Conservative attack ads

scribblet · May 13, 2009

Looks like Harper the mad dog sociopath is back.

Looks like spurious comments like this are lessening credibility around here.

Keepitsimple · May 13, 2009

Looks like Harper the mad dog sociopath is back.

You're better than that Dobbin. I know you're frustrated that in the midst of the biggest recession in generations - and the Liberals with a brand new shiny leader...the Conservatives are holding their own in the polls.......but to see you now regularly stoop to mindless comments is disappointing. You've always been a Liberal flag-waver, but I prefer your past well-researched, substantive critiques....albeit cleverly biased. You are losing credibility.

jdobbin · May 13, 2009

Looks like spurious comments like this are lessening credibility around here.

The ad campaigns have not put Harper anywhere in majority support since they began. His party has only gone over 40% a handful a times and the one thing that lessened the credibility of Harper as a statesman and leader has been his penchant to go for the throat.

It is a sociopathic and single minded response to the Liberals.

Edited May 13, 2009 by jdobbin

jdobbin · May 13, 2009

HAHAHA. Jdobbin you're REALLY reaching low nowadays. Your posting gets less intelligent every day.
Oh, and just because I know you love rules so much, please refer to the Rules and Guidelines regarding 3rd party insults.

If you have read what I said in a number of posts, I am describing the behaviour of such a response by Harper. But feel free to report the post. If it helps for you to hear that I feel Harper is being stupid for repeating a campaign that has not worked in getting him a majority support level and that the ads have done as much to frame Harper as an attacker then by all means...

madmax · May 13, 2009

The CPC are going to the well once to often. This is both a dumb idea, and too late. The CPC missed their chance to define Ignatieff because they were too busy proroguing parliment and lining up Patronage appointments to the Senate, while the LPC were dumping Dion.

People are going to have to choose between Harper Blue and Harper Red, or Ignatieff Blue and Ignatieff Red, as there is little difference between the two leaders in policy.

Harper isn't all that likeable.

Ignatieff is an aloof professor.

Edited May 13, 2009 by madmax

jdobbin · May 13, 2009

You're better than that Dobbin. I know you're frustrated that in the midst of the biggest recession in generations - and the Liberals with a brand new shiny leader...the Conservatives are holding their own in the polls.......but to see you now regularly stoop to mindless comments is disappointing. You've always been a Liberal flag-waver, but I prefer your past well-researched, substantive critiques....albeit cleverly biased. You are losing credibility.

As I said, I have indicated that Harper's response is sociopathic. It is self defeating in that it might bring Liberal support down a bit it never raises the Tories above what it needs to change its overall circumstances. His behaviour is a fear and anger response and manifests itself in attacks.

Harper showed such an attack response when he went after the BQ and by extension those that voted BQ in the last election. Not exactly a winning strategy in that province. Rather than offering an alternative in policy or picking apart Duceppe's ideas and the BQ;s effectiveness, he chose to go attack in general so that Quebec was in the hot seat.

As for the Tories holding their own in the polls, I think we can say that Harper must be concerned about their direction given his ever ready fallback position of attacking.

jdobbin · May 13, 2009

It's true, when I first started reading here I found jdobbin to be much more level headed. These days it seems he's getting desperate and attacks the Conservatives with even the weakest of arguments :/

So you don't agree that the response Harper has in using these type of ads is self defeating and shows a sociopathic response on the part of Harper. He can't seem to help himself and rather than trying to define an issue, himself or his party, he attacks.

The overall effectiveness is questionable since it never helps him achieve a level of a majority support in the polls.

I suppose if his goal is to simply to continue with a minority then he has achieved it. However, I don't of any political party or leader or wishes that since it takes a element of certainty away from the government.

As for these attack ads, it's politics as usual. I haven't seen anything really bad since Paul Martin's run, e.g.: the soldiers in the street ad.

Not quite politics as usual. Ads running when there isn't an election really didn't happen before 2006.

I have heard the argument that as long as there is money in the pot, why not?

Other jurisdictions forbid political campaigning by parties via ads outside an election. Perhaps that is what Canada as a whole should do.

Jerry J. Fortin · May 13, 2009

So you don't agree that the response Harper has in using these type of ads is self defeating and shows a sociopathic response on the part of Harper. He can't seem to help himself and rather than trying to define an issue, himself or his party, he attacks.
The overall effectiveness is questionable since it never helps him achieve a level of a majority support in the polls.

I suppose if his goal is to simply to continue with a minority then he has achieved it. However, I don't of any political party or leader or wishes that since it takes a element of certainty away from the government.

Not quite politics as usual. Ads running when there isn't an election really didn't happen before 2006.

I have heard the argument that as long as there is money in the pot, why not?

Other jurisdictions forbid political campaigning by parties via ads outside an election. Perhaps that is what Canada as a whole should do.

More legislative efforts? Passing a law that restricts the free speak of partisan representatives will not likely find sufficient support inside the House of Commons In my view there is nothing wrong with attack ads. Let the folks that spend that money decide how it should be spent. I agree that the effectiveness is questionable, but does that really matter? The country needs to find an issue that resonates well with citizens, these ads are a reflection of that effort, nothing more.

I do not care if these ads are a prelude to an election or not because we will most likely continue to split our votes to the extent possible which will prevent substantive change. The leaders of this country know this, and they play upon this. Partisan politics are the rule of thumb, with no single demographic developing an edge in support. We are stuck in a rut of old fashion politics, which is hardly up to the job as we know it and has no hope of providing the solutions we need.

Cuzzin E · May 13, 2009

Please. Respect goes both ways, and it's earned. Stephen Harper lived through 2 elections through which the Liberals basically said he was an evil anti-abortion, anti-gay crusader with a 'secret agenda' to turn Canada in to George Bush land. If politicians were going to all agree to be perfectly honest, not smear each other and get along quietly, that would be one thing, but it's not politics.

Yes people forget that the kinsella/martin/chretien gang launched some pretty vicious & personal attack ads against Day & Harper. And those grit girl ads aren't fooling anyone, these are professionally produced attack ads.

Personally, I hate these type of ads because they are intellectually dishonest and insulting to voters' intelligence. Anyone who blindly follows any political party is an idiot, these guys are all the same.

Moonbox · May 13, 2009

If you have read what I said in a number of posts, I am describing the behaviour of such a response by Harper. But feel free to report the post. If it helps for you to hear that I feel Harper is being stupid for repeating a campaign that has not worked in getting him a majority support level and that the ads have done as much to frame Harper as an attacker then by all means...

The attack ads served to drive Liberal numbers lower than ever last election. No, they didn't give the Tories a majority, but that's only because Harper totally goofed up in Quebec.

What's particularly amusing about your analysis of things, however, is how the Chretien/Martin Liberals set the precedent for juvenile attack ads like the ones we're seeing lately. They framed Harper as an anti-abortion and anti-gay crusader with the secret agenda of wanting to make Canada a colony of the USA. He's never recovered from this.

Of course, this was all fine and dandy when the Liberals were doing it. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but I am once again highlighting how completely screwed up your perception of things are and how selective your memory is when you post. It's hard to take you seriously anymore. It feels more like I'm arguing against your religion rather than politics with you.

Moonbox · May 13, 2009

Personally, I hate these type of ads because they are intellectually dishonest and insulting to voters' intelligence. Anyone who blindly follows any political party is an idiot, these guys are all the same.

Totally agree. It's too bad there are so many people out there that do. This is why FOX news is actually taken seriously in the states.

Sadly the only remedy is to make people smarter. I'll hold my breath for that one.

Keepitsimple · May 13, 2009

As I said, I have indicated that Harper's response is sociopathic. It is self defeating in that it might bring Liberal support down a bit it never raises the Tories above what it needs to change its overall circumstances. His behaviour is a fear and anger response and manifests itself in attacks.
Harper showed such an attack response when he went after the BQ and by extension those that voted BQ in the last election. Not exactly a winning strategy in that province. Rather than offering an alternative in policy or picking apart Duceppe's ideas and the BQ;s effectiveness, he chose to go attack in general so that Quebec was in the hot seat.

As for the Tories holding their own in the polls, I think we can say that Harper must be concerned about their direction given his ever ready fallback position of attacking.

You were a little more direct in some of your postings - I believe "mad dog" was appended to sociopath in a couple of them. As I've said a number of times.....I'm not a card-carrying party member - I'm one of the many who voted for Liberals when I was younger and now, I lean to the Conservatives - usually. I must admit, I've never been as proud of a leader as I am of Harper. As we speak, the papers today report that he has laid the groundwork for a positive trade and diplomatic relationship with China but only AFTER we have established how important Human Rights are in that relationship. It was no accident that Harper established a cool relationship with China at the beginning - he wanted to make it clear that it wasn't just talk - that Human Rights were important and that we would be doing our part to continually drive that home. It's principled stands such as these - standing up for democracy with regards to Israel/Hezbollah - standing up for democracy with regards to Sri Lanka/Tamil Tigers. Less smarmy platitudes and more principled stands. We are being listened to on the world stage.....not just smiled at because we never say anything bad about anyone......that continually "nuanced" politically correct approach.

Moonbox · May 13, 2009

Keepitsimple I think your praise of Harper is a little over zealous.

He overspent on every budget and heavily too. This was while the economy was performing well. He's alienated the majority of Canadians to the point that until he steps down or gets defeated, we'll be be running expensive and ineffective minority governments.

He's a pandering buffoon just like he promised he wouldn't be. The only reason I've stuck with him is that a Dion Liberal government wouldn't have fixed his mistakes and would have only made them worse. I pray for the return of Chretien-era fiscal policy. If that comes from a new CPC leader or from Ignatieff, I don't care. I'll take it either way. So far neither looks likely to me.

jdobbin · May 13, 2009

You were a little more direct in some of your postings - I believe "mad dog" was appended to sociopath in a couple of them.

I did say that. I still can't believe his bahaviour hasn't changed for something the pollsters and other analysts say hasn't worked to put the Torries over the top.

As I've said a number of times.....I'm not a card-carrying party member - I'm one of the many who voted for Liberals when I was younger and now, I lean to the Conservatives - usually. I must admit, I've never been as proud of a leader as I am of Harper. As we speak, the papers today report that he has laid the groundwork for a positive trade and diplomatic relationship with China but only AFTER we have established how important Human Rights are in that relationship.

Even some Tory supporters wondered what Harper hoped to achieve with his previous lack of engagement with the Chinese.

It was no accident that Harper established a cool relationship with China at the beginning - he wanted to make it clear that it wasn't just talk - that Human Rights were important and that we would be doing our part to continually drive that home.

I don't see where his hostility did any good. It was more than a cool relationship, it was cold war.

It's principled stands such as these - standing up for democracy with regards to Israel/Hezbollah - standing up for democracy with regards to Sri Lanka/Tamil Tigers. Less smarmy platitudes and more principled stands. We are being listened to on the world stage.....not just smiled at because we never say anything bad about anyone......that continually "nuanced" politically correct approach.

Harper had to rely on the NDP to break up a domestic disobedience in Canada. Seems to me that they are scared to even be seen talking to over 300,000 Canaians because they consider them to be terrorists.

bush_cheney2004 · May 13, 2009

Totally agree. It's too bad there are so many people out there that do. This is why FOX news is actually taken seriously in the states.

Fox News should be taken as "seriously" as any other.....unless it doesn't meet your agenda.

Sadly the only remedy is to make people smarter. I'll hold my breath for that one.

Smart people also watch Fox News....around the world. They also understand the purpose and context of political advertising.

madmax · May 13, 2009

Totally agree. It's too bad there are so many people out there that do. This is why FOX news is actually taken seriously in the states.

:lol:

Sadly the only remedy is to make people smarter. I'll hold my breath for that one.

ROTFLMAO :lol: :lol:

Can't breathe, need air....aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh.

August1991 · May 13, 2009

There are more:

-----

I find it hypocritical of Liberals to complain about these attack ads when they have used them to devastating effect before.

IMV, it makes sense to show these ads now since they will help to define Ignatieff who is still an unknown quantity to most voters. (Is it wrong to define Ignatieff this way? Well, is it wrong if Ignatieff or the Liberals try to define him another way?)

Lastly, these ads are not designed for the political junkies who post on this forum. (We make up a small percentage of the population.) Instead, these ads are destined to ordinary people who (wisely) pay much less attention to politics. I don't happen to think that that makes them stupid.

-----

It is also ironic to criticize the use of attack ads by calling the PM a "frothing mad dog sociopath".

Edited May 13, 2009 by August1991

Moonbox · May 13, 2009

Lastly, these ads are not designed for the political junkies who post on this forum. (We make up a small percentage of the population.) Instead, these ads are destined to ordinary people who (wisely) pay much less attention to politics. I don't happen to think that that makes them stupid.

So it's ignorance. As far as I'm concerned, ignorance is a type of stupidity. The people you're talking about usually have no problems developing strong opinions about the politics in question, but with almost zero knowledge on the subject, what can you call them but stupid? Who votes without knowing or understanding the issues?

It is also ironic to criticize the use of attack ads by calling the PM a "frothing mad dog sociopath".

Yes. I was about to say...lol

jdobbin · May 13, 2009

There are more:
I find it hypocritical of Liberals to complain about these attack ads when they have used them to devastating effect before.

Has it helped Harper reach his goal? Is his goal a continued minority government?

IMV, it makes sense to show these ads now since they will help to define Ignatieff who is still an unknown quantity to most voters. (Is it wrong to define Ignatieff this way? Well, is it wrong if Ignatieff or the Liberals try to define him another way?)

What it does is to continually define Harper as an attacker.

Lastly, these ads are not designed for the political junkies who post on this forum. (We make up a small percentage of the population.) Instead, these ads are destined to ordinary people who (wisely) pay much less attention to politics. I don't happen to think that that makes them stupid.

I think the polls show that it helps the Tories in the short term take their opponent down a peg but it doesn't make people feel any greater passion for the Tories. In fact, it helps form the impression that Harper is an attacker.

It is also ironic to criticize the use of attack ads by calling the PM a "frothing mad dog sociopath".

His behaviour is that one. He is a fear biter.

Moonbox · May 13, 2009

Has it helped Harper reach his goal? Is his goal a continued minority government?

I think handing the Liberals their worst defeat in history would could as a success for him.

What it does is to continually define Harper as an attacker.

Harper was defined to Canadians years ago by Liberal attack ads and his response to them. At this point nothing he can't reverse this.

I think the polls show that it helps the Tories in the short term take their opponent down a peg but it doesn't make people feel any greater passion for the Tories. In fact, it helps form the impression that Harper is an attacker.

Nobody cares who the attacker is. You clearly didn't care when you were voting for Paul Martin years ago. As for the polls, they're not as easy to interpret as you think.

August1991 · May 13, 2009

What it does is to continually define Harper as an attacker.

Your entire reaction is to turn the debate into an attack on Harper. Dobbin, it's your standard debating style.

I happen to think that there is much truth to the basic points in these so-called attack ads. It is because of their basic truth that these ads may prove to be effective.

------

I don't want to engage in thread drift but...

So it's ignorance. As far as I'm concerned, ignorance is a type of stupidity. The people you're talking about usually have no problems developing strong opinions about the politics in question, but with almost zero knowledge on the subject, what can you call them but stupid? Who votes without knowing or understanding the issues?

Everyone has the right to vote but not everyone is well informed of the issues. Because someone is ignorant doesn't make them stupid. I don't consider myself stupid but I am ignorant of many things (for example professional sports).

Indeed, it seems to me that it is rather stupid to be informed about arcane political issues since one vote in an election is not going to change anything. This is a major failing of democracy and is one reason that I prefer limits on government and politicians who are restrained in what they can do.

But to return to the topic, most people can make a legitimate moral judgment and I think these ads help people to do that. The fact is that Ignatieff has lived outside of the country for a long time and he only seems interested in living here if he can be PM. Rather than be a rigourous intellectual, he seems to say whatever is considered the conventional wisdom at the time he says it.

And all things considered, from Ruby Dhalla to Jean Chretien to David Dingwall, the Liberal Party is in it for themselves.

Shady · May 13, 2009

What it does is to continually define Harper as an attacker.

When you're on offense, your opponent is on defense. I'm sorry you're so bent out of shape by it, but it's good and smart politics. And if it wasn't effective, you wouldn't be complaining about it, and the Liberals, wouldn't be complaining about it. The Liberals are still lost in the political wilderness, and Harper's taking advantage of it. In politics, defining your opponent is paramount. Always has, always will.

waldo · May 13, 2009

In politics, defining your opponent is paramount. Always has, always will.

just more amateurish playtime from the CPC basement dwellers... but, I do believe Grit Girl is warming up in the wings

ya, ya... "Just Visiting"

Wild Bill · May 13, 2009

"Barney the Dinosaur", anyone? - Warren Kinsella

Moonbox · May 13, 2009

Everyone has the right to vote but not everyone is well informed of the issues. Because someone is ignorant doesn't make them stupid. I don't consider myself stupid but I am ignorant of many things (for example professional sports).

I don't expect people to be totally informed. With that said, millions of voters go to the polls without even reading a newspaper on occasion. When popular opinion is successfully swayed by things like what sort of mustard you put on your hot dog, I question the intelligence of the average popular opinion holder.

The reason politicians get away with so much crap is because nobody cares and nobody notices or understands. When you make important decisions and form strong convictions without any knowledge to base them on, that IS stupid.

Nevermind the debate as to whether or not it's worth getting informed or worth voting at all. It's kind of like literring. Multiply that one vote/uninformed decision and multiply it by millions and it does become a problem. It's one of the biggest reasons the rich are so able to maintain the status quo and get away with everything they do. People are just too dumb/apathetic to care.