By necessary implication

It's understandable to a point that the opposition's messaging about the Cons' misuse of public money to take credit for even the most mundane actions has been based on direct confrontation rather than trying to seek any admissions out of a government notorious for stonewalling its opponents. But it seems to me that there's an available next step where the current allegation against the Cons actually becomes their defence to an even more irresponsible implication coming from their current position.

There's plenty of material already available where the Cons send the following messages:
- First, that their "economic action plan" is synonymous with stimulus spending.
- Second, that they see stimulus spending as a temporary measure which they're eager to end at the earliest opportunity.
- Third, that the vast majority of any stimulus spending (90% by their reckoning) has already been committed.

Based on that combination, can't it be said that Canadians should look at the type of activity that's being included within the "Economic Action Plan" by Cons' own advertisement - and conclude that the Harper government has no intention of investing in any similar priorities at any point in the foreseeable future once their "exit strategy" from stimulus spending plays out? And shouldn't the opposition parties be eager to draw exactly that connection?

As best I can tell, that argument would create an extremely target-rich environment. Any opposition MP could point to, say, a stretch of a national highway with an Economic Action Plan sign (ideally in a Con riding); point to another stretch of highway in obvious need of repair without such a sign (ideally in an opposition riding), and announce that the Cons have declared that the latter won't be dealt with as long as they're in office since the stimulus money has basically run out.

Or better yet, point to maintenance being carried out with "Action Plan" publicity, and announce that it's going to stop as soon as the stimulus period is done with. From my standpoint, the strategy gets even better with each example of an "Action Plan" sign where it doesn't belong - i.e. in an area which obviously had to be invested in regardless of whether or not there was any need for immediate stimulus.

One option in response to such examples would be for the Cons to answer that they have no intention of investing in any federal infrastructure once the recession is over. But that would raise the spectre of the Cons effectively allowing federal institutions to go to seed, playing to some of the public's worst fears about the party.

Or instead, the Cons could try to start drawing fine distinctions as to what types of "Action Plan" spending will continue and what types won't. But that would create some significant contradictions against their current message, and indeed result in their effectively admitting that their PR campaign goes far beyond anything that can plausibly be claimed as stimulus.

The above is a far less direct strategy than the one currently being used. But I'd have to think it's far more likely to create some real contradictions in the Harper government's message - and that should pay far more dividends than the current he said/she said when it comes time to use the Cons' own words against them.