden, incompetent.
The verdict: Graves had a good idea and Iggy should keep it in his back pocket and the CTF should mind their own bias and leave the statistical analysis to the statisticians and the CBC out of the debate.
Labels: Canadian Taxpayers Federation, CBC, CPC, Ekos, LPC, Michael Ignatieff, Polls, Stephen Harper
posted by Dylan at 4/24/2010
15 Comments:
Exactly, I don't think anyone could have said it better.
Not sure if you're aware, apparently Graves gave a rather half-hearted apology; I thought that was a mistake on his part, especially since he adds afterwards that he still believes he is right. WEll of course he is. He had no business even making the apology. Actually, it was the CBC that first actually slammed graves. Kory Teneckye (I may have mis spelled his name)actually slammed him; isn't he on the CBC's pay roll, just like Graves?
He (and you) are absolutely right; Albertans for the most part live in their own uber conservative world where they're never happy unless they hear of Iggy or any other liberals faltering.
Iggy really has to stop trying to win them over. It will never happen. Chretien knew this. I don't recall him putting as much effort in his campaigning in Alberta as with anywhere else in Canada.
"Of course he is [right]."
This coming out of the mouth of the lunatic who insisted that, despite the fact that Clifford Olson killed 11 people, Karla Homolka participated in the torture and murder of four, and Graham James molested an unknown number of young hockey players, conservatives are always the bad guys.
When it comes to making accsations without even the spectre of evidence, CK here is a seasoned pro.
Does Graves have a point? No. He has yet to produce any data to support his claims, and Canadians have no reason to believe that he didn't carefully tailor the results to his extreme and dangerous ideological ends.
Which brings me around to the reason why, frankly, I'm disappointed in you, Dylan:
If anyone was going to understand the danger of deliberately provoking a culture war in Canada, I expected that it would be you.
CK - Thanks for the kind words.
Ross - This is about election strategy and what would win. Harper brought US-style politicking to Canada and I'll be damned if I take heat for advocating conservative strategies that could knock off this embarrassing government.
As for disappointment, that makes two of us: If you're going to smear another blogger, Ross, do it on your own site and leave me out of it.
I think the point is Dylan, that Canadians would like to see POLICY drive a party platform, NOT a culture war. Quite frankly, the Conservatives have been looking not too bad, mostly due to the fact that we have had an ineffective oppositon for 4 years.
To suggest that Graves is on to something by creating division among Canadians--like that would be "good" for the country is ludicrous and dangerous --and I for one, don't like being "played", which is what Graves is suggesting the Liberals do. It is this kind of thinking that will keep the Liberals out of power for many years.
Jan: ineffective opposition?
Over the years, whenever they tried to do anything oppositional, they're lambasted in the media and by the general population, particularly HarperCon supporters. After they cringe, they get ridiculed...they can't win, can they?
Another question, if they're that ineffective, why does the media,conservative pundits and bloggers, etc., all go nuts, everytime Iggy (or pundits and bloggers for that matter) says, does and/or proposes something, in a feverish effort to discredit them and such?
Policies? It's a little hard to do when Harpercons are constantly on the attack of the opposition (again, they sure they're that ineffective?).
No, while the Liberals under Iggy more than likely will, at best, yield a minority, it's appears to be enough to make conservative pundits, bloggers and voters insane.
Jan, you also say that culture wars won't work. Well, I beg to differ, The Game of Divide and Conquering Parliament and ROC is one of Harper's favorite games and he has been playing it all too well. It's also largely in part how he remains in office.
The fact that the NDP and the Liberals remain sniping at each other too often to form a coalition now is largely in part thanks to Harper's game of divide & conquer.
And the Liberals are starting to come up with some ideas and Iggy is starting to show some leadership. Just because many don't like these ideas and such, doesn't mean he hasn't come up with anything.
The right-wing does not do culture wars. It does show images of black prisoners going through a revolving gate. Remember Willie Horton.
The idea of doing a culture war effectively is not to tell anyone that you are doing a culture war. Stephen Harper may not like Toronto. His party may not like Muslims or Zoë vegetarians. However, one must never say that one does not like other groups.
All parties do culture wars. The NDP wants to tax the rich. The Liberals go after regionalists. The Greens target the rural oil/tar sands, and want more national parks in rural areas knowing full-well that their party doesn't have the resources to run rural or suburban campaigns except where their leader runs.
The reality for each party is that there are different marginal costs in trying to achieve extra votes in different parts of the country. I think the message Mr. Graves was trying to give to Michael Ignatieff is to go after votes in parts of the country where the Liberals have a chance in winning. It's futile to spend resources on parts of the country where voters are less likely to switch from the Conservatives to the Liberals, and where Liberal votes are so few in each riding anyway. Graves suggested that the Liberals can campaign against the blue Conservative culture of Alberta knowing that these people aren't going to support the Liberals anyway.
Again, the trick is not to let anyone know that you are having a culture war.
"This is about election strategy and what would win. Harper brought US-style politicking to Canada and I'll be damned if I take heat for advocating conservative strategies that could knock off this embarrassing government."
First off, Dylan, thou protests far too much.
For one thing, it wasn't Stephen Harper who brought US-style politicking to Canada.
Rather, it was the Liberal Party.
There isn't a single thing that the Harper Conservatives have been accused of doing that the Liberal Party hasn't done first, and done exclusively.
Things like, for example, fear mongering -- something that has been central to the Liberal Party's culture war tactics.
As for conservative tactics, since when is provoking a culture war "conservative", Dylan? How precisely is turning citizens against one another and ceding alienation "conservative"?
Do you even know? Can you even explain that?
It seems that you're letting your disdain for Stephen Harper get the best of you. Not only are you cavorting with certifiable lunatics (and it isn't smearing anyone to point out the lunacy of their own words), but you're also twisting conservatism to some extremely dangerous and anti-conservative ends.
Ah ha! Skinny Dipper realizes the goal that I'm talking about.
What kind of moron actually believes that Ignatieff should actually stand up and campaign that Harper hates homosexuals and loathes immigrants. Moreover, if that's what you read when your eyes glazed over Graves' comments, you ought to be committed.
The next campaign is about choosing between VISIONS of Canada.
Let's be clear: Harper's base and chief ideological supporters (McVety et al) already are claiming VICTORY in a culture war between a conservative Canada and a progressive (you can read "liberal" here if you want, not to be confused with Liberal) Canada.
Here's just the latest example: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/surprise+victory+Christian+Right/2946676/story.html
By "culture war" Graves, and I, propose that Ignatieff frame the election as one between two competing visions of Canada. After all, Harper is all about framing elections on an Us vs. Them basis.
2004 & 2006: Moral Authority (Conservatives) vs. Corruption (Liberals)
2008: Leadership (Harper) vs. Not A Leader (Dion)
2010/2011/2012: The "New" Conservative government vs. A NEW Progressive governance.
By highlighting the misfortunes of the Harper government, his inability to show leadership in the House and on the international stage; the mismanagement of the economy; deception and deceit in Afghanistan; loss of democratic trust; and inability of his MPs to lead in Cabinet -- the Ignatieff Liberals are proposing an alternative which doesn't as much of them by way of policy (it asks some and they'll have to be good ideas) but it asks Canadians whether they want to keep going in Harper's "direction" or to take a new progressive "direction."
This language of direction ought to be central to the next election. After all, the Conservative's "on the right track" ten-percenters ask this same question. It also builds on popular polling which has shown a growing trend in Canadians who believe that this country is going in the wrong direction. Moreover, on social issues - such as the death penalty and marijuana; Canadians are increasingly more progressive. It is in this light that the Liberals ought to frame the next election.
As for you Pat, the whole "the Liberals did it first" routine is getting old for a government that was elected on a platform of "moral authority." It really doesn't hold a whole lot of water.
How are "culture wars" a conservative tactic, well, isn't it obvious? You don't have to put quotes around the words culture and wars to take a look at the tactics of divide and conquer that have gone on in the United States since September 11th and that parliamentary antics of the Harper government to see what's going on. Consider that an "explanation."
Oh, and speaking of lunatics; its good to see you're still online.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm not going to let you comment like that Ross. How about growing up yourself.
Actually, I'll allow it.
This is what Ross said last:
***
Dylan, you evidently missed the point.
The Liberals didn't just do it first. They did it exclusively.
After all, when did Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party ever engage in fear mongering like this? Or this? Or this?
That is the language of a culture war. That is divide and conquer politics -- propping up a fictional concept of a political opponent, then pointing a panicky finger at their supporters when they vote for something else entirely.
If you had any sense of what you're really speaking in favour of, Dylan, you would be absolutely ashamed of yourself.
I'm pretty confident that one day you'll grow up enough to figure it out, and then you will be ashamed, and you'll deserve your shame.
It's exchanges like this that make me thankful that the "Progressive" Canadian Party is a parochial dead end.
And speaking of lunatics, Dylan: it's good to see you've found it in yourself to cozy up to someone who actually believes that Stephen Harper is worse than Karla Homolka, Clifford Olson or Graham James.
Your regressive side is showing
***
Alright. Here we go.
On fear mongering; the Harper government uses economic fear as their main tool. This ties in nicely with leadership. What would happen if Dion ran the country? Moreover, what would happen if the Socialists and Separatists were allowed to have an input into the affairs of the government.
And speaking of "fictional concepts of political opponents" what about the "coup de etat" language of the December 08 coalition agreement? Active lies and misinformation regarding our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. Outright vilification of political opponents.
Moreover, the 10-percenters have vilified other MPs as being in cahoots with rapists, murderers, and drug dealers; all the while positioning the CPC as being the right-hand of the local police forces... unless we're talking about the long gun registry.
Shout-downs in the house of commons have never been worse since the CPC government came into power - a tactic noticed by nearly EVERY MSM outlet and reporter - regardless of political stripe.
I didn't miss the point, Ross. We're looking at the situation from different angles. Which is totally fine for me.
If you read my last comment in its entirety, which I'm not sure you did - I'm talking about an election over the values which should govern the country for the next government to force the Conservative hand on issues that matter to Canadians. Hell, maybe that way they will produce a platform with more than a week left to go in the campaign.
The economic "reliability" of "conservative" governments is dead - and that, if you read my POST, would understand as also a key pillar of an election strategy - and now its time to ask the question of Canadians: what social, moral, cultural direction do you want the country to go in?
And if we're going to talk about election Ads, don't forget the vilification of Dion as a spineless nerd who is incapable of making decisions or priorities - an ad that twisted and contorted the context of his comments to serve the Conservative campaign machine.
Nor should we forget the Ignatieff ads which label him as a "cosmopolitan"... wait a minute... what other characterization could that be if not one of cultural distinction? The first PUNCH may not have been thrown by CPC, but it's certainly not shy to swing away whenever it can. This is something that you are either ignorant of, wish to conveniently ignore, or sweep under the carpet with a "they started it" defense.
Lastly, if you kept up with this blog instead of dropping by whenever you can take a swing at me or fellow bloggers - you'd know that I'm no longer affiliated with the PC Party for a number of reasons. One of which you so eloquently pointed out.
If you want to talk about regression... you've got a picture of Stone Cold Steve Austin on your blog...
Congratulations, Dylan. As it regards "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, you've proven yourself unable to perceive a joke.
As it pertains to Stephane Dion, it's hard to trust the economy to someone who won't answer questions about his plan, particularly at a time of looming recession.
And by the way, Dylan, a lot of experts would disagree with you over Harper's management of the economy. It's hard to get a standing ovation at the World Economic Forum. Stephen Harper accomplished that feat.
It's remarkable to see you agree with the Fraser Institute, of all people.
That being said, Dylan, there was plenty of compelling reason to question Dion's economic chops. Not many compelling reasons to believe that the Conservative Party is a haven for racists or homophobes.
Coup d'etat wasn't at all an inappropriate way to describe the coalition agreement, if you accept hyperbole as a forgivable offense.
That being said, it's remarkable to see the Liberal party squealing that Harper would do a deal with the separatists, just to have Dion and the Liberals doing precisely that six years later.
It was actually Liberal Party mail-outs in BC that accused fellow candidates of being in cahoots with murderers and human traffickers. I've never seen any Conservative 10% mailings that come anywhere near that territory.
And I think you're right that shout-downs in the HoC have never been worse. You're just ignoring who's actually doing the shouting.
The unfortunate thing for you, Dylan, is that the values you identified in that particular comment is not nearly the same as those proposed by the individuals you're defending.
You can't suggest that a culture war is politically legitimate then move the goalposts.
Dion was spineless, and Dion proved himself incapable of making decisions or setting priorities.
Only a simpering fool would complain that pointing this fact -- indisputable fact -- out to Canadians isn't politically legitimate.
But at the end of the Day, Dylan, what matters most is this: that you've admitted that the Liberal Party threw the first punch is actually progress for you.
What you decline to admit is that the Conservatives haven't fought back by the same means. Rather, they hit the Liberals where it hurts: by focusing on politically legitimate issues such as Liberal Party corruption, incompetence, and catastrophic lack of leadership.
Your own say-so isn't nearly enough to back your assertions. Evidence, Dylan. It isn't just for actual conservatives.
"Your own say-so isn't nearly enough to back your assertions. Evidence, Dylan. It isn't just for actual conservatives."
Your arguments/"facts" are no more or less anecdotal and politically charged as mine. And with that, this debate is over.
See ya 'round the boards, Pat.
<< Home