Something I wrote regarding all this talk of "Liberal corruption"...

[Harper_is_Bush]

The opposition parties never use the word “liberal” anymore without prefixing it with the word “corruption”, and the media let’s them get away with it.
Would not the obvious and objective question from the media be:
“Ok, what corruption are you talking about in relation to your Liberal opponents, specifically?”
“Oh well, the sponsorship scandal of course!” would be the first answer, and certainly that’s the thing constantly referred to in the same breath as the “Liberal corruption” accusation.
So then the NEXT obvious question for an objective media to ask would be:
“Which Liberal or Liberals who are running in this election have been implicated in the sponsorship scandal?”
I’ve read some of The Gomery inquiry. Not only does it proclaim Paul Martin not “responsible” for the scandal but even states he wasn’t “careless” in regards to it.
So, it may be politically smart for some to repeat 1000 times that the sponsorship scandal proves these Liberals are corrupt, but is ANYONE at any point going to tell us which facts implicate which Liberal or Liberals currently running? Who is corrupt and why can they be called corrupt?

NOW we have this income trust thing, which again has all the opposition howling about Liberal corruption and the media pundits nodding and scratching their heads.
On the CBC website some facts are presented that make it completely believable that the spike in buying was market speculation.
The day before the income trust announcement Goodale told reporters that he wanted to give the trusts issue "the greatest degree of certainty that's possible" before the election.
The morning of the announcement the Bloomberg wire service had a story speculating that Goodale could give an announcement on trusts that week.
It’s not rocket science to figure out that he was likely going to announce no new taxes for income trusts. That was the politically popular thing to do, so given the upcoming election it was the expected move.
The CBC website cites two experts, a “market veteran” and the chief economist for the TD bank saying the same thing.
So tell me, when people talk of this as being another example of “Liberal corruption”, why doesn’t the media say “Hold up there, this is only an allegation at the moment and there is evidence that it could have been market speculation based upon real factors in play.” I don’t know if it’s laziness or if the media just likes to hear people use the word “corruption” so they get out of the way.

I don’t mind talking about the issues. Let’s fairly compare all the party platforms…put them all on the table and let people decide based upon their own ideologies and values. What burns me is when the rhetoric gets out of control, and the media doesn’t take any responsibility to temper it with the facts.

[Spazito]

1. I totally agree re the market and the income trusts announcement

Anyone worth their salt involved in investments would have known what the announcement was going to be, given the upcoming election, and would only wait for to know when the announcement was going to be made before acting. The media, imo, is happy hyping this because they want a 'hot' election as it is good for ratings whereas, in reality, this campaign is a snorer, very, very boring.

[ClusterFreak]

2. If I may indulge in some hyperbole here.....

...you are one billion percent correct!!!!:applause:

I could not have said it any better regarding the media's role in all this, and I'll add this. The clock is ticking, the polls are slipping, and it's time for the Liberals to start talking directly to the Canadian people. The media wants a new story to cover (i.e. a new government) for the next few years anyway, they're not going to help. The Canadians who aren't particularly political when there's no election campaign on, are the ones who need to be disabused of this b.s. notion of "Liberal corruption". I believe they are the voters who've swung to the Conservatives and NDP this time around. If the Liberals - if Martin - would only address this "corruption" crap head on, instead of bobbing and weaving like a prizefighter, they could own the term rather than let Harper and Layton define it.

[iverglas]

3. I'd managed to miss this one

all emphases below mine.

Would not the obvious and objective question from the media be:
“Ok, what corruption are you talking about in relation to your Liberal opponents, specifically?”

Well lookee there.

"YOUR LIBERAL OPPONENTS". Date: January 8.

Now, let's look at the famous question to Jack Layton from the wide-eyed innocent in the audience on Your Turn:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=190&topic_id=10597&mesg_id=10597

Harper_is_Bush
Thu Jan-19-06 07:04 PM

Layton's lying exposed in CBC "your turn"!!

... Given these facts, how do you justify the constant repetition of the word "corruption" in reference to your Liberal opponents, and do you feel that false accusations like that harm our democratic process?

Huh.

"YOUR LIBERAL OPPONENTS". Date: January 17.

Great minds, eh? What an interesting turn of phrase they did come up with all independent-like.

Damn, I guess I was right.

iverglas
Fri Jan-20-06 02:37 PM

11. sez you

... But if you are going to tell me that "his Liberal opponents" means PAUL MARTIN or any other particular individual you might want somebody to think it means, then I'm going to ask you why you (and the plant in the CBC audience, and anybody else who might be saying or wanting to say it) doesn't just SAY "PAUL MARTIN".

THE PLANT. The Liberal Party shill.

The talking points do seem to have been taken to heart by the shills, but they just couldn't get traction, could they?

Some people do just keep tryin and tryin, though.

[iverglas]

4. well, either that ...

... i.e. The talking points do seem to have been taken to heart by the shills ...

or you've just outed yourself.

[Monkeybumper]

5. Angry and yelling

Is it just me or is the PM yelling and angry at all his stops for the last week . My daughter pointed this out and I would have to agree .

[IntravenousDemilo]

7. Talkin' to yourself, Iverglas? n/m

[iverglas]

8. on a public discussion board?

Sure hope I wasn't hoping that nobody would notice, eh?

Talking to Harper_is_Bush ... or was that Sean Ledwich ...
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/17/layton060117.html
... or whatever other Liberal shill might want to answer, I guess.

[iverglas]

6. don't want to let it sink

Wouldn't want any Liberal shills in the area to miss it.