Young Liberals posing as average Canadians.

[shoop]

Warren Kinsella said it best about this sad little strategy about the Young Liberals campaign to win the war of Letters to Editors and message boards.

Makes you wonder how many of the people here are *connected*, doubt any of them would actually admit to what they are doing...

It's not like political parties haven't thrown a young partisan or two on the electoral fire before. But this is (a) dumb because it's so apparently widespread and ( testifies to the fact that the party can't even find one or two real Canadians to get their message out. Whatever that message is.

Young Liberals posing as average Canadians in letter campaign

Letters to the editor, television ads get out Martin's message

Allan Woods, The Ottawa Citizen

NORTH BAY - Liberal party activists have launched a campaign to sway public opinion on child care, but it's operated largely by members of the Young Liberals, who are passing themselves off as average Canadians.

They attack Conservative leader Stephen Harper in letters to newspapers that denigrate his child-care plan while promoting Liberal leader Paul Martin as the only worthy choice to run the country. But don't identify themselves as affiliated with the Liberal party.

"This seems like yet another attempt to help those Canadians who, frankly, don't need the help, but whose vote Mr. Harper needs," reads one letter, published in Wednesday's Globe and Mail. The letter was written by Denise Brunsdon, who was, until recently, a former national director of the Young Liberals.

"To give $100 a month per child leaves families looking for quality, affordable child care out in the cold and slaps the faces of those who make real sacrifices to have a parent stay at home as a full-time caregiver," reads a second, in yesterday's Globe and Mail, which was written by Amelie Crosson, a former speechwriter for Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan.

In addition to the letter-writing campaign, Liberal television advertisements have also come under suspicion.

One of the three spots produced by the party identifies the people who appear in it as Liberals. But it does not divulge just how committed they are to the party's cause.

In fact, those who appear are closely linked to the upper echelons of Mr. Martin's government.

There is Neil Dhalla, brother of Ruby Dhalla, a star rookie MP in the Liberal caucus.

Joel Peterson, who is identified as a Liberal from Regina, is actually the executive director of Saskatchewan's Liberal party and a key organizer for Finance Minister Ralph Goodale.

Peter Yung, noted as a Liberal from Burnaby, B.C., is, in fact, the riding association president who presided when one of Mr. Martin's hand-picked loyalists, Bill Cunningham, was parachuted in as the candidate in a controversial fashion in the 2004 election.

"(Cunningham) made a lot of fans in the riding because of his performance last election and our riding association has certainly benefited," Mr. Yung writes on Mr. Cunningham's website.

Mr. Harper could not say "without a doubt" that his own party has never engaged in such activities, and there is anecdotal evidence that some of his party faithful have written unattributed letters to newspapers as well.

But the Conservative party's televised advertisements so far in this campaign have featured Conservative party MPs, or people who are clearly actors.

"What I can say is that it doesn't surprise me the Liberals are doing that," Mr. Harper said yesterday.

"I suspect for most of the Liberal campaign, if it isn't groups that are linked to the government or linked to the party, I think they'll have a lot of trouble finding anybody to support some of their policies."

On Wednesday, Assembly of First Nations Chief Phil Fontaine threw his support behind the Liberals and New Democrats, an endorsement that follows closely the signing of a $5.1-billion deal to improve aboriginal health, education, housing and economic development.

Mr. Harper accused his detractors, or those who have come out in favour of Liberal policies in this campaign, of having "a vested interest in doing so."

A second Liberal television spot has raised greater concerns for the party's opponents, as it fails to identify those who appear in the ads as Liberal party members. The same partisan links exist, however.

A young Indo-Canadian woman, Bardish Chagger of Waterloo, says Mr.Martin's Liberals should be re-elected because "they provide the rights to people and minorities that otherwise would not be granted rights."

Ms. Chagger's biography on the website of the Kitchener-Waterloo Young Liberals club identifies her as "a proud card-carrying Liberal for more than a decade." It notes she is currently a constituency office assistant for Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi.

A second woman, identified only as Lamiley Lutterodt from Regina, is standing in a field of wheat telling viewers that "it doesn't matter who you are as long as you are a proud Canadian."

Ms. Lutterodt was the business manager for a Regina Liberal candidate, Simone Clayton, in the 2003 Saskatchewan election

...

[Montgomery Burns]

I'm not surprised. Liberals passing themselves off as something else is a common liberal tactic.

All one has to do is trot over to Amazon.com and see the reviews of books written by rightwingers. You always see things like:

1) "As an Independent, I am appalled at [insert rightwing author] ranting idiocy. Blah blah leftwing talking points. If you want the truth, read Al Franken's book"

or 2) "This long time Republican was dismayed at the innacuracies and outright falsehoods in [insert name of rightwing book]. Blah blah No Blood For Oil, Dissent is Patriotic blah blah leftwing memes blah blah....As Michael Moore proved in Fahrenheit 9-11, Bush is a lying moron"

[sharkman]

I know we got at least one of these on this board. He knows all the Liberal talking points and uses terminology like strategized voting.

[August1991]

Anyone (including young Liberals) is entitled to express their opinion. They can join a discussion forum such as this one or write letters to newspapers.

It makes perfect sense for the Liberals to use party members in their ads.

I don't see why they should identify themselves as Liberal party members on all occasions.

This is a non-issue.

[sharkman]

Sure they can, but to hide their true identity is sleazy. It's like they are pros because they eat sleep and drink politics and they come to places like this and they can manipulate the ones who are not up on all the latest facts.

[Montgomery Burns]

P.S.Shoop. You should have a link for your article. Also, you are not supposed to post entire--or near entire--articles on the forum.

[shoop]

The whole thought of it makes me wonder, why bother having boards like this if it is just going to be an organized effort at yelling at people from other parties.

P.S.Shoop.  You should have a link for your article.  Also, you are not supposed to post entire--or near entire--articles on the forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My bad. It is from Libs article but he got the article from somewhere else.

[August1991]

The whole thought of it makes me wonder, why bother having boards like this if it is just going to be an organized effort at yelling at people from other parties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's supposed to be a discussion forum. Almost everyone here is partisan and sometimes there are discussions.

As to Liberals in Liberal ads, check out this NDP web page.

[PocketRocket]

Isn't this politics??? Isn't strategy a key element???

Letter-writing campaigns are hardly a new thing, and where better to start them than with party members???

But this line killed me......

NORTH BAY - Liberal party activists have launched a campaign to sway public opinion on child care, but it's operated largely by members of the Young Liberals, who are passing themselves off as average Canadians.

What is the author saying here???

Are they "above average" Canadians????

Below average???

The way the wording is slanted, you'd think this was a communist conspiracy and the writer one of Joe McCarthy's hacks.

And people complain about a left-leaning media, and then post this????

Just goes to show, the MSM leans whatever way the wind happens to blow.

[Argus]

Anyone (including young Liberals) is entitled to express their opinion.  They can join a discussion forum such as this one or write letters to newspapers.

It makes perfect sense for the Liberals to use party members in their ads.

I don't see why they should identify themselves as Liberal party members on all occasions.

This is a non-issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a matter of honesty. Letters to the Editor page are the last resort of ordinary Canadians to express their opinions. There's nothing wrong with Liberals writing letters to the editor. There IS something wrong with an organized effort of any political party to produce scads of letters to flood newspaper offices, purporting to be from ordinary Canadians. It is dishonest. It reeks.

[Riverwind]

There IS something wrong with an organized effort of any political party to produce scads of letters to flood newspaper offices, purporting to be from ordinary Canadians. It is dishonest. It reeks.

Did you object to these tactics when anti-SSM lobby used them?

[Guest eureka]

There is nothing at all wrong with the practise. It is done by all parties and all interests and those involved are ordinary Canadians. Unless it is extraordinary to have convictions.

[shoop]

It is shady and dishonest. Just like the kickback schemes in adscam were acceptable until public revulsion said they weren't. The arrogance is appalling...

There is nothing at all wrong with the practise. It is done by all parties and all interests and those involved are ordinary Canadians. Unless it is extraordinary to have convictions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Montgomery Burns]

There is nothing at all wrong with the practise. It is done by all parties and all interests and those involved are ordinary Canadians. Unless it is extraordinary to have convictions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Warren Kinsella replies::

A couple of young Liberals I like - both of them active in this election campaign - seem to be genuinely upset that I was critical of The Board's craven decision to pass off card-carrying Liberals as "average citizens" in their TV ads and letters to the editor. One of these young fellas is here and he, regrettably, calls the practice "doing something right."

It's not. It's wrong. Here are three reasons:

1)  It is dishonest. It seeks to leave voters with the false impression that the participants in the ad or the letter-writer are something they are not - namely, regular folks who are speaking up for reasons unrelated to partisanship.

2)  It is deceptive. At no point is the viewer or the reader informed, even inferentially, that what they are seeing or reading is false. From start to finish, the ads and letters are calculated to conceal an important fact (someone's true identity).

3)It is dumb. When you get found out - and you will always get found out - you leave an impression altogether different than the one you intended: you look like a desperate prevaricator whose message is so unpopular, you had to seek out like-minded partisans to participate in your dishonest, deceptive scheme.

Good on Kinsella. Nice to see a leftie (he refers to the loathsome Antonia Zerbisias as a "celebrated" blogger) who does not march in lock step with Dear Leader.

[Guest eureka]

What a load of bull this all is. And who cares what Kinsells says?

As I said, it is done by all parties and all interest groups. I don't see anything wrong with it or would you rather employ professional actors to play the roles?

[Canuck E Stan]

Maybe getting actual ordinary average real Canadians might be an alternative....if you can.

[shoop]

Didn't the Liberals care what Kinsella said in 93, 97 and 2000?

Hell even Paul Wells has picked up on this story. Many people in the ads have a direct financial interest in the Liberals winning. Of course they want a Liberal government, but how do they represent average Canadians...

It is dishonest and sad. Why couldn't they find ordinary Canadians to appear in the ad? That would have been preferable.

What a load of bull this all is. And who cares what Kinsells says?

As I said, it is done by all parties and all interest groups. I don't see anything wrong with it or would you rather employ professional actors to play the roles?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[kimmy]

There are two different stories here. One is that the "average folks" in TV ads are actually partisans. This is, indeed, not very surprising, when it comes right down to it, as August and eureka point out. I do, however, think there's merit to Kinsella's 3 pointed reply. And the NDP's cut-up reply is proof of that. At the very least, the Liberals gave their opponents and detractors some handy ammunition, and as Kinsella quite carefully put it, "you leave an impression altogether different than the one you intended." Or, as the NDP less carefully but more comically put it,

Hey Liberal Party,

After 12 years of scandal and broken promises, there are 30 million reasons why you couldn’t find any average Canadians to appear in your ads.

What’s yours? 

It is something of a non-story. I don't think anybody's really dumb enough to think that a party's TV ads are going to represent an honest sampling of real Canadians. Are there still people so naive as to how TV advertising really works? Probably only the hapless seniors and trailer-park yokels who think those infomercials are actually talk shows. I don't think the TV ads are deceptive, but it certainly does not look good when your "average Canadians" get outed.

As for the other story-- that there is apparently an organized effort by the Liberals to anonymously use letters pages and message boards to promote their party, I do think that's maybe little deceptive. One doesn't expect to find average Canadians on TV ads, but one does expect to find average Canadians on message boards and letters-pages... and when the people have partisan interests in the subjects they're writing about, usually we expect them to identify themselves as such.

Several years ago there was a movie called "The Blair Witch Project". It was produced for a miniscule budget-- only about $30,000-- and achieve immense box-office success, largely on the strength of "buzz" created by advance screenings and posts on movie-related internet websites from people who had attended the advance screenings.

There were rumors, though, that some of these internet postings raving about the movie were actually written by the movie's creators and their associates. I don't know that it was ever proven one way or the other. Something that's known in the movie business is that "word of mouth" is a very effective form of advertising. It's one reason why some movies-- usually movies that the studios believe have exceptional artistic merit but limited mass appeal-- are initially released in only a few theatres in key markets. This strategy allows the movie to build "word of mouth" and attract critical attention without the expense of a "wide" release. What's unique about the "Blair Witch Project" was that they were able to create "word of mouth" without actually releasing the movie at all. And if the rumors are true, the creators were able to manufacture their own word of mouth, using the anonymity of the internet.

So... does any of this relate to politics? Is "word of mouth" an effective marketting strategy for political parties? Probably not: I might be more willing to consider seeing a movie if other people have seen it and say it's entertaining... I'm not as likely to vote for a political party just because others say they are. However, having people anonymously blitz letter pages and message boards does get their "talking points" out. Having their information presented and advocated by anonymous members on message boards might get their arguments heard by people who would not be as receptive if they knew it was coming directly from the party.

Is it honest? Not really. Dirty or unfair? I'm not sure.

-k

[normanchateau]

I can understand why a political party would want to use their people to write letters to the editor or appear in television advertisements. It might swing a few undecided voters in their direction. However, it strikes me as a very inefficient and near-pointless effort to employ such people on discussion boards such as this one.

It's my impression that there are relatively few undecided voters on political discussion boards. Most people on discussion boards aren't easily swayed. How many of you on this discussion board switched from Liberal supporter to CPC supporter, or vice versa, as a result of something you read on this board? My guess is that the number would be in the single digits. In my opinion, most of us here know which party or parties we loathe and we're not about to change our views no matter what evidence we acquire on this board. Perhaps I'm just speaking for myself when I say that there's no party that I especially like but there's one I loathe more than the others. That might describe others as well.

If others agree with my point that none of us here are influencing the others, then why are we here? My theory is that it's simply because we enjoy it...but there are probably alternative theories.

[shoop]

Your clear hatred for the CPC is why you really shouldn't be here Normie. You show no respect for the other posters and continually aim to attack, attack, attack.

However, I disagree with the fact that some of us cannot be influenced. Just because you choose to behave the way you do here doesn't mean it applies to everybody. There are others of us who have changed their opinions on certain issues. We don't necessarily have to change our party affiliation for the board to affect us.

Please respect your fellow posters a little more in the future.

Perhaps I'm just speaking for myself when I say that there's no party that I especially like but there's one I loathe more than the others. That might describe others as well.

If others agree with my point that none of us here are influencing the others, then why are we here?  My theory is that it's simply because we enjoy it...but there are probably alternative theories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

Your clear hatred for the CPC is why you really shouldn't be here Normie. You show no respect for the other posters and continually aim to attack, attack, attack.

Shoopie, actually there are only two posters here who I don't respect. I do respect all the others I've encountered here including the many who appear to hate, loathe or abhor the Liberals and NDP. But according to your "logic", only antipathy towards CPC is sufficient for banishment.

[shoop]

Nope, never said that. Not even close.

Look at my opinion against CPC supporters using canadafreepress as a 'legitimate' news source. Anybody who comes with the sole intent of attacking needs to be banished.

Regardless of your personal feelings you should *treat* all posters with respect. That is the wish of the moderator and one of the rules of the board.

btw, you have noticeably calmed down since you got here. What's up with that?

Shoopie, actually there are only two posters here who I don't respect.  I do respect all the others I've encountered here including the many who appear to hate, loathe or abhor the Liberals and NDP. But according to your "logic", only antipathy towards CPC is sufficient for banishment. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[PocketRocket]

So "Young Liberals of Canada" (or whatever they're called) step up to the plate with a letter-writing campaign.

Interestingly enough, I got this little tidbit in my e-mail this morning.

It seems harmless enough, and on its surface appears to be written as a gag, but coming at this time is no coincidence.

Someone is trying to get a message out.

It IS funny, though.

MONTY should especially enjoy this......

Classic vs Canadian - Ant vs Grasshopper

CLASSIC VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

THE END

  ..........

THE CANADIAN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. So far, so good, eh?

The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like him, are cold and starving.

The CBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food.

Canadians are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty.

The NDP, the CAW and the Coalition Against Poverty demonstrate in front of the ant's house. The CBC, interrupting an Inuit cultural festival special from Nunavut with breaking news, broadcasts them singing "We Shall Overcome."

Sven Robinson rants in an interview with Pamela Wallin that the ant has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share".

In response to polls, the Liberal Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant's taxes are reassessed, and he is also fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as helpers.

Without enough money to pay both the fine and his newly imposed retroactive

taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

The ant moves to the US, and starts a successful agribiz company.

The CBC later shows the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of the ant's food, though Spring is still months away, while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain it.

Inadequate government funding is blamed, Roy Romanow is appointed to head a

commission of enquiry that will cost $10,000,000.

The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose, the Toronto Star blames it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity.

The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders, praised by

the government for enriching Canada's multicultural diversity, who promptly set up a marijuana grow op and terrorize the community.

THE END

Gee, seeing as how this little joke attacks everyone the Tories are against, I wonder if it too was written by an "average Canadian".

[Shakeyhands]

Your clear hatred for the CPC is why you really shouldn't be here Normie. You show no respect for the other posters and continually aim to attack, attack, attack.

However, I disagree with the fact that some of us cannot be influenced. Just because you  choose to behave the way you do here doesn't mean it applies to everybody. There are others of us who have changed their opinions on certain issues. We don't necessarily have to change our party affiliation for the board to affect us.

Please respect your fellow posters a little more in the future.

Perhaps I'm just speaking for myself when I say that there's no party that I especially like but there's one I loathe more than the others. That might describe others as well.

If others agree with my point that none of us here are influencing the others, then why are we here?  My theory is that it's simply because we enjoy it...but there are probably alternative theories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are too funny Shoop... You best relax, you're going to have a heart attack one of these days.

There are members of all stripes here, read a little and learn a little, I know I have. Just because a person doesn't subscribe to your political beliefs does not mean they need to be stricken from the roles here. MLW, as far as I am concerned, is not a CPC Party board.

[normanchateau]

btw, you have noticeably calmed down since you got here. What's up with that?

I don't think I've changed. Maybe you've just become used to me.