Messaging

Well, if you're a wonk, the Lib's had a tough day according to the evening political shows. Politics and Mike Duffy Live, approached the subject in different ways, but they both concluded, that: Dion is in trouble and the term "hidden agenda" doesn't work.

In fact, the media has already started rolling their eye's at the phrase, just as they did during the last election.

It was mostly derided in terms of how Dion referred to Flanagan's proclamations in his new book. Dion cited fact, the media rolled their eyes.

Duffy gave Flanagan a platform, of course, which he accepted readily in order to add to the eye-rolling. That said, he climbed down off his high horse suggesting yesterday that the GG was too partisan to be impartial as it relates to Harper and apologised. To that I say, BS and wimp! He was pretty damn clear in his comment:

The Governor-General, Michaëlle Jean, is a politically inexperienced CBC broadcaster chosen by Mr. Harper’s predecessor, Paul Martin; her French-born husband is, or at least used to be, sympathetic to Quebec separatism. Could Mr. Harper count on fair treatment from this Governor-General in a constitutional crisis? Suppose he was defeated in the House and asked for a dissolution of Parliament and a new election? Would she comply with his request, or would she accept his resignation and then invite the Liberal leader to form a government? It’s probably more prudent not to put that question to the test.

Obviously the PMO got to him and told him to shut up. Flanagan you see, is riding on the the same arrogance, that he accuses the Lib's of. In the same article, he goes on to say how the Senate and Judiciary are stacked with Liberals, hmmm, the same words Harper used, not that long ago.

Here's the thing, their real agenda is being hidden from Canadians, in an effort to gain a majority, at which point they could change the country as they see it. They've begun in fact, but the media is rolling their eye's at the term and frankly I can't blame them. That does not mean it isn't fact, it just means that they are not buying the term, and gawd knows, they are all about sound bites and headlines.

So, here is the dilemma. The fact is that the con's are hiding what they want to do. In short, reduce the role of Federal government, sorry, not just the role, but the responsibility. They want the free market to rule and we've seen how well that's done in the US. Even Greenspan has come out against some moves of the Bush admin...though he's a coward too, imo. A lifelong Ayn Rand devotee, a concept that most of us put to rest in our 20's.

That little aside, aside, we have to improve the message. My preferred honest term would be "liar", but that doesn't play, as we are seeing in Ontario with Tory. To be honest, that kind of negativity would not play well.

So, how do we get out the "real" agenda of the con's and what it means to Canada? We, on blogs, tend to discuss these things, but that doesn't work with a bored and "need a headline" media. Sincerity should win, but with this crew, it won't. They want what is "sexy".

We need a new term, that reflects "hidden agenda". One that is easy to strike on a keyboard and one that is easily consumed.

I'd love some thoughts on this. There has to be a way to depict, Minority='s this, Majority on the other hand ='s...

Get out your Thesaurus people. The grassroots have to provide input now.

Harper is constructing the next election.

BTW, if you're wondering why I chose the photo I did, it's all about messaging. I want to see this young, obese PM, (the photo was taken yesterday or today, btw), talk to us about health care and obesity.

It's all about messaging.

For the record, I picked up the Flanagan book today. I do not want to be accused of "here-say".