Note To David McGuinty: Paul Martin Lost The 2006 Election

Ahhh, more outrage from the usual suspects. The Liberal Party, the party that spent $100 million on a whim for Challenger jets. $350 million for an advertising program that did little advertising and a lot of stolen taxpayer money. The same guys who said the gun registry would cost $2 million, which turned out to be $2 billion. Guess they still struggle with where exactly that decimal point goes. So today, we have Liberal MP David McGuinty telling us how bad the Conservatives are for spending money on advertising. Gotta love this brilliant quote:

"Mr. McGuinty noted that is “way more” – 2.5 times on average – than what Paul Martin’s Liberal government spent on advertising in 2005 and 2006."

2006 eh McGuinty? By my recollection, the vote took place on January 23rd, 2006, meaning Paul Martin would have been considered PM for all of 23 days. Of course those 23 days were spent campaigning, so I doubt much government advertising was done.

So if any journalist has any common sense, one would think they would take a look at money spent on advertising year by year under the Liberals. I think what you would find would be similar to Liberal MP Scott Brison's recent rant about unemployment rates being higher under the Conservatives by years he quoted under Liberal rule. Of course a quick check of StatsCan unemployment numbers show quite a few time periods under Chretien/Martin with a higher unemployment rate. And that was during boom times.

I eagerly await a CBC journalist to let us in on the numbers.