Hmm... something's different about Michael Ignatieff.
Has he been trained to look more grandfatherly, more wise?
Is the objective to fool more women, via visual and tonal manipulation, into voting Iggy-Lib?
Definitely Peter Donolo and his minions have been hard at work attempting to reshape his image, repackage him differently, tell him what to say, as opposed to saying what he really thinks?
Oh, and the half-moon, grampa-spectacles are a nice touch, too...
So the Big Old Media, the Hard Left and the Liberal Party and Michael Ignatieff want Canadians to believe that they know what women want. Or that they know what women need, ie. they know, whereas women themselves don't, for themselves.
Par for the course, for the Left, when they start talking about "women", as if they understand women. Do they? Do they understand each individual woman in Canada better than she understands herself? Do they believe that women need to be directed and controlled by the state, that they and their children need to become wards of the state, forever dependent on government programs and taxpayer monies?
Isn't it true that the Liberals want to make women dependent on government, so that the Liberals will again be able to fearmonger and lie about "those mean-spirited Reform-Conservatives who want to take things away from you!", to scare women into voting Liberal.
This is such an OLD propaganda tactic (oh, of course... Chretienist Minister of Propaganda Peter Donolo is in charge of "communications" for the Liberals again). Again the Liberals target a specific demographic group to paint a picture for its membership, a picture in which the Tories look like a bunch Chauvinist, sexist, knuckle-dragging, scary Neanderthals and so on and so forth, who "want to take away womens' rights". Am I lying that the Left says such stuff?
Ok, here we go...
Ignatieff, who is vowing to restore all the cuts to women’s programs that Harper has made over the past four years, says his skepticism about Harper’s new declared priority is based on his record.Ooooooh. We Conservatives are soooo a-shakin' in our cowboy boots, sooooo a-poopin' in our pants... them outlaws has shore done us in good!
“As we look at the Prime Minister saying that he wants to do something about maternal and child health, we say ‘hooray, that’s great,’” Ignatieff told reporters. “But show us the record that backs up that commitment…. Show us where you were when we needed you.”
Heh. Oh, sure. They've waved their Magic Liberal-Brand Wand and magically transformed reality just like that, without explaining what the hell they're talking about, without giving us anything resembling specifcs, let alone logic. But, boy, do the words they use, boy, do they ever...
But who's going to be manipulated by irritating vagueness and subtle dreadmongering?
Hmm. Ok, let's get analytical and toss the REAL questions back at the Liberals. Make their propagandists sweat smelly bullets and create brand-new pantystreaks...
Which "womens' programs" were cut? What did they do for ALL women, as opposed to merely providing a hefty paycheck for doing nothing to a very small radical fringe of anti-mainstream, Hard-Left, neo-Communist, "progressive"-extremist activist "womyn", such as we'd find in something like ACORN or some femiNazi militant group?
Were they programs available to materially assist ALL needy women? Or were they just "progressive" propaganda thinktanks operating on the taxpayers' hard-earned dime, for the purpose of developing communications strategies for bashing Conservatives and pushing Hard-Left, neo-Communist, socially-revolutionary agendae?
Ignatieff, whose party is holding a special day of hearings on women’s issues today on Parliament Hill, pointed out that Harper has made cuts to the status of women and equality programs, while salary gaps between men and women are increasing in Canada.Ah... "The Status of Women". An "advocacy group". Yup. I knew it! And I see that Ignatieff and the Liberals are believers in some conspiracy theory that there's some mean-spirited right-wingers out there who seek to ensure that women will make ever-less than men do... don't you just loooove those wacky conspiracy theorists?
And what are these "equality programs" of which they speak? What good is it to say, "The bad men cut these 'equality programs', and, look, some women make less than some men!"? Frankly, I can't recall, can't think of any. That's weird, as I've been obsessively following current events and politics for years, including the last four years, and these words, "equality programs", they don't ring even a kitty bell for me. Something tells me that these folks are just throwing these words around, giving zero specifics, to screw with our minds.
If we went around simply, vaguely saying that "the Liberals cut programs", we'd look like assholes, because only assholes go around, subtly dreadmongering, saying that "that mean, bad guy cut programs", without saying which programs and explaining whether the programs actually did any substantial good for anyone directly, materially.
Oh, here's one of those "activists" now...
“What we heard from the women very vocally this morning was the profound impact of the loss of advocacy dollars,” said Anita Neville, the party’s critic for the status of women. “This government has cut all dollars for advocacy for any of these women’s groups out there and they are struggling to promote their concerns.”
Oh? Un, Ms. Neville, could you please tell me which women you "heard from very vocally this morning"? How about, for example, Jen, one of my most loyal readers and commentors? Did she tell you what she thought, too? Jen? Were you there? What would you say to Ms. Neville with respect to "advocacy dollars"? Y'know, those very dollars the bastards in Ottawa keep taking away from you, a woman, for the purpose of arrogantly, dogmatically telling you what's what about you? How about you, Kez? How about you, "Watcher"? How about...?
I'd like to know what the women I know have to say to someone like you, Ms. Neville. I suspect you won't like it, because it won't fit with your particular theories about women and the world.
Oh, and, by the way, Ms. Neville, what, specifically are their "concerns"?
How does the existence or non-existence of your "advocacy group" (y'know, that sounds like ACORN, eh, heh!) specifically affect any randomly pointed-out woman? Would it necessarily affect her in any way, shape or form whatsoever? If your answer is yes, then please make the case with real evidence, not grand sloganeering that'd make folks like the Obamacracy propaganda specialists proud?
Why should I consent to having my money taken away so your and your comrades can do what, go around babbling without saying anything, pretending to "care about women", as a front for your true agenda, which, I suspect, is socialism?
Do the "concerns" of the women with whom you claim you spoke this morning include high taxes, national security, dealing with criminals, etc.? Hmm. In such a case, you'd be talking to Mainstream-Canadiana women. I'd like to see this for myself, would love to see you do a televised townhall with real women asking whatever they really want and saying what they really think, but I'm afraid I've got no choice but to take your word for it that you "heard from women". I don't even know whether the whole thing you're talking about was made up or not!
Or is it really about spreading the wealth, promoting infanticide and the usual neo-communist, "progressive" stuff? The women you claim to have heard from this morning, are they not just more of your fellow travellers?
Why should we believe a thing you folks say, Iggy and Neville? You give us nothing other than vague words and subtle dreadmongering, subtle demonization of the Conservatives based on nothing we can see at all...
It's propaganda, pure and simple. Manipulative propaganda. It's about politicians and extremists talking without actually saying anything!