Hint, hint, hint...you know if someone is too angry they might just be, um, ah, scary. So begins the campaign in the Globe and Mail. O.k., I exaggerated. Gloria Galloway brings up a good question when it comes to MP Stephen Harper; how much anger is too much. I remember being very pleased with MP Harpers' response to the "sorry-as-hell" speech but when I watched it again I thought he came off over-the-top. It has been said that television is a hot medium and MP Harper needs to turn it down a notch at times.
I do love this quote though.
...Experts say it is important for politicians to be able to show indignation at the appropriate times, but Mr. Harper risks alienating the public with his anger.
"If somebody only operates in one gear, which is the angry mode, it can be wearying," said Paul Nesbitt-Larking, who chairs the political science department at the University of Western Ontario in London. Canadians, he said, have shown their distaste for anger in their repeated rejection of political attack ads.
I am the only one who thinks this is total crap. The attack ad the Liberals used last time around was brilliant and was (in my opinion) one the key things that turned the campaign in their favour.
In the very same edition of the Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente is less subtle. Two "scary" articles in one edition...oh yeah, the election is coming.
...Was it Laureen who finally made her husband go to his room for a time-out? If so, where was she a week ago? The politics of rage has backfired in Stephen Harper's face, and he's going to pay an awful price. However disgusted people may be with the Liberals, they're not going to forget that the alternative is a snarling, mean-eyed pit bull.
