The election stance of the The Moncton Times was never in doubt. Today, it was made obvious from the editorial cartoon, a sketch of Ignatieff dancing on an empty toothpaste tube. (The cartoonist draws well, but has neither depth nor independence in his art. The cartoon commonly - almost always - supports the position of the editors who support whoever they're told to support.)
The editorial, itself, follows the Harper formula for the election. It's an attack ad. There is no mention of any major issue, no mention of any policy except for one item in the Liberal platform - subsidized day care.
Nor is there any attempt at balance. Not a single reason is given in favour of it And the editorial writer is personally insulting to millions of Canadians.
I am no admirer of Ignatieff. I have only nce voted Liberal in my life -and that was because the candidate was a friend who I greatly admire for his abilities and his social conscience. According the the editorial writer, daycare is a subsidy for two-income Yuppies driving expensive SUVs in Canada's biggest cities.
Dear editor, you supercilious, sneering, servile ass...How about those two-income families that work at minimum wage in Walmart or gas stations, or fast food outlets and all the other cheapy jobs which are found in the biggest cities and the smallest villages right across Canada. What about those millions of two-income families who can't even afford their basic needs, and can be fired at a moment's notice?
Have you ever lived like that? You who spends his life wiping the boss' nose with your bare hands?
I grew up in a two-income family in one of Canada's biggest cities. We didn't have an SUV. We had no car at all until we got rich and could afford a used one when I was sixteen. When his employer cut his salary, my father shoveled snow at less than a dollar a day. My mother worked for the same low wages doing manual work at a big newspaper edited by flunkies like you. (Until we started school, my mother stayed home. But that meant we had to hope my father got lucky at the charity food dispensary.)
There's plenty of poverty in Moncton, Dieppe and Riverview And you have insulted everyone who is poor or who has any sense of decency. Ignatieff is out of touch with the real world? I don't doubt he his But you are scarcely the one to say so.
When you think, if you think, imagine a world without two-family incomes. All mothers would have to stay home. So we could all say goodbye to much of the underpaid commercial staff who make shopping so cheap for us. We would have to close down half of our schools (and you probably think that would be a good idea.) Our hospitals would cease to function. So would most of our restaurants. Even for those above the poverty level, they need two salaries to support the casinos, hockey teams, football teams, extra booze , and expensive SUVs that your paper daily urges on us.
You hypocritic lout! You probably know that we subsidize energy costs for billionaires, we subidize the oil sands project, you want to subsidize the hockey team (owned by guess who), we subsidize a wide range or rich people for billions of dollars per year. Meanwhile, we also subsidize the rich my letting them off taxes. But God forbid we should subsidize chldren.
It is really quite impossible to express the contempt you deserve.
You remind me of the poen by Alexander Pope who was a frequent visitor to the king of England's residence of the time in a village called Kew. There he was disgusted by the noble flunkies who spent their day flattering the king and publcly making a fuss and saying "who's 'ittle dog are you?" to the pet dog that the king adored. So Pope engraved on the dog's collar;
I am His Highness' dog at Kew.
Pray tell me, sir,
Who's dog are you?
I urge readers and the editor to read the editorial "Out of Touch with Canadians". Then read the commentary next to to it, "Hypocrisies of electioneering" by (Bill) Belliveau. It is reasoned and offers evidence for its claims. It is unbiased, It does not make hysterical rantings.
It is also well-researched, including points that should have appeared in the news stories of The Moncton Times and Transcript but, like most real news items, never made them.
I was surprised to read that Harper actually said, "Only the party with the most seats can form a government in a democracy?" Oh, so the Canadian government of 1917 was illegal. All the minority governments were illegal. The government of Israel is illegal. If that's true, then Harper has committed us to go to war in defense of an illegal government. I shall have to alert B"Nai Brith.
It's not possible that a prime minister of Canada would not know all this. He has to be lying. We also know that he proposed a coalition to the Bloc. He lied about that, too.
But let's not waste time stating the obvious.
The important thing to do is to read the editorial that is on a level of ignorance, lying, ranting that is surely unacceptable even in one of Canada's smallest cities. Look at the editorial cartoon that assumes we enjoy seeing a "me too" suck up to a bully.
Then read "Bill" Belliveau's column to see what an intelligent commentary looks like.
(No, I don't always agree with Belliveau. But I respect him as a person worth arguing with. And I respect him for his independence.)