17 October 2006

Kinsella out to lunch

I normally enjoy Warren Kinsella's ramblings, but yesterday he suggested that the debate showed that the Liberal party was the "party of fear." Which is just a crock. Going negative on candidates (he's too right win, he's too boring, he can't win Ontario) does not play on fear, it plays on lust for power. If the Liberals want to win, they can't have someone whose flaws make them inevitable losers. None of us are afraid of Bob or Iggy, we just think they won't win and so we shouldn't choose them.

Then, in a move that is equally a crock but also completely unrelated (except that it uses the word 'scared', which is like 'fear') he notes that Steve doesn't scare Canadians any more, and possibly never did.
Really? I bet he still scares soldiers, who know he will send them off to die on any white house approved mission, and immigrants, who he doesn't like, and women, who might need abortions, and gays, who might need a court challenge to prevent his government from discriminating against them, and everyone who lives in a city and sees every day the need for transit, housing, social services, pollution reduction, and all kinds of things that aren't black and viscous and that Steve's oil-patch ideology therefore cannot see any value in.

I'm going to skip the liberal leadership and jump right to the next election, where I predict that Steve will once again be completely shut out of every single riding in each one of the nations three largest cities. There is a great divide in this nation, and it's not English/French. And that's scary, Warren.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a generally accepted reality in the world of communications that Warren Kinsella has fallen off the deep end... and made the plunge a long time ago.

October 17, 2006  
Anonymous Kinsella = Bad said...

Its about time we expose Kinsella as a "shill" for the right wing and tune him out completely. He masqerades as a commentator/journalist for the almighty dollar and is a publicity slut.
He risks irrelavency among Liberal circles.
The distain I hold him in is unimaginable.
He is a turd of the highest odour.

October 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Going negative on candidates (he's too right win, he's too boring, he can't win Ontario) does not play on fear, it plays on lust for power. If the Liberals want to win, they can't have someone whose flaws make them inevitable losers.

Excellent, I'm going to throw this back in your face the next time the Kennedy bloggers collectively whine about criticism of Gerard.

October 17, 2006  
Blogger Gavin Neil said...

Anonymous3 - What? Playing on lust for power is not intrinsically better than playing on fear. Either way i think the candidates shouldn't go negative. As I said in the post immediately preceding this one, I think Gerard was the only one of the leaders that didn't descend to negative attacks, I think it was a good strategy, I think it's good for him and good for the party.

How this could be thrown in my face at all, much less based on the imagined future reactions of other bloggers, and not me, i cannot imagine.

Maybe throw it in my face if GK goes negative... but other than that you seem to be out to lunch with Kinsella.

Also, how can you throw anything in my face when you're anonymous?

October 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gavin... i don't know what planet you're getting your news from, but i have yet to hear any soldiers saying they were scared to go to afghanistan, even after some of allah's death cult kamikazi pilots took a run at them.

as for the "politics of fear" you need go no further than the liberal campaign ads telling people harper was going to be buying aircraft carriers... and which ends with a pistol shooting straight at the viewer.

how can you be a shill for the party that won't even scrape the volpe off its shoes?

October 18, 2006  
Anonymous burlivespipe said...

Kin-sue-lla = yesterday's news. It's only his love-of-self that keeps him talking to the mirror and typing those anti-pithe words. He changed from Liberal to Glib-eral a long, long time ago.

October 18, 2006  
Blogger DivaRachel said...

Actually, Harper also scares francophone canadians who live outside Quebec (1 million of us) cuz he's cutting our rightful funding. Yup, Stephen Harper is still scary to me!

October 19, 2006  
Blogger Gavin Neil said...

NeoCon - Sorry I was easily misunderstood. I wouldn't say our soldiers are scared (although I think if you ask their mothers or lovers you will find out that quite a lot of them are scared to egt shipped off, which is natural). I meant that they are in a class of people that should find Harper 'scary', because he is apparently uninterested in ensuring that they have a mission that they can actually accomplish. Until such a mission is created, their deaths are for nothing, and that should scare even a soldier.

Also I absolutely agree that the Liberals tried to paint harper as scary. I don't like that kind of politics, even though I agree with the message. But believe it or not I'm not a shill for the party - I am essentially an ideologue but I believe the Liberal party is the best positioned to pursue the policy goals I want to see pursued. In particular I think they are going through a renewal and I would like to do whatever I can to make sure the new party is closer to my ideals, rather than further away. That includes supporting Kennedy, who would not stoop to attack politics in the debate and, I hope, wouldn't in office either.

I have voted at one time or another for each of the three major parties. I haven't voted green, yet.


October 19, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home