Conservative attack ads

[Shady]

just more amateurish playtime from the CPC basement dwellers...

Nope. Defining your opponents, wins you elections. Opponents defining you, loses you elections. Just ask Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John McCain, Stockwell Day and Stefan Dion.

[waldo]

Nope. Defining your opponents, wins you elections. Opponents defining you, loses you elections.

Shady... can ya help em out

seems the recently launched CPC "defining" website, using the .me domain... is... "all about you"!

how, uhhh... defining

yes - a website hosted in Montenegro no less! So the CPC basement dwelling brainiacs "thought" to host their brainchild outside Canada... why, how apropos for a website the Conservatives are using to attack Ignatieff for having lived outside Canada. :lol:

.me => it's all about you! and since .me is "all about you"... Ignatieff is "all about you"! How all inclusive... he cares... Ignatieff really cares about all Canadians!

yes, Shady - it's all about defining: I hereby define the CPC brainthrust sorely lacking!

[jdobbin]

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

And you defend him as a quiet, WASP man who is put upon by the everyone. Knock it off. You know what he is. He has an attacker at his very heart. He lives for Liberal destruction to the the detriment of actually governing.

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.

The basic truth is that Harper is a fear biter.

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

And Harper is a nation builder? Guess we have seen that nation building in Quebec.

[jdobbin]

When you're on offense, your opponent is on defense.

And that is why the Liberals are going to come our on the offensive right back that Harper is a mad dog sociopath intent on attacking rather than governing.

I'm sorry you're so bent out of shape by it, but it's good and smart politics.

And that is why I have said that the Dion response is not going to repeat. The Liberals will put it right back on Harper than he is a man that can't be trusted, is a divider, an attacker and he has a party to afraid to raise objections to top down governing style.

And if it wasn't effective, you wouldn't be complaining about it, and the Liberals, wouldn't be complaining about it.

And I guess we'll be hearing how effective the response from the Liberals are when you claim that the liberal media, police, civil service and judiciary all pile on the right.

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.

And that is why Harper is defined as behaving like a mod dog fear biter.

[Alta4ever]

And Harper is a nation builder? Guess we have seen that nation building in Quebec.

No we saw Qubec throw a hissy fit over a couple of million dollars of arts funding. The Conservative government showed its willingness to include Quebec and work with them, Quebec showed itself to be petty and small.

[jdobbin]

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

I don't think. According to his closest adviser Tom Flanagan, he won't be happy with anything short of complete destruction of the Liberal party.

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.

And so it will continue and likely with more venom at how Harper is a divider, an attacker, a polarizing nation crushing figure who is more intent on destructive strategies than actually governing the country.

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.

Here's what the polls say: No majority for Harper.

[jdobbin]

No we saw Qubec throw a hissy fit over a couple of million dollars of arts funding. The Conservative government showed its willingness to include Quebec and work with them, Quebec showed itself to be petty and small.

And now Harper thinks they are all separatists and has given up on them.

[Molly]

...just like he gave up on so many other promises, and principles, and ideals, and....

I honestly think these will backfire. (I look forward to it, in fact. ) About the last thing folks who are short of cash and worried want to hear is politics over productiivity, mean-minded self-centredness- gutter politics- instead of hope.

Harper was almost beginning to look a little less like a smirking bully, and the Conservatives a litte less bloody-minded, but no. Leopards don't change their spots.

Way to lead there, Stepehen, old buddy. Way to show off your tin ear!

Edited May 13, 2009 by Molly

[Topaz]

I guess it doesn't help the Tories when BC elected the Lib. premier for the third time and that they have a carbon tax that is bring down their taxes on other things. It just wipes out what the Tories are preaching about the carbon tax and with high employment in ALBERTA and a % of them not getting EI, I would think the Tories are in trouble and so four more ads on Iggy, this time on TV and radio! Let's just see how low they can go!

[Nat]

These kinds of negative ads are the reason I sometimes feel like not voting for anyone. If the Liberals resort to the same pettiness I'll vote Green.

[capricorn]

These kinds of negative ads are the reason I sometimes feel like not voting for anyone.

What good would that do. I doubt your sacrificing your right to vote would be noticed by anyone. You'd only be hurting yourself.

If the Liberals resort to the same pettiness I'll vote Green.

I take it that you were and are presently a Liberal supporter. Did you vote Liberal when they came out with the "hidden agenda', "soldiers in our streets" ads to condemn the Conservatives?

[August1991]

I don't think. According to his closest adviser Tom Flanagan, he won't be happy with anything short of complete destruction of the Liberal party.

When the Liberals are reduced to two seats in the House of Commons and are forced to rebuild their party, then maybe we can talk seriously about this.

Dobbin, as far as I can see, the Liberal Party has not drawn any lessons from the sponsorship scandal or the internal ego wars of Martin and Chretien. They have lurched from Dion, to an absurd coailition and finally now to Ignatieff, all purely out of expediency. They want power.

People like Pearson or Trudeau at least gave the Liberals some purpose and a principle or two. At this point, I suspect that Mackenzie King had more principles than the current Liberal gang.

[jdobbin]

When the Liberals are reduced to two seats in the House of Commons and are forced to rebuild their party, then maybe we can talk seriously about this.

That wouldn't be good enough for Harper.

Dobbin, as far as I can see, the Liberal Party has not drawn any lessons from the sponsorship scandal or the internal ego wars of Martin and Chretien. They have lurched from Dion, to an absurd coailition and finally now to Ignatieff, all purely out of expediency. They want power.

And Tories don't want power and do things for the greatness of mankind. Uh, yeah.

People like Pearson or Trudeau at least gave the Liberals some purpose and a principle or two. At this point, I suspect that Mackenzie King had more principles than the current Liberal gang.

Pearson was hated by the right for being a man from the civil service who spent too much time outside of the country. King was thought to be a loon by the right.

[M.Dancer]

King was thought to be a loon by the right.

He was a loon. No debate there at all.

[August1991]

Pearson was hated by the right for being a man from the civil service who spent too much time outside of the country. King was thought to be a loon by the right.

I thought Diefenbaker hated Pearson because he sold Canada out to the Americans and because he thought Pearson was too willing to compromise on federal power. As to Pearson's time outside of the country, some of it was in uniform defending the Empire. (I know that Ignatieff likes to compare himself to Pearson and you seem to be doing the same. Ignatieff has never worn a uniform.)

King's reputation for being crazy is relatively recent, and partly due to the publication of his diaries. During his life, King was the consummate and cautious political player.

Canadian history will play out its own way but I see Stephen Harper as a descendant of Pearson and King.

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.

See my response here.

-----

The way the Liberal Party ditched Stephane Dion is telling. He faced one general election, he concocted a coalition and then there was a coup.

This is how the Liberal Party treats people. "If you can help us, we love you. If not, get lost."

The Liberal Party treated Stephane Dion the way Ruby Dhalla treated her nannies.

Edited May 14, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

I thought Diefenbaker hated Pearson because he sold Canada out to the Americans and because he thought Pearson was too willing to compromise on federal power. As to Pearson's time outside of the country, some of it was in uniform defending the Empire. (I know that Ignatieff likes to compare himself to Pearson and you seem to be doing the same. Ignatieff has never worn a uniform.)

There was an argument that Pearson didn't know Canada after so long away. It has been in a number of biographies. Didn't matter the reason he was away.

King's reputation for being crazy is relatively recent, and partly due to the publication of his diaries. During his life, King was the consummate and cautious political player.

It wasn't just his diaries that made those who saw him operate think that he was a loon. It was his approach to politics. He also took criticism for being out of the country for a long time.

Canadian history will play out its own way but I see Stephen Harper as a descendant of Pearson and King.

What do you think his achievements will be?

The way the Liberal Party ditched Stephane Dion is telling. He faced one general election, he concocted a coalition and then there was a coup.

This is how the Liberal Party treats people. "If you can help us, we love you. If not, get lost."

Dion was defeated in an election and stepped down because after being leader he still had not addressed basic issues of reorganizing the party, fundraising and policies.

The Liberal Party treated Stephane Dion the way Ruby Dhalla treated her nannies.

Yes, there it is again. You have no evidence against Dhalla but feel free to smear. Have you learned nothing from your past Trudeau comments?

[Shady]

And that is why Harper is defined as behaving like a mod dog fear biter.

I'm not exactly sure what a mod dog fear biter is, or a mad dog sociopath. But if you're proposing the Liberals engage in the same strategy, and quite pleased with it, then doesn't that make them, and you, the same as Harper?

[jdobbin]

I'm not exactly sure what a mod dog fear biter is, or a mad dog sociopath. But if you're proposing the Liberals engage in the same strategy, and quite pleased with it, then doesn't that make them, and you, the same as Harper?

Somewhat a different strategy: To show that Harper is an attacker. That he can't help himself. That he would rather fight than govern.

He is a fear biter in his behaviour because he attacks when he feels that he is down in the polls. He is a sociopath because his strategy has not made major gains for him in the polls. He can't break the logjam because any further attempt on his part to offer an olive branch is treated as highly untrustworthy. He is a mad dog in his behaviour because he is unaware and doesn't care that his actions are self destructive.

Dion did not respond to the ads and it hurt the Liberals marginally in that they could not break out from the election results of 2006. Dion hurt himself more by not getting his party ready in terms of money, policies and organization in the time he had before the election.

I suppose some might say it was the Tory ads that made it impossible for Dion to be a better leader but in the end those ads did not win Harper a majority. In fact, there seems to be no popular movement towards giving Harper a majority since the polls consistently ranged in the 2006 results.

There are only so many times that Harper can go to the same well and hope for good result. And this time he is facing a leader who is just as likely going to respond back about the type of behaviour that Harper has used since becoming leader.

Edited May 14, 2009 by jdobbin

[August1991]

There are only so many times that Harper can go to the same well and hope for good result.

Really?

Harper can go often to such a well. Unlike Chretien, Harper doesn't have a reputation for building hotels in his riding with government money.

English Canadians believe Harper when he speaks. They don't, for example, believe Ruby Dhalla.

As I posted above, the Liberal Party treats Stephane Dion the same way that Ruby Dhalla treated her nannies. "If you can help me, I love and respect you." Well, where is Dion now?

Edited May 14, 2009 by August1991

[waldo]

oh my! Time to regroup...

Conservative attack ads fundamentally flawed

More to the point, the ads actually cede to Ignatieff a number of major points: ability, internationalism, but - most dangerously - strength.

I'm a subscriber to the Will Ferguson theory of Bastards and Boneheads.

It states that Canadians elect leaders who are bastards, not boneheads.

Ferguson writes: "Bastards succeed. They are ruthless. They are active. Their cause may be noble or it may be amoral, but the Bastard is always the active principle. Boneheads fail, often by stumbling over their own feet. They are reactive. Inept. Indignant. They are usually truly amazed by their failures."

Trudeau versus Clark. Mulroney versus Turner. Chrétien versus Day. Harper versus Dion. Most of our recent national elections were competitions between arrogant bastards and stumbling boneheads, and the bastards always win.

Conceding the "arrogant bastard" high ground is a major error. In effect, the Conservative Party is paying millions of dollars to brand Michael Ignatieff the very thing Canadians vote for: arrogant bastards.

The best attack ads make their victim an object of ridicule. This one attempts that with a cheeky attitude, but builds up its target so much before it tears him down that the net result can be a grudging respect for Ignatieff.

Taught at Harvard? Isn't that a good thing?

On the cover of GQ? That's kind of cool, actually.

[Molly]

English Canadians believe Harper when he speaks.

That's a stretch.

Do you? Did you believe that the economy was in great shape? That there would be no deficit? That the Conservatives much care about green anything? (No, I resolve not to start listing, or this will be a pointlessly, but exceptionally long post.)

[Smallc]

English Canadians believe Harper when he speaks.

Not any English Canadians (Conservatives BTW) that I know.

[Keepitsimple]

That's a stretch.

Do you? Did you believe that the economy was in great shape? That there would be no deficit? That the Conservatives much care about green anything? (No, I resolve not to start listing, or this will be a pointlessly, but exceptionally long post.)

That's exactly why you are a proud Liberal supporter - because Liberals are a caring, honest, inclusive party. They are a party that you can believe in - that you can trust. Good for you.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Molly]

You are trying to be sarcastic, but the fact is, they ARE much more inclusive, and yes, more caring.

And I don't recall them engaging in the kind of rediculous, delusional hyperbole about their own integrity that the Conservatives have done.

[Wild Bill]

You are trying to be sarcastic, but the fact is, they ARE much more inclusive, and yes, more caring.

And I don't recall them engaging in the kind of rediculous, delusional hyperbole about their own integrity that the Conservatives have done.

I dunno, Molly. In my experience, when a politician cloaks himself in "inclusiveness" and "caring" it actually means he's dishonest and is using a cover.

These are carnival side show tricks to separate the mark from his money. You make him feel good so that he'll WANT to give you money! He'll give you $1 on a chance to win a 25 cent cupie doll for his girl friend.

By now I actually become distrustful when a politician's public image seems mostly based on "niceness". Seems to me he should have a good track record and logical ideas first. "Inclusiveness" can be nice but simply a bonus.

I used to be a salesman and I still remember one buyer who used to say "God save me from 'nice' salespeople". What he meant was that he was frustrated by how so many were so friendly but totally incompetent at solving his needs and problems. He'd rather have a grumpy one who knew what he or she was doing!

Edited May 14, 2009 by Wild Bill