Back here, commenter Mark Graham misses the point somewhat when he writes:
For an excellent historical account of the liberal slanders and accusations thrown at Harper and the conservative party,
go to: http://www.coldhardwonk.com
The liberal party of Canada has very little credibility when it comes to decrying political slanders.....
Before we go any further, note well Mark's own words (emphasis added): "political slanders." Did you catch that? "Political" slanders. At which point, we follow Mark's lead and visit here -- a site which advertises itself as "No sentiment but politics", where we read more of the same (emphasis added):
But the opposition claims that it’s wrong to say something unpleasant about them for political gain.
Are you starting to see the pattern here? Why, yes, you are -- the operative word is "political," meaning the jibes, parries, thrusts and rebuttals are exactly that: political.
But that's not what's happening when Canadian PM Fatty McWideLoad accuses the Liberals of not caring about the troops. That's not a political argument -- it's a tacky, personal, drive-by smear. It has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with pushing peoples' emotional hot buttons. "No sentiment but politics"? Hardly.
When people take aim at Harper's traitorous softwood deal with the U.S., or his gutting the SWC, or his shovelling money in Quebec's direction, those are political issues. But when you take an unrelated issue and use it to smear the opposition as not supporting the troops, that's not political anymore. It's a sleazy, personal assault. (And lest anyone accuse me of being hypocritical, Stephane Dion making a crack about Harper's weight was also out of line, but at least that was only stupid and childish, rather than an all-out frontal assault on an entire party's patriotism).
So, Matt, how about you try to appreciate the difference here? You do realize there's a difference, don't you?