Joyce Arthur's Peculiar View on Human Rights

Commenting on a column by Kelly McParland on National Post Full Comment on Michael Ignatieff's "failed attempt to ambush the Conservatives on abortion", Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has some advice for the Liberal leader in regards to party nominating policy:

Rarely has Arthur ever been so utterly candid on how she imagines opposing views are to be handled.

Unsatisfied with the notion that the Liberal Party would be accepting of views that differ from hers on the matter of abortion, Arthur argues that they should simply be barred from running for office under the party banner.

But as is so often the case with Arthur, her self-serving rhetoric hits key logical snags that just underscores the extent to which her pro-abortion ideology has overwhelmed any rational thinking on her point.

For one thing, she falsely equivocates anti-abortion thinking with racism. Contrary to whatever Arthur may think about the issue, abortion remains a live controversy in the minds of Canadians. Public opinion polls have repeatedly demonstrated that Canadians remain largely divided on the topic of abortion.

Meanwhile, Canadians are not divided on the issue of racism: Canadians overwhelmingly reject it.

Whether Arthur likes it or not, any topic regarding a live controversy is a legitimate matter of conscience -- a freedom that is guaranteed to Canadians by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Interestingly, no mention of abortion rights is mentioned in either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet, in the mind of Arthur, abortion has somehow become a human right while freedom of conscience has not.

Arthur is also an outspoken opponent of the right to freedom of expression, having participated in pushes to run anti-abortion groups off of university campuses. She's a fervent advocate of special institutional privileges for pro-abortion groups.

Last but not least, Arthur does't seem to respect the democratic will of the Canadians who elect the 30 anti-abortion MPs of which she speaks. It's hardly a secret that these Liberal MPs oppose abortion, and their constituents know this.

In other words, the constituents of these MPs knowingly elect anti-abortion MPs. While Arthur may regard this act with hostility, others will remember that it's the right of these Canadians to hold their own opinions on abortion, and elect representatives who reflect that view. While abortion is not necessary a defining voting issue for all of these constituents, those for whom it is will simply vote for other candidates.

What will Joyce Arthur imagine the Liberal Party should do then? Surely the party cannot whip 30 MPs that it would not have.

Moreover, the power of the Liberal leader to apply the party whip to nearly half of his caucus should be considered to be less than decisive.

Of course all of these points would be considered the domain of what most Canadians would consider facts and logic. Yet, when dealing with Joyce Arthur and her cohorts in the pro-abortion movement, it becomes perfectly evident that they are continually entitled to their own facts, their own logic, and, moreover, their own sense of human rights -- one not supported by the Charter or by the Universal Declaration.

Michael Ignatieff's Quebec Problem

Denis Coderre firing up to take a shot at Liberal leadership?

For the past 20 years, the Liberal party's Quebec problem has tended to be external -- notably, the Bloc Quebecois.

But now it seems that the Liberal party may be sharing a general malaise with the Conservative party in Quebec -- internal organization problems.

The big story in Quebec right now is the brewing battle over which Liberal will run against NDP MP Thomas Mulcair in Outremont (Pierre Trudeau's old riding). A fierce conflict has emerged between Martin Cauchon, a Chretien-era Cabinet Minister and Denis Coderre, Ignatieff's appointed Quebec lieutenant.

Michael Ignatieff had previously announced that he would appoint the party's candidate for that riding, and that he would appoint a woman.

"Martin Cauchon was an excellent minister, an excellent MP, and a good Liberal. I spoke to him last night, and yes, I have made my decision," Ignateiff announced this week. "I told him that we have been soliciting female candidates and we not only intend to have women candidates, we want them where they can win."

Ignatieff has now apparently relented, allowing Cauchon to seek the party's Outremont nomination.

Despite his pledge to appoint a female candidate in Outremont, Ignatieff has caved to pressure applied, in part, by Bob Rae.

“Martin Cauchon was an outstanding minister of justice and has been a fighter for liberal values all his political life,” Rae publicly insisted. "If he wants to return to active political life, room must be found for him and his important beliefs and values."

Many -- including the National Post's Kelly McParland -- have suggested that the Cauchon decision was never really made by Ignatieff, but rather by Denis Coderre, who is looking ahead to the next Liberal leadership campaign and looking to flex some muscles now so he can improve his chances to be the next Grit leader.

Le Devoir reported that the original Cauchon decision came as everal Quebec MPs were pressured to leave politics.

Among them were Bernard Patry, Raymonde Folco, Lise Zarac and former Liberal leader Stephane Dion.

Dion, for his own part, has already announced his intention to run again in the next election.

For Coderre, nothing would say "I dominate this party" more than forcing a former party leader out of a party stronghold.

Perhaps the prospects of Coderre quietly organizing a leadership campaign behind his back is what really pushed Ignatieff to chance the Cauchon decision. (Some may recall that, in turn, Ignatieff himself was accused of planning a leadership campaign behind Dion's back.)

As McParland notes, Coderre may be looking toward the party's notion of "alternation", and thinking that it's simply his turn, as a Quebec Liberal, to take over the party should Ignatieff's leadership fail.

That could be a real problem for Ignatieff -- particularly if Coderre thinks whatever opportunity he may have to be Liberal leader is worth helping to engineer an electoral defeat.

The notion itself seems absuard -- as it should -- but far stranger things have been done by self-interested politicians.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Matt Guerin - "Iggy Should Let Democracy Do Its Thing in Outremont!"

Tattered Sleeve - "Outremont est Ouverte: Iggy, Coderre concede to Cauchon"

Peter L Whittle - "The Democratic Deficit in the Liberal Party"

Tories Get Ignatieff's Man

Chris Alexander spurns Liberals to join Conservatives

Michael Ignatieff wanted him. Michael Ignatieff didn't get him.

In what comes as close to a blockbuster announcement in Canadian politics as any, Chris Alexander, Canada's former Ambassador to Afghanistan, has rejected an offer to run for the Liberal party in favour of joining the Conservative party and contesting the Tory nomination in Ajax-Pickering.

Should he successfully secure that riding's nomination he will face off against Liberal MP Mark Holland -- an individual who, for a time, seemed to aspire to claim the long-dormant mantle of Jack Pickersgill.

When Holland fought the 2008 federal election against Conservative candidate Rick Johnson in that riding, he won with 44.3% of the votes in that riding. Johnson claimed 37.8%.

In other words, that riding is within striking distance for the Conservative party -- particularly for a dynamic young man who, at age 34, was named Canada's Ambassador to Afghanistan (by a Liberal government nonetheless, which must be adding some sting to Alexander's rebuff) where he reputedly decided Canadian policy while touring in an open Jeep.

If that sounds disimilar from Stephen Harper bunkering down in the Afghan hills with Canadian special forces during his visit to Afghanistan, it shouldn't.

Considering that policy on Afghanistan seemed to be the sticking point between Alexander and Ignatieff -- Ignatieff is said to have concluded his meeting with Alexander by declaring that the Liberal party would end Canada's combat mission in 2011 -- one may think that Alexander's decision is a little odd, considering that the Conservatives are also committed to ending Canada's combat mission in that year.

But Kelly McParland may have the missing link, so to speak. He notes a recent policy speech given by Ignatieff.

"Our Canada will play a role in Afghanistan after 2011," Ignatieff told the Canadian Club. "A different role focusing on a humanitarian commitment to help rebuild the country and strengthen hard-won gains."

McParland notes that perhaps Ignatieff's seeming insistence that Canadian humanitarian workers would remain in Afghanistan without Canadian military protection worried Alexander -- as well it should.

Then again, Peter MacKay has also made some comments that suggest Canada may remain active in Afghanistan after 2011. Like Michael Ignatieff, he isn't tipping his hand any more than he seems to think he needs to.

Which leads one to wonder if Alexander knows something about the Conservative party's plans for Afghanistan than the Canadian public does.

Either way, Alexander's decision is great news for the Conservative party. Foreign policy is sorely lacking in the Conservative party, and with Dr Eric Hoskins settling into a new role in Ontario's Queen's Park, the foreign policy-star candidate field in the next election has just made some room for him.

Then again, as Sue-Ann Levy's experience shows, being a star candidate isn't necessarily enough in urban Ontario.

In the meantime, Michael Ignatieff will have to contend with an influential new rival in regards to foreign policy and, in particular, Afghanistan.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

The Liberal Scarf - "Tory Secret Agenda on Afghanistan?"

Yaya Canada - "Whiz Kid Warrior"

From the archives:

November 26, 2008 - "Stop the Double Talk on Afghanistan"

September 17, 2008 - "Tory Eyes Blind to the World Outside?"

Michael Ignatieff's Brave New Take on Unity

Ignatieff insists supporting the oil sands supports national unity

For years, federal politicians in Canada had a one-track mind in regards to national unity: please Quebec at all costs.

This view was particularly and logically typical of Liberal leaders, who have needed to maintain their strength in Quebec (along with Ontario) in order to remain formidable. For years being strong in Quebec has promised to make the difference between the Liberals governing and sinking to third party status.

Michael Ignatieff seems to have a new strategy toward national unity: appeal to Western Canada, particularly Alberta.

Speaking to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, Ignatieff insisted that the oil sands don't merely benefit Alberta, but rather benefit the entirety of Canada.

"The oilsands are an integral part of the future of Canada," Ignatieff insisted. "No other country in the word would toss away this advantage."

Ignatieff also believes that Canadians are looking at the oilsands in a shortsighted manner. "We're operating this thing like it was the Klondike, and it's not the Klondike. We're going to be there for a century or more," he added.

Not that Ignatieff doesn't understand the environmental issues confronting the oilsands, as underscored in a recent issue of National Geographic.

"We need to be able to stand up for the oilsands and ask the oil industry to do better. These communities need to become environmentally sustainable, but they also need to become socially sustainable."

Ignatieff has suggested that the federal government should match the $2 billion recently pledged by the Alberta government to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the tarsand projects. He's also pledged his Liberal party to guard Alberta's interests in any national greenhouse gas reduction scheme.

"We will be watching in Opposition to make sure [a cap-and-trade system] won't hurt Alberta," he pledged. "We need to work with the industry, and not against the industry."

Ignatieff's support of the oil sands isn't a sudden change of policy on his part. Ignatieff has defended the oilsands on several occasions, including in Quebec.

"The stupidest thing you can do [is] to run against an industry that is providing employment for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and not just in Alberta, but right across the country," Ignatieff told a Montreal audience in January.

According to Ignatieff, another good reason to support the oil sands is the influence that gives Canada over its number one trading partner.

"We provide more oil to the United States than Saudi Arabia. That changes everything," he continued. "It means that when the prime minister of Canada goes into the White House, he gets listened to, in ways that Canadian prime ministers have not been listened to before. We're not the nice little friendly northern cousin. They can't run their economy without us."

Back in Alberta, Ignatieff also took some time out to address how Stephane Dion's Green Shift was recieved in Western Canada. "I think you can't win elections if you are adding to the input costs of a farmer ...or a trucker," Ignatieff said. "You got to work with the grain of Canadians and not against them."

Of course, Ignatieff didn't mention that the central plank of Dion's Green Shift was actually Ignatieff's own carbon tax.

If Ignatieff is true to his words, Western Canadians may finally be able to trust the Liberal party on the topic of the national economy. "Alberta is a valued treasured part of our federation," he said in January. "Never pit one region of the country against the other when you develop economic policy."

But as Kelly McParland notes on the Naational Post's Full Comment blog, Ignatieff is accepting his fair share of risks in pledging his support for the oilsands.

For one thing, he risks alienating the environmental demographic that Stephane Dion worked so hard to connect with.

But as it regards national unity, reconnecting with the West is a positive step in the right direction.

This is not only good for Canada, but it will almost certainly turn out to be good for the Liberal party. If Ignatieff can convince Western Canadians he's sincere, the Liberal party may finally get a second look from many out West.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Montreal Simon - "Michael Ignatieff and the Clean Dirty Oil"

Michael Stickings - "The Rise of Michael Ignatieff"

Far and Wide - "It Is What It Is"

Did You Double Check That With Michael, John? Or Even With Reality?

Liberal double-talk on the budget palpable

For the past 20 years in Canada, the Liberal party has made an art form of trying to have it both ways.

Accuse the opposition Reform party of plotting to devestate health care with deep cuts while slashing billions of dollars from health care.

Accuse the governing Conservative party of campaigning based on fear while airing some of the most vile fear-based campaign ads in the history of fear-based campaigning.

Now, the Liberals are adding another chapter to this sorry tale: insisting that they oppose middle class tax cuts, despite the fact that their leader previously endorsed them.

Speaking in advance of tomorrow's federal budget, Liberal finance critic John McCallum had some interesting things to say.

"If the permanent tax cuts were very large, we would be very concerned, partly because it would saddle future generations with a big debt and a permanent deficit," McCallum mused.

Despite Ignatieff's previous support for permanent middle class tax cuts -- as brilliantly explosed by National Post Full Comment's Kelly McParland -- McCallum insists that they are ill-advised.

McCallum insisted that the cuts would be ineffective to stimulate the economy because people will be more likely to save the tax cut than spend it.

But here's the problem: Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff himself recently pledged his support for middle class tax cuts. As far as stimulating the economy with tax cuts goes, the bigger the cuts are, the better. A large tax cut is much more likely to be spent than a small tax cut.

Sadly, the logic of this seems to be all but lost on an opposition that, despite the reported inclusion of some things they would otherwise support in this budget -- $2 billion for social housing, $1 billion for workers and $1.5 billion for job retraining -- has committed themselves to rejecting the budget sight unseen.

"If [the budget] doesn't cut it, our leader has made it perfectly clear that we vote against it -- and he is prepared to lead," McCallum crowed.

And all Michael Ignatieff needs to do is double-back on his own position and lie to the Canadian people in order to do it.

It's hard to excuse the base dishonesty of the Liberal position on matters economic these days. The Liberal party knows full well that Canada would be budgeting a deficit in the coming year regardless of who was in power. Despite this they accuse the Conservative party of blowing a surplus that they themselves planned to blow anyway -- again, a fact masterfully exposed by McParland.

Michael Ignatieff has previously insisted that he isn't trying to take a shortcut back to power.

Unfortunately, the truth is very different. He and his finance critic are trying to follow a road back to power that is all but paved with little white lies.

Hollow Triumphalism Interrupted

The numbers don't support the portrayal of the Tories as economic goats

With Canada on the brink of at least two years of budget deficits, opponents of the governing Conservative party couldn't be happier.

The message coming from most of Canada's opposition is very simple: oh, if only the Liberals were still in power. Then we wouldn't be facing down a deficit.

The theorem is basically divided into two parts: through spending increases and tax cuts, the Conservatives spent Canadians right down to the brink of a deficit. Even if the hit to government revenues were too big, the maintained Liberal surpluses would at least render the deficits smaller, and more managable.

But those actually paying attention to the numbers know this isn't true.

As done previously here at the Nexus, National Post Full Comment editor Kelly McParland compares the current budget numbers to those forecasted by the Liberal party, and reaches a not-so-shocking conclusion: they aren't that different.

First, there's the matter of the "wasted surplus". As it turns out, then-Finance Minister Ralph Goodale was planning a program of tax cuts and increased spending worth a total of $39 billion to implement if the Liberal party managed to win the 2006 federal election.

The Liberal party had forecasted annual surpluses of $1.6 billion to $3.4 billion.

According to the fiscal plans made by the Liberal party under economic models that forecasted continuing surpluses, the deficit under the Liberals would have been at most $2 billion smaller. This is also before the addition of any additional costs due to the national daycare program the Liberals had planned to put in place.

The possibility is very real that this surplus would have been larger under the Liberal party. The possibility is also much more likely that Canada would have sustained a structural deficit under the Liberal party.

This shouldn't be terribly shocking. The Liberal and Conservative parties used the same economic projections to plan their spending. In terms of raw numbers, Ralph Goodale and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty made the same plans.

As such, an important question looms: do both the Liberal and Conservative parties have to "wear" the deficit considering the similarity of their spending plans? Or is there something else to blame for this deficit?

This is a false choice. The answer is a little bit of both.

No matter what they may insist now, few people, if any, predicted the sheer scale of the economic crisis that has led to this deficit. Considering that the government has jumped from budgeting a $2 billion surplus to budgeting a $36 billion deficit (with a $30 billion deficit next year), external influences are responsible for the majority of the surplus.

The Conservatives, however, very much do have to answer for their share of the deficit. They ran on the premise of being more fiscally responsible than the Liberal party, and they delivered something very different. Then again, the Liberal party also campaigned on being more fiscally responsible than their competitors, and their spending plans also speak for themselves.

Given the current levels of spending by the Canadian government, there should be little question that this deficit was inevitable regardless of whomever was in power. This economic crisis was one born in a foreign country, albeit one with ever-closer economic ties with Canada.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to deny that Canada has become much more vulnerable to economic crises born in countries that irresponsibly under-regulate their economies -- in particular, their financial markets. Then again, considering that the United States is Canada's number one trading partner, perhaps the impact would have been just as inevitable in NAFTA's absence.

This is a matter for much more experienced economists to debate.

The bigger picture is that of the comparison between Canada's current economic and fiscal situation and the one the country would be in if the Liberal party was in power. The pictures are scarcely any different.

Not that those eager to pin this matter squarely on the Conservative party are in any rush to admit this. Which only underscores the opportunism and hollow triumphalism of the argument that the Conservatives, and the Conservatives alone, are to blame for the deficit.




Other bloggers writing on this topic:

The Phantom Observer - "We're All Guilty of 'Budget Bias'"

Breathing Smoke, Playing With Fire

Ignatieff opposes, supports, tax cuts for middle class

Taking the helm of the Liberal party -- even if only by default -- during a time of economic and political crisis, there's no question that Michael Ignatieff has a very tenuous path to walk.

On one hand, Ignatieff must find a way to dispel Canadian concerns about the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition government -- one in which the government would be mortgaged to the separatist Bloc Quebecois. On the other hand, Ignatieff has to appease the supporters of that coalition arrangement, and keep them convinced that maybe, just maybe, he'll go ahead and defeat Stephen Harper and the Conservative government.

As National Post Full Comment editor Kelly McParkland notes today, this has backed Ignatieff into a very tenuous position -- one that may leave many Canadians wondering just how far Ignatieff can really be trusted.

As Parkland notes, Ignatieff recently voiced opposition to the middle-class tax cuts proposed by Stephen Harper.

"This is not the moment for broad-based tax cuts because we think it will lead us into structural deficit and our children will be paying the price for Stephen Harper's mistakes for years to come," Ignatieff insisted.

Yet this is very different from Ignatieff's position of just over a week ago, in which he announced that, as Prime Minister, he would address the economic crisis with, wait for it... middle-class tax cuts.

"I think it’s going to be important to get stimulus into the Canadian economy fast, so we may be looking at tax cuts very quickly, tax cuts targeted at medium and low income, to boost their purchasing power fast," Ignatieff announced.

According to the Chronicle Herald, Ignatieff added that he would prefer that those tax cuts be permanent.

Ignatieff noted in his interview with John Ivison that "[Mr Harper] seems to have a better sense of what constitutes confidence in the House of Commons. I welcome that development and want to see proof of it."

Yet Ignatieff himself needs to come to a better understanding that when it comes to economic issues, he cannot have it both ways.

He's either opposed to permanent tax cuts for the middle class, or he's against them.

It he decides to come down against them and defeat the government despite his earlier expressions to the contrary, there is no question that Ignatieff will pay.

He'll either try to go ahead with the proposed coalition government, be quickly defeated in Parliament and be faced with an election in which polls have indicated Canadians will deliver a landslide majority to the Conservative party. Or he'll go to an election, be faced with his flip-flop, and suffer dearly at the polls -- perhaps even worse than Stephane Dion's recent defeat.

Kelly McParkland describes Ignatieff's position as "breathing smoke". Should he sufficiently embolden himself to try and act on his sudden opposition to middle class tax cuts, he'll most certainly be playing with fire.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

James Laxer - "Ignatieff's Dilemma: Coping with the Conservative Budget"

Dust My Broom - "Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: I Was For Tax Cuts Before I Was Against Them"

Far and Wide - "The 'Wear It' Narrative"

It's All About the ...Stimulus Package

Liberal/NDP coalition talks are all about the Benjamins

With the federal government having speculated that they will end a $30 million program subsidizing Canada's political parties to the tune of $1.97 per vote, Canada's opposition parties immediately started crowing.

The Liberals and NDP announced would defeat the government and attempt to form a coalition government. Many conservative commentators are calling it a coup d'etat. The National Post's Kelly McParkland has even called the arrangement a junta.

Of course, matters were very different just days ago when Parliament passed the throne speech despite the lack of an economic stimulus package in the government's prescribed program.

Then the government talks about cutting the subsidies received by each political party -- including itself. Now the Liberals and NDP are ready to defeat the government and try to form a coalition.

Anyone who honestly believes that this scheme really has anything to do with economic stimulus is a fool.

When the Conservatives first moved to cut these subsidies, there was a great deal of ambiguity related to their motives. Yet various partisans from the Liberals, NDP and Greens vocally accused the government of having devious intentions. Admittedly, those motivations are part and parcel of the government's own proposition.

The Tories have since backed off on the topic. But there's little news of the opposition preparing to back down.

With the talk of a Liberal/NDP coalition, there is no ambiguity. The Liberals and NDP want to protect their subsidies. The Liberals want to govern, and the NDP wants its first taste of federal power.

When the government mused about eliminating party funding from the federal budget, the opposition parties insisted that the government was being self-serving.

Whether or not this is true remains a significant question. If the government was being self-serving it deserves to be defeated and replaced. But while the case can be argued, it's far from certain.

But in the case of the proposed Liberal/NDP coalition government there is no uncertainty. The Liberals and NDP are being self-serving to the extent that they are set to help themselves to power that they have not won.

All the talk about a Liberal/NDP government is about money and power. Nothing more and nothing less.

Stephane Dion: Victim of Machiavellian Karma?

"Stephane Dion, patron saint of political victimhood" ill-fitting label

When Stephane Dion announced he would resign as Liberal leader, he wasn't nearly as much at odds to explain his electoral defeat as some people would have expected.

At least in part, Dion blamed his defeat on Conservative attack ads.

The Conservatives had released numerous negative-themed ads -- but no outright attack ads -- during the campaign. Shortly after Dion's election as the leader of the Liberal party, the Tories had fielded the now-infamous "Not a Leader" attack ads against Dion.

The Liberals eventually did try to counter the image of Dion portrayed by the Conservatives.

"Canadians did not know this Stephane Dion. They knew another one ...they believed that (the other) character was real," Dion complained. "I want to see that the next leader is not as vulnerable to the low propaganda that was directed against me."

In terms of branding and counter-branding, Dion clearly knew what brand he wanted to build for himself -- that of a forward-thinking world leader. He clearly wanted his brand centred around optimism and enthusiasm; he evidently wanted his counter brand of Stephen Harper to be one of dishonesty and cynicism. His parting shot at his victorious (if not quite triumphant) rival bear this out.

They also fit neatly into the brand Bob Rae and Elizabeth May wanted to affix to Harper -- which National Post columnist Kelly McParkland described as "immoral, unethical, duplicitous, dishonest, cold-hearted, manipulative, disrespectful, incompetent, congenitally secretive, undemocratic, partisan, a cheap-shot artist who regularly resorts to low blows, insensitive, out of touch and unCanadian.
Oh, and a disgrace."

Yet the collaborative Liberal/Green outrage over the Conservatives' advertising antics may be a little more hypocritical than they would like Canadians to realize. As Ottawa's Ron Gaudet notes, the Liberal party has proven themselves in the past to be quite adept at the art of character assassination.

The label with which they branded Preston Manning was overwhelmingly that of a racist. Largely benign immigration policies were distorted into something sinister, and any evidence of a racist wing of the party -- such as the presence of Heritage Front members at Reform party rallies -- were seized upon to create this image.

Even when racists were expunged from the party, Liberal party activists such as Warren Kinsella sought to minimize the credit due to Manning for his efforts.

In Gaudet's analysis, the anomaly is Stockwell Day. Day created the image of a religious fundamentalist yahoo for himself by giving ill-advised comments regarding creationism to a Red Deer College seminar. He also staged an ill-advised press conference featuring a jet ski and refused to admit numerous mistakes throughout his tenure as leader of the Canadian Alliance party.

For Stephen Harper, who eventually emerged as the leader of a unified Conservative party of Canada, the Liberal party gave no quarter. They released the most vicious attack ads in Canadian history against Harper, in the 2004 election:



And the 2006 election:



In fact, for a 13-year span of its recent history, the Liberal party's very bread and butter was the art of political character assassination. And they were so very, very good at it.

Only in the waning days of the 2008 election, with Dion's best (but meager) attempt at an upbeat, optimistic election campaign falling into utter ruin did the Liberals attempt a last-minute Hail Mary attack ploy. And it nearly worked. Some may be eager to attest the Conservative party's tumble back from the brink of a majority government with protest over the cuts to art and culture funding, but the correlation with the Liberals' "Harper on the war in Iraq", "Harper, Howard and Bush" and Harpernomics and Bush ads should not be overlooked.

The Liberal party played hard, fast and Machiavellian with Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper. And it's interesting to note that the "low propaganda" Dion accuses the Conservatives of airing against him came no where near the depths of the propaganda deployed against Harper in particular.

At the end of the day, it's hard to feel sorry for Stephane Dion. He had to run the Liberal campaign his way, and it failed. Now that he wants to complain about the injustice of the Conservative campaign against him, it's hard for many Canadians to take him seriously.