The Twilight Zone

11.29.05

Now, don’t get me wrong, I like Damian Penny’s blog an awful lot. I even agree with most of the things he writes. But some of his readers and commentators… well, that’s another story altogether. Case in point: the delusion-fest going on right now about how Harper and the Conservatives are going to win the election by focusing endlessly on the same two issues they’ve spent the last couple of years talking about.

The post starts by linking to a very sensible column in the Ottawa Citizen about what Harper needs to do if he wants to improve his chances in this election:

For the past couple of years, the party has focused on highlighting Liberal corruption and opposing same-sex marriage. This strategy has created three problems, all of which remain unresolved and continue to plague Mr. Harper.

One, Canadians know little about what he actually stands for: they only know what he is against. Two, the Liberals and the media defined the Tory leader before he could do so himself, which explains his personal unpopularity and the Tories’ inability to break 30 per cent in polls. And three, the party has not been able to attract new support because it has failed to reach out to new constituencies. Most people who oppose same-sex marriage are already voting Tory. The party has to move beyond that base.

Then, on the news that Harper is doing precisely the opposite, we get comments like these:

It’s an appeal to the social conservative vote, all right, but that’s not just the stereotypical Christian right. It’s also a way to appeal to new immigrants and the various ethnic communities, who need assurance that the Tories won’t ram a secular social change down their throats.

Actually, the idea that the Tories would pick up votes from immigrant communities by bashing gay marriage proved to be a massive failure in the last election. Why Harper keeps harping on it (no pun intended) is a mystery probably best explained by lack of any other coherent policies.

Then there’s this gem:

This IS a brilliant idea! Here’s how it works:

By bringing up SSM and causing the Liberals to use their ‘boogeyman’ tactics, Stephen Harper has deprived the Liberals of their most powerful weapon.

In this phase of the campaign, the parties should be keeping their most powerful arguments for the final stage. By forcing the Liberals to respond now, their most dangerous argument is going to be exhausted before the end of the campaign, and the Liberal message will appear repetitive.

This is a risk, and will cause a bump in the polls for the Liberals, but it is a brilliant strategy which will ultimately help make a Conservative win happen.

Never doubt Stephen Harper’s intelligence.

Oh, that’s a great strategy there. Lead off the election campaign by talking constantly about the thing you want voters to forget??? Sounds like the other person whose intelligence I need to doubt is the author of this comment.

The Conservatives don’t have a chance in hell. But the delusion-fest continues. Read if you dare.

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

1 DaninVan 11.30.05 at 3:51 AM

Sadly, I agree with you. Amalgamating with the Reform types was a seriously bad idea. They’re hung up on dogma rather than competant conservatism.
We’ll ALL pay (or rather, continue to pay).

Reply

2 Damian P. 12.01.05 at 8:09 PM

You call my readers “deluded”, but don’t feature a single quote from “Albertanator”?

Reply

3 DaninVan 12.02.05 at 3:31 AM

Heheh…or Dara. 😉

Reply

4 segacs 12.03.05 at 11:07 PM

Oh, it’s just a matter of time. They’ll make it to the hall of fame yet, Damian. Especially “Albertanator”, who is a constant source of amusement.

Though John P., you’re sure giving him a run for his money these days with some of your comments over here. I especially love the one about how all social change since the 60s has been bad (cause, like, civil rights and women’s sexual independence are so, like, pointless) and how gay marriage will lead to polygamy (cause clearly, a gay guy wants nothing more than to marry two women at once).

Reply

5 DaninVan 12.04.05 at 8:54 PM

Why do you doubt the polygamy issue? It’s already a fact of life in B.C.
Excerpted from http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly1.htmInitial bigamy allegations:

In 1990, some women who had fled Bountiful demanded an investigation into why the police were ignoring the multiple marriages in the town. Two years later, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) conducted an investigation in Bountiful and recommended that charges of polygamy be laid against two men. The Attorney General of the province of British Columbia decided to not proceed. The office obtained two independent legal opinions. Both agreed that the courts would probably find the federal anti-bigamy law to be unconstitutional. It conflicts with the Mormons’ religious freedom as guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the country’s constitution. If brought to court, the Province would probably lose the case.

If the definition of ‘marriage’ is opened up, then it’s all over except for the renovations to the ‘Bridle’ Suites (sp. intended 😉

Reply

6 John Palubiski 12.05.05 at 6:32 PM

Just dissenting from all the recieved wisdom concerning gay marriage doesn’t make anyone a retrograde bible thumper.

I still consider myself a “progressive” in many, many ways

This whole issue is being promoted by a small group of somewhat bitter and resentful gay activists. To boot, gay marriage isn’t about either gays or marriage; it’s an attack, an assault on a traditional western institution by those who still feel their orientation makes them somehow inferior to heteros.

And DinV is correct when he cites the example of “Boutiful”. Even in the UK’s Guardian, lately, we’ve begun to see puff pieces by some very clueless journalists extolling the virtues of polygamy.

By “social engineering” I don’t mean civil rights and women’s rights. According the same basic rights to everyone as pertains to jobs, education, housing, etc is true progress and not just some silly and air-headed attempt at “inclusion” or “tolerance” or “diversity”, as was the case with Ontario’s sharia tribunals, irrespective of common community standards.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: