An “attack dog” in politics is a person, usually a politician or a political operative, who is designated to aggressively challenge and criticize the opposition.
…
They are often tasked with the responsibility of delivering negative messages or criticisms that a candidate or party leader may not want to deliver personally, in order to maintain a more positive public image.
He has done this in the past and been effective at it. His successful (unjustified) criticism of the Liberals carbon tax implementation is a great example of that: he managed to frame public perception of the rebate, despite heaps of evidence to the contrary.
Shitting on Poilievre is fine and fun, but it ignores the reality that his party has successfully framed a number of debates in the past. Assuming Carney wins the Liberal leadership, it’s a significant obstacle to him winning the next federal election.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Calling him an attack dog suggests that he has a bite. He’s all yap and as tough as wet paper-towel.
Attack dog is an unofficial role in political parties:
…
He has done this in the past and been effective at it. His successful (unjustified) criticism of the Liberals carbon tax implementation is a great example of that: he managed to frame public perception of the rebate, despite heaps of evidence to the contrary.
Shitting on Poilievre is fine and fun, but it ignores the reality that his party has successfully framed a number of debates in the past. Assuming Carney wins the Liberal leadership, it’s a significant obstacle to him winning the next federal election.