Conservative attack ads

[Argus]

Hardly. I'm not missing the point, but outright disagreeing with it.

For those who enter politics, that which they do publicly is very public... but their private lives are, for the most part, left quite private.

They do not have to deal with groupies and paparazzi; their private files are not rifled; they have discreet affairs that are not commented upon. Their sicko brother-in-law is never mentioned, and the only way we'd know if they have tattoos and appendectomy scars is if they choose to display them. Unless they start dragging their spouses and children up onto the podium, no one cares much whether those others exist. They have only, really, to answer for the opinions they publicly express.

Lukowski didn't express any opinion publcly. He was at a private party among friends sixteen years earlier, clowning around, and it still became headline news.

Let me suggest the following; A lowly backbench tory MP is with a small group in his home, say six people. He tells a very bad ethnic joke. Someone records it and sends the recording to a media outlet.

Will the transcripts of that recording be on the front page of every newspaper in this country the next day or not?

[Argus]

There is no American bogeyman! America is little more than a corporate empire bent on profits. Once you get by that reality America is easy to understand.

And yet, you clearly don't.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And yet, you clearly don't.

I think I do understand America Argus. I just don't agree with it on some things, or you either.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is no American bogeyman! America is little more than a corporate empire bent on profits. Once you get by that reality America is easy to understand. Canadians don't really care one way or the other about America, aside from the fact that they continue to purchase goods and services from Canada in the same consistent manner.

Nope...there simply must be an American bogeyman....from the CRTC to "American style" health care or attack ads.

Bush was and is an idiot, always has been and always will be. Obama is an unknown in political terms, a variable that we need to solve for. He was against free trade, now he seems to be for it. He was against "dirty" Alberta oil, no he seems to be for it.

Hard to reconcile such an opinion with not really caring either way...both are Americans.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Nope...there simply must be an American bogeyman....from the CRTC to "American style" health care or attack ads.

Hard to reconcile such an opinion with not really caring either way...both are Americans.

BC, many Canadians simply don't understand that your nation is based on personal freedom, the right to do as you please, right or wrong. The law determines what you can't do, not what you can do. So many folks view that as the right to do as you please and in this nation that makes you look bad, because we simply don't understand the real price of freedom and the real rewards realized in its achievement. As is most cases people fear what they don't understand and our politicians like to play upon fear whereas your politicians play upon risks and rewards.

Bush and Obama are opposite sides of a coin, but they are both still a coin. America first, everyone else behind them. Pretty hard to have it any other way in America, and pretty hard to understand from outside America.

[Molly]

Lukiwski didn't express any opinion publcly. He was at a private party among friends sixteen years earlier, clowning around, and it still became headline news.

Let me suggest the following; A lowly backbench tory MP is with a small group in his home, say six people. He tells a very bad ethnic joke. Someone records it and sends the recording to a media outlet.

Will the transcripts of that recording be on the front page of every newspaper in this country the next day or not?

For pity sake, Argus, how far 'round Cape Horn do you plan on reaching to try to find an example to make a point that doesn't amount to a hill of beans anyway?

Okay... http://www2.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/ne...05-95fd3fca6a90

Pay close attention to the last part of it... the part that points out what the man was specifically supposed to represent- the exact opposite of the opinion he exhibits in the tape. Then pay attention to where it was filmed.... yes at a party among political allies, during a campaign. That would be a party at which he was present only because of his public role and identity. And then in addition.... read carefully how the tape happened to become public. Yes, those self same party hacks left it in an office that the NDP was to immediately occupy, thus delivering it directly, with no middlemen, to their political opponents. Not to the press who likely would have just rolled their eyes and trashed it, but to their political opponents, to make an issue out of it.

If your lowly backbench MP is stupid enough to tell extremely tasteless jokes, and stupid enough to do it on camera, and stupid enough in his choice of half a dozen trusted friends that one of them would make such an attempt to betray him by giving that tape to the press, then the intelligence of the press is actually still likely to save him.

[enviralment]

Talk about alienating yourself in Quebec and playing to the fringes of partisanship. Ohhh attacking a party for being for 'pro' pedophile is despicable and unwise. Yeah like the Bloc can't respond to this.

[jbg]

Talk about alienating yourself in Quebec and playing to the fringes of partisanship. Ohhh attacking a party for being for 'pro' pedophile is despicable and unwise. Yeah like the Bloc can't respond to this.

Then why won't the Bloc let the bill pass?

[Smallc]

Because they believe in allowing judicial discretion, as they've already said.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Because they believe in allowing judicial discretion, as they've already said.

Partisan appointed judge, optional sentencing systems.

[August1991]

Note to moderators: If this topic exists already, please merge. I checked but saw nothing.

If you haven't seen them, here's a link.

First, I think these ads are great. This is how politics should be conducted in the modern world. Warren Kinsella and Keith Davey were predecessors. Harper is a follower. I say this with no sense of irony (how cynical our cooperative leftists): we need criticism.

Second, I love the French ad against a Duceppe Montréalais. This ad worked on two levels: it piqued Duceppe, and worked in the regions. Duceppe, foolishly took the bait. Whatta guy! (Harper has his number.)

Third, the soft Anglo ad works well for borderline women. Hats off.

[Moonlight Graham]

we need criticism.

We need criticisms based on facts, not complete garbage and lies like the vast majority of attacks are based on.

Attack ads only sway the ignorant who don't follow the news and know the actual facts. Yes they work, but in an often very dishonest (not to mention rude and uncivil) kind of way. Spare me.

How i decide on candidates during election time: whenever possible, ignore most of what the lying scumbags say & promise, and judge them based on their past actions. Actions speak louder than words, and this is especially true regarding politicians.

[August1991]

We need criticisms based on facts, not complete garbage and lies like the vast majority of attacks are based on.

Who defines garbage or lies? You?

The western scientific method is based on harsh questions.

----

MG, in a democracy, voters must choose. These ads work well. I'm impressed with the Quebec ads, the Ignatieff ads and the soft anglo Harper ad.

The ads are impressive. I fear saying the ads were focus/tested because that will lend greater credence to the Conservative astuteness.

Edited January 19, 2011 by August1991

[Battletoads]

And not a single issue was adressed.

Good to see the Cons focus is on this and not their record debt.

[August1991]

And not a single issue was adressed.

WTF?

These ads address "issues", and are deadly.

1. Duceppe only cares about Montreal. Conservatives will represent Quebec regions in Ottawa.

2. (Message for women.) Harper will take care of Canada.

3. Ignatieff is not Canadian. He can't be trusted.

4. Layton is ambitious and an unknown.

The ads are devastating.

[Charles Anthony]

Note to moderators: If this topic exists already, please merge. I checked but saw nothing.

Yeah, the search function here in the forum is borked. For the time being, I have to use Google thusly: "conservative attack ads site:http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/" to find stuff. This seems to work very well.

There are quite a few previous threads related to this topic. I am sifting through them to figure out which ones to merge. You all can give me recommendations if you wish.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Charles Anthony

[Moonlight Graham]

Who defines garbage or lies? You?

Well i must state that i wasn't referring specifically to the ad you linked, as it is among the tamer end of attack ads, but it is still rude and childish.

I don't define what is garbage/lies, the facts do.

The western scientific method is based on harsh questions.

The scientific method is usually never found anywhere in attack ads. They start at the level of theory and hypothesis and go directly to making conclusions, skipping the whole observation/testing phase ie: looking at evidence that may support or disprove their claims. Attack ads often conveniently leave out many facts and context.

MG, in a democracy, voters must choose. These ads work well. I'm impressed with the Quebec ads, the Ignatieff ads and the soft anglo Harper ad.

The ads are impressive. I fear saying the ads were focus/tested because that will lend greater credence to the Conservative astuteness.

Well i suppose i just respectfully disagree on the whole concept of attacks ads. Your view is of course quite valid because attack ads do work and have become an effective political tool.

But in my opinion, i see attack ads as childish insults thrown by different sides who are supposed to act like responsible adults and represent our country with dignity. But of course this is often not the case. I would have thought Question Period would give them all the time they needed to act like children.

[Shakeyhands]

3. Ignatieff is not Canadian. He can't be trusted.

The ads are devastating.

What bullshit. God forbid we have a PM with a modicum of international experience and perish the thought of someone who may be a little smarter than the average mail room boy.

Ignatieff is as Canadian as you or I, and the childish attempts to define him as not by the CPC show their true colours, power at any and all costs.

Come on, pick on his lack of traction, the infighting in the LPC, anything... but this slop.

The ads may just backfire, and I for one hope they do if only to show the buffoons that the discourse ought to be truthful and honest.

[Moonbox]

What bullshit. God forbid we have a PM with a modicum of international experience and perish the thought of someone who may be a little smarter than the average mail room boy.

Ignatieff is as Canadian as you or I, and the childish attempts to define him as not by the CPC show their true colours, power at any and all costs.

Sure, I guess his passport says he's Canadian. I won't argue that. I also can't argue he grew up here. On the other hand, the fact that he chose to spend 27 of the last 32 years outside of the country would suggest he's about as far removed from the beating heart of Canada, and about as out of touch with its people, as a Canadian can be. I won't knock him for his education or intellecualism, but only an idiot wouldn't raise an eyebrow at the fact that he came back to Canada ONLY when the possibility of becoming PM came up.

The ads may just backfire, and I for one hope they do if only to show the buffoons that the discourse ought to be truthful and honest.

Oh please. Grow up. You and I might prefer the discourse be truthful and honest, but this is politics, and neither side is going to be honest. People as interested in politics as MLW in Canada probably account for 5% of the population. Maybe another 10-15% care enough to read the news and stay informed. The other 80-85% are either too dumb or don't care enough to know wtf is going on anyways, and they're the ones the ads target.

[Topaz]

Micheal has spent more time INSIDE Canada then the Tories want you to believe. Fact, he was born in 1947 and didn't leave under he was 31 years old. He then went to England, France and other countries working. In 2000, he went to Harvard and in 2005 he came back to Canada. So total he been in Canada for 31+6=37 years. Last time I checked 37 is more than 27! Michael has seen and knows more about the world than Harper could ever learn, it called life experiences. Harper has only worked for an oil company and a coalition before coming to Ottawa. How about the half truths. Tories say that the Liberal would raise the GST. Michael said AFTER the economy is back to normal and times were good, they would raise the GST BUT would reduce INCOME TAX. Attack ads are a way of life for the Tories because they haven't done anything to pound their chest about so they go on the attack. It would be so bad if they left out the PERSONAL attacks but again they have nothing to boost about their years in government. Harper has done more harm than good to Canada and Canadians.

[Keepitsimple]

Micheal has spent more time INSIDE Canada then the Tories want you to believe. Fact, he was born in 1947 and didn't leave under he was 31 years old.

Topaz....where do you get your "facts".....I noticed you didn't supply a link. The guy travelled "abroad" with his family until he was 11.....then he was sent back to Canada to boarding school. He graduated Trinity college in 1969 and at age 21, he was gone.....except for a two year teaching stint at UBC in 1976. Here's a somewhat flattering commentary - depending on your viewpoint - that documents his travels but first, here's a wiki extract to start it off:

Ignatieff was born on May 12, 1947 in Toronto, the elder son of Russian-born Canadian diplomat George Ignatieff and his Canadian-born wife, Jessie Alison (née Grant). Ignatieff's family moved abroad regularly in his early childhood as his father rose in the diplomatic ranks. At the age of 11, Ignatieff was sent back to Toronto to attend Upper Canada College as a boarder in 1959.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff

Yet Ignatieff's explanation of his departure from Canada is surprisingly succinct. He had to leave, he says, because he "needed weight." He was 21 and being courted by the Liberal party for a political destiny that seemed inevitable. Involvement in public life was a given in his family.

Indeed. Thirty-six years - minus a two-year return to teach - was the length of Michael Ignatieff's odyssey back to Canada.

Link: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013010

Edited January 19, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Moonbox]

Micheal has spent more time INSIDE Canada then the Tories want you to believe. Fact, he was born in 1947 and didn't leave under he was 31 years old. He then went to England, France and other countries working. In 2000, he went to Harvard and in 2005 he came back to Canada. So total he been in Canada for 31+6=37 years. Last time I checked 37 is more than 27!

Igniatieff has spent the vast majority of his adult life outside of Canada. He CHOSE to live outside of Canada as soon as he had the means to do so, and he didn't come back for 27 years. It's hardly coincidence that he came back only when the possibility of leading the country came up.

Michael has seen and knows more about the world than Harper could ever learn, it called life experiences.

He was a university professor and a journalist. How does that make him any more wordly than so many other MPs? Because he worked in the UK and the USA? I'm not knocking his credentials, but living in the UK and especially the USA doesn't exactly make someone wordly.

Harper has only worked for an oil company and a coalition before coming to Ottawa. How about the half truths.

What's half truth about it?

Tories say that the Liberal would raise the GST. Michael said AFTER the economy is back to normal and times were good, they would raise the GST BUT would reduce INCOME tax.

Ignatief hasn't defined himself or his policies. He's done little other than BS and change his mind since becoming Liberal Leader so you could say almost anything about him at this point.

Attack ads are a way of life for the Tories because they haven't done anything to pound their chest about so they go on the attack. It would be so bad if they left out the PERSONAL attacks but again they have nothing to boost about their years in government. Harper has done more harm than good to Canada and Canadians.

Attack ads aren't exclusive to the Tories. The Liberals are all about them as well.

As for things to boast about, they have plenty to boast about. The CPC led the country through probably the mildest recession of the developed world and we also look like we're headed for a boom. It's held the longest running minority government in Canadian history and it's largely kept itself squeaky clean. That's a lot more than Ignatieff can say.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Moonbox

[jbg]

Last time I checked 37 is more than 27!

When you subtract out the first 18 years for his childhood it winds up with his spending 19 adult years in Canada and 27 outside the country.

Michael has seen and knows more about the world than Harper could ever learn, it called life experiences.

He's a world citizen then much like Obama. Maybe he should run for U.N. Secretary-General.

Edited to read that I hadn't noticed Keepitsimple's post that he'd been out of Canada for much of his childhood. A true tourist.

Edited January 19, 2011 by jbg

[ccen]

Don't the Conservatives understand that if they are doing these attack ads they are basically asking the voting public for an election that no one wants.

[M.Dancer]

Don't the Conservatives understand that if they are doing these attack ads they are basically asking the voting public for an election that no one wants.

I would imagine they don't...mainly because your conclusion is a non sequitor. It won't be the Conservatives calling the next election (unless you mean, not the next scheduled election).