Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Brass balls and brass polls. Coming in five weeks, brass tacks.

Yesterday, a Conservative candidate was booted from her Halifax riding because she was found to have a criminal record. She had two criminal convictions. Apparently she was convicted of "uttering threats" once, and another time she was fined $50 bucks when she was convicted of "breaching an undertaking". Whatever that means. Really, this isn't a big story. It's not even terribly interesting. Perhaps a bigger story was Gilles Duceppe taking on the Conservatives over their links to Opus Dei. The Conservative candidate in a Montreal riding is a member of Opus Dei - an extreme Catholic group that opposes abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. You might remember Opus Dei as the shadowy and freaky sect with the murderous albino monks from the decent book and rotten movie The Da Vinci Code. Again, this isn't a very big story. So there are some wingnut maniacs in the Conservative party. That barely qualifies as news. We already know this. But certainly both these stories must be bigger than puffins and fruits.

Puffins and fruits. That's what we hear about this morning. Do a google news search for "Conservative Opus Dei" and you get 32 hits. Do a search for "Conservative puffin" and you get 227. "Conservative fruit" gets you 528 hits. The cover of the Ottawa Sun this morning was some guy from the Tragically Hip endorsing Stephane Dion. I know I just blogged about this three posts ago, but I thought we were a little better than this. Stephen Harper gets asked what kind of vegetable he would be, were he a vegetable. Which was the natural question to ask, since at the time he was standing beside boxes of carrots. It wasn't his answer that was telling. (Although the fact that he elected to choose "fruit" was pretty hilarious, given his views.) No, what was telling about this event was this: This question ranks somewhere in the top 200 on the alarmingly long list of the "dumbest questions ever asked a politician". But he made time for it. In fact, he paused. And really thought about the correct answer to this asinine question. And then - he gave an evasive answer. To a question that was staggeringly stupid to begin with. He could have said "peas". And been done with it. Moved on. But instead he paused, stopped, and found a way to evade this question. THIS question. The election is on, folks!

But the biggest story was more than fruits! It was puffins! The cute little birds that reside in nests on Newfoundland cliffs. You see, there was this ad put up on a website that attacked Stephane Dion with a cute little video of a puffin pooping on his shoulder. And this was the election story of the day. The ad was posted on a website called www.notaleader.ca. A website that is run by the Conservative party. On this website, there is absolutely nothing about Conservative policies. In fact, there is nothing about Conservatives at all. It's just an attack website on Stephane Dion, personally. It may as well be called www.wethinkstephanedionsucksandwewouldliketopunchhisneck.com. Go ahead and click on that link. It doesn't exist. But it may as well. I was curious, and I went to this website. You can send people cards that make fun of Dion's English speaking ability. You can check out his "inaction figure". And you can read an inane blog where the Conservatives pretend to be Stephane Dion's dog, and ridicule him from that point of view.

I stopped reading the website because I was feeling a bit nauseous, but I'm certain that had I had more time to delve deeper before my gag reflex kicked in, I could have played the game where you kick Dion in the nuts and take his lunch money, or the one where he's buried up to his neck on the beach and you come by with your Harper face on and kick sand in his face. So...here's where we are. Harper approves of this Conservative-run, shameless and vulgar website, but not of the puffin bit? That crossed the line. Are you kidding me? Now, the Liberals have a website of their own, www.scandalpedia.ca, which is a website designed to attack the Conservatives and Harper. But I was able to spend time on this website. Although, like the Conservative site, it doesn't feature any Liberal policies at all, at the very least it contains facts. So, you can peruse the details of the in-and-out scheme. Or the Chuck Cadman affair. There are no flash videos or cute games to play, and as such it is far less entertaining than the sleazy Conservative site. But at least it's less...cheap.

So, you've now read four paragraphs of this blog posting. And what have you learned about the Conservative position on the environment? Or the Liberal Green Shift plan? Oh, nothing. Right. It's Day Three, and already this election is about nothing. But then, as I stated a few posts ago, that's how it should be. As soon as elections become bogged down with things like issues, truth and policy, that's when you lose people. I'm sure that they will, however, get down to brass tacks in the four days leading up to the election. Which means you can wait until October 10th to start paying attention. Sweet, huh? Sweet like a fruit.

6 comments:

  1. Not even five days into the campaign and I'm already facepalming. This is the worst excuse for an election ever. What happened to discussing policies and making empty promises? Now it's just degenerated into a fifth grade name-calling contest! Then again, it's not like this is anything new for The Conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All elections are the same, be they federal, provincial, municipal, etc. They all get dirty and boring after about a week.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Did Eric mean Breaching OF undertaking? This is the definition - The purchaser of a company's shares undertook to induce the company enter into an employment contract with the seller of the shares, and to keep him in employment until he retired. The company, however, dismissed the seller before his retirement date. The Supreme Court held that the purchaser was liable for the company's failure to fulfil its obligations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is that comment spam? That made no sense to me at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think he or she was correcting your grammar. You said "breaching an undertaking" at the top of this post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh yeah. No, "breaching an undertaking" was the way it was described in several news stories. I need to proof read more so I remember what I wrote!

    ReplyDelete