Liberal attack ads backfiring already.

[shoop]

The Liberal "Choose your Canada" campaign ads are already another sign of bad decision making by the Liberal campaign *braintrust*.

There were originally 12 different English ads posted to the LPC web site.

In the *hours* since they have already pulled one of them.

Thankfully CTV has already archived it.

All twelve Liberal attack ads.

It is the ad called "Liberal attack ad about Harper and military presence."

Wow, these guys cannot get anything right.

[scribblet]

Considering, ( and hopefully,) nobody with a brain actually believes that Harper is driving into town with a trunk full of handguns and handing them out to black kids. That one is so far over the top one has to wonder about the sanity of Martin and his 'braintrust'. The CPC ad on their website countering it which goes 'can you really believe Martin' was well conceived. Harper must simply shrug it off as the last desperate screams of a man burning to death on the Bonfire of Political Ambitions (and Vanities). Hopefully, negative ads like the Libs' will not get people to switch back, but what they tend to do is strengthen the resolve of one's core voters, and for the ad to be on guns in the city must mean that the fiberals are scared sh#tless that their core Tdot support is caving and they could be into a 1993 scenario.

Attack ads are not aimed at thought, they are aimed at psychology and actually I felt depressed when I saw them on line. The people with whom I am concerned about did not watch the debate and will subliminally see the attack ads which could sway their vote.

Attack ads are not aimed at thought, they are aimed at psychology. Even I felt depressed when I saw them on line, but this is their point and objective. At some point, one will turn off and cease resistance to avoid these bad feelings. But, ceasing means a) not thinking critically any more and surrendering.

However, after this depressing moment I would like to be otpimistic in thinking that it is too late to turn the tide, and most voters will be turned off by such revolting negative advertising.

[shoop]

I hope you are right, but I don`t think it is likely.

If it it backfires it will be because of the really offensive ad that has already been pulled. May just get buried in the clutter of news surrounding the French debate though.

However, after this depressing moment I would like to be otpimistic in thinking that it is too late to turn the tide, and most voters will be turned off by such revolting negative advertising.

[kimmy]

In the *hours* since they have already pulled one of them.

Thankfully CTV has already archived it.

CTV also had an interesting blow-up between Mike Duffy and Liberal mouthpiece John Duffy over the ad. I didn't see it at the time, but have now watched it through the marvel of the internet and video capture technology. (I've saved the clip, and am hosting it on rapidshare as I write this.)

Canoe.ca has an article on the exchange:

http://money.canoe.ca/News/Other/2006/01/10/1388112-cp.html

Liberal tactician John Duffy, a regular guest on the CTV show Countdown with Mike Duffy, had grown visibly weary of questions about the attack ad, which was distributed to the media and posted briefly on the Internet but never aired on television.

That, however, is what Mike Duffy wanted to ask about. And when Duffy the strategist tried to dismiss Duffy the journalist, redirecting his question into a discussion about the debate, the popular host staged a fiery television attack of his own.

With cameras rolling on what may have been the most captivating 30 seconds of TV of the campaign thus far, the host spilled the beans about an off-camera plea from his guest not to raise the ad, which warned a Conservative government under Stephen Harper would lead to "soldiers with guns" in Canadian cities.

"You were in here earlier when we were off the air on a commercial break trying to intimidate me into not going back to that ad," said Duffy, his voice rising in indignation.

"We will not be intimidated. We will do our jobs as journalists."

(...)

When he asked who in the party conceived of the ad, the CTV host described it as "hinting at the Canadian Forces or something like what we saw in Chile with Pinochet."

A videocapture of the clip was made by "proudtobecanadian.ca" and originally posted at their website.

-k

addendum: I've hosted the file at Rapidshare at the link below, if you're interested in seeing it but don't feel like searching through other forums to find it.

http://rapidshare.de/files/10825833/ProudT...nds_up.wmv.html

Click the above link, scroll down and select "Free" download.

[Riverwind]

It is the ad called "Liberal attack ad about Harper and military presence."

Wow, these guys cannot get anything right.

I am starting to wonder if the Liberal stratigists figure that they are probably going to lose so they decided to lose so badly that Harper gets a majority. That way Harper won't have to cut deals with the BQ to stay in power and the Liberals can spend the next 4 years getting ready for the next election.

[kimmy]

It is the ad called "Liberal attack ad about Harper and military presence."

Wow, these guys cannot get anything right.

I am starting to wonder if the Liberal stratigists figure that they are probably going to lose so they decided to lose so badly that Harper gets a majority. That way Harper won't have to cut deals with the BQ to stay in power and the Liberals can spend the next 4 years getting ready for the next election.

While the "military presence" ad was obviously a brain-fart of epic proportions, I don't know how much of harm it'll cause them. We internet geeks might be the only ones who see the pulled ad, and I don't know that we make up that big a portion of voters. (and, to be fair to the Liberals, I was scanning Rabble/Babble one day and came across many Canadians who also believe that Harper has Pinochet-like intentions for his armies near cities plan. )

And I also wouldn't write off the eleven remaining attack-ads just yet either. They do push at buttons that have worked well for the Liberals in the past. Have they gone to the well once too often? Will this just increase the air of desperation surrounding the Liberals? Or will voters respond the way they have in the past to this sort of message? Warren Kinsella, who has been relentlessly negative towards everything Team Martin has done so far, thinks the ads are quite good. I won't be ready to conclude that these ads have failed until the election is actually over.

-k

[betsy]

A letter was written by a soldier, and excerpts of it were read by a reporter on TV. The gist of the letter was that "I am fighting for democracy and offering my life for my country...suddenly I am being portrayed as someone who will harm my own cities."

Of course John D said that ad does not count since "it was not aired."

NDP strategist said, "then how come on the net, it says, 'paid for by the Liberals Party'?

Both strategists demand that Martin should at least apologize to the military.

John D insists Martin will not apologize for something that was not aired.

[wellandboy]

The pulled ad is making the headlines this morning along with the Mike Duffy's scolding of John Duffy on this story. One might say the Liberals have a new scandal to contend with ADSCAN.

Not since the PC's nasty John Chretien/ bells palsy ad have things sunk so low. In that case and indeed in this case the pulled ad becomes "the story", thus minimizing the effectiveness of all other ads.

[scribblet]

They are still running the ad - in French http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/01/bien-trange.php

One thing that really bother me about the media and their reporting of these ads is that they show videos of the liberal ads but don't give time to show the conservative ads. We need to write and protest, I've allready written to CTV.

[Shakeyhands]

Again, is bringing up things that the CPC has either said or is stated policy an attack? I haven't heard anything taken out of context.

Luckily for you the Media seems to be strongly supporting Harper at this point and I believe we will be looking at a Conservative Majority after the 23rd. I hope that there was no hidden agenda and I hope he does whats best for Canada.

[PocketRocket]

I watched all of the ads. All were typical of election-time hyperbole.

Wonderful little production pieces.

The ominous background music track, the slight, eerie flange in the narrator's voice.

Difficult to say what effect they'll have, but I don't doubt that they'll sway at least some of the people.

The only one that really bothered me was regarding where Harper got his campaign funds.

"We just don't know. He just won't say."

Masterful, the way they suggested that Harper's "right-wing friends" in the USA have got a lot of money, without actually coming out and accusing him of getting funding from American interests. Transparent, but masterful.

Of course Harper could easily de-fuse this by simply disclosing where his campaign contributions came from.

Unless he does indeed have something to hide.

His continued refusal to reveal this information can only work against him.

As for the "military" ad, heh-heh, Harper should counter by saying he thinks a military presence at Jane and Finch might help clean up some of the gun violence.

[scribblet]

I watched all of the ads. All were typical of election-time hyperbole.

Wonderful little production pieces.

The ominous background music track, the slight, eerie flange in the narrator's voice.

Difficult to say what effect they'll have, but I don't doubt that they'll sway at least some of the people.

The only one that really bothered me was regarding where Harper got his campaign funds.

"We just don't know. He just won't say."

Masterful, the way they suggested that Harper's "right-wing friends" in the USA have got a lot of money, without actually coming out and accusing him of getting funding from American interests. Transparent, but masterful.

Of course Harper could easily de-fuse this by simply disclosing where his campaign contributions came from.

Unless he does indeed have something to hide.

His continued refusal to reveal this information can only work against him.

As for the "military" ad, heh-heh, Harper should counter by saying he thinks a military presence at Jane and Finch might help clean up some of the gun violence.

Actually Harper did release his donor list, in fact I thought (?) I posted the link from the Toronto Star google cache. Have to look for it again can't find it now. Not sure that Martin did either because up until recently it was required that leadership donations be revealed.

[daniel]

...Masterful, the way they suggested that Harper's "right-wing friends" in the USA have got a lot of money, without actually coming out and accusing him of getting funding from American interests. Transparent, but masterful.

Of course Harper could easily de-fuse this by simply disclosing where his campaign contributions came from.

Unless he does indeed have something to hide.

His continued refusal to reveal this information can only work against him.

...

This was one of the topics of discussion in the English Debate. Harper said he disclosed the sources but all three leaders deny seeing the list.

The Conservative response to the attack ad are consistent with what has already been posted by Conservative & rightwing supporters on the various political discussion forum of the past few years.

When the Commission on 911 stated there was no link between Iraq, 911 and Al Qaeda, and reminded of Bush's address to Congress, the Bush supporters stated Bush never linked Iraq to 911 & Al Qaeda.

Conservatives currently state the Liberal attack ads have no basis of reality when in fact they are based exactly on Harper's speeches and documented positions on sending troops to Iraq, BMDs, and Canada's economic position including the Altlantic's reliance of the Welfare cycle, etc.

Conservatives currently state the Liberal attack ads are personal attacks on Harper. None of the ads attack Harper personally. They attack what Harper went on record as saying previously. This does not compare with the PC's attack on the physical appearance of Jean Chretien. Again, I've seen these kinds of false accusations before in other threads and forums.

And specifially, the ad about installing soldiers with guns in the cities which the Conservatives - deny? Not sure what to make of their response. Soldiers without guns - what an interesting concept. The last time I heard on this was in the movie "The Last Emperor".

The only truth to the Conservative claim was the the Liberals are desparate - more to the truth, we are all desparate. What is not mentioned by the Liberals or the Conservatives are the Reform policies on:

Bilingualism;

Multiculturalism;

Restriction of Immigration from non-European countries;

immigration settlement services;

the CBC;

which services and departments will endure budget cuts;

and recently the Alberta separation movement within the CPC

[PocketRocket]

The only one that really bothered me was regarding where Harper got his campaign funds.

"We just don't know. He just won't say."

Masterful, the way they suggested that Harper's "right-wing friends" in the USA have got a lot of money, without actually coming out and accusing him of getting funding from American interests. Transparent, but masterful.

Of course Harper could easily de-fuse this by simply disclosing where his campaign contributions came from.

Actually Harper did release his donor list, in fact I thought (?) I posted the link from the Toronto Star google cache. Have to look for it again can't find it now. Not sure that Martin did either because up until recently it was required that leadership donations be revealed.

I was unaware of this, as probably most Canadians are.

In light of this, Harper's bunch should launch a clean counter attack.

Here's what I mean by "clean".

Instead of re-hashing Gomery and all the other crap (the press is doing a good enough job on their own), what the CPC's should do is start out by airing part of the Lib ad, then coming in saying "This information was indeed disclosed, and you can see the full disclosure at (insert website address here)."

Then follow that with "The Liberals say they didn't make all this up," (which is a statement that comes in at the end of pretty well all of the Lib attack ads) "But we'd like to know who did".

In this way, they could attack the Lib attacks, without actually doing any mudslinging of their own aside from the inference that the Libs are indeed "making it up", and so give the impression of taking the high road and running a clean campaign.

This could be done for every ad where the Libs have used information in a misleading way.

The kicker would be if at the very end, they said something like "We agree with the Liberals in one important respect, It's time to choose your Canada"

[tml12]

I watched all of the ads. All were typical of election-time hyperbole.

Wonderful little production pieces.

The ominous background music track, the slight, eerie flange in the narrator's voice.

Difficult to say what effect they'll have, but I don't doubt that they'll sway at least some of the people.

The only one that really bothered me was regarding where Harper got his campaign funds.

"We just don't know. He just won't say."

Masterful, the way they suggested that Harper's "right-wing friends" in the USA have got a lot of money, without actually coming out and accusing him of getting funding from American interests. Transparent, but masterful.

Of course Harper could easily de-fuse this by simply disclosing where his campaign contributions came from.

Unless he does indeed have something to hide.

His continued refusal to reveal this information can only work against him.

As for the "military" ad, heh-heh, Harper should counter by saying he thinks a military presence at Jane and Finch might help clean up some of the gun violence.

I will not disagree that the ads were masterfully produced, but I worry about the kind of effect they'll have if the Liberals get back in.

First, I am not a Bush fan, but I am a fan of the American people and these ads do not seem to find any great difference between the two. "Mr. Harper, the U.S. is our neighbour, not our nation?" No kidding, but was it necessary to be so dire about the threat that a potential Harper government poses? I mean, do not a lot of Canadian and American people share a lot of similar values and morals, regardless of whether Bush or Martin share those values? I didn't like that at all.

As for the military ad, WTF??? I mean, did River_God produce that ad? Harper is going to militarize our cities? It just didn't seem fair and actually quite insulting to the veterans. I can just see a veteran walking through downtown Montreal or Toronto and having a young socialist or immigrant look at them with fear or loathing. Is this the right way to treat the people who defended the freedom we live with today and asked nothing in return? I just don't like it.

Maybe I just don't like all the negativity. I stand for justice and the common good...these are the two foundations of my kind of democracy. Most of all, if we are going to be hawkish with our enemies, then we need to be diplomatic to our friends. The U.S. deserves to be treated better...not because of Bush, but because of the millions of Americans who travel here every year and come to see the great nation of people that we are here in Canada.

So be it I guess, but maybe I am too much of an idealist...

[fellowtraveller]

Of course Harper could easily de-fuse this by simply disclosing where his campaign contributions came from.

Unless he does indeed have something to hide.

His continued refusal to reveal this information can only work against him.

Kind of like how Martin refuses to realease the names of the MPs and their ridings in Quebec that received cash payments from the bagmen. Enquiring minds would like to know the litttle amounts that add up to his claim that the Liberal Party of Canada owes taxpayers exactly $1.14 million. This can only work against him. Oh wait, it is working against him. Can't blame him, he does have something to hide.

[tml12]

Of course Harper could easily de-fuse this by simply disclosing where his campaign contributions came from.

Unless he does indeed have something to hide.

His continued refusal to reveal this information can only work against him.

Kind of like how Martin refuses to realease the names of the MPs and their ridings in Quebec that received cash payments from the bagmen. Enquiring minds would like to know the litttle amounts that add up to his claim that the Liberal Party of Canada owes taxpayers exactly $1.14 million. This can only work against him. Oh wait, it is working against him. Can't blame him, he does have something to hide.

As I have said before, politics is a dirty game...

LMAO we could be looking at an NDP majority if both of THOSE things are revealed...

[scribblet]

http://weblogs.macleans.ca/paulwells/

It begins

Just now at the Subway on Bank St. I was buying my lunch and there... in line... standing in front of me... was a soldier.

In our cities.

In Canada.

A soldier.

He seemed to be ordering the six-inch ham and turkey.

With chipotle sauce.

In Canada.

We're not making this stuff up.

[The Honest Politician]

I think it is only fair that in world where the exhonoration of a person is conveniently shoved aside, the person who has cried foul the loudest should be getting held accountable for comments he made about Canada in his past.

Hopefully the same braindead masses that jumped on the Tory bandwagon under the banner of Gomery will just as quickly jump off the bandwagon when they realize the type of individual they are supporting. People are saying the quotes are taken out of context. May I suggest they read the original speeches. When he made the comments he was very serious and was addressing a very serious audience. The only ad with out of context quotes was already pulled. The rest is the Real Harper which he has tried to hide.

Stand

Up For

Canada

Keep it

Ever More

Right wing

Standing

[kimmy]

http://weblogs.macleans.ca/paulwells/

It begins

Just now at the Subway on Bank St. I was buying my lunch and there... in line... standing in front of me... was a soldier.

In our cities.

In Canada.

A soldier.

He seemed to be ordering the six-inch ham and turkey.

With chipotle sauce.

In Canada.

We're not making this stuff up.

That's outstanding.

And specifially, the ad about installing soldiers with guns in the cities which the Conservatives - deny? Not sure what to make of their response. Soldiers without guns - what an interesting concept. The last time I heard on this was in the movie "The Last Emperor".

Deny? No, I don't think the Conservatives have denied the plan, which was announced at a press conference. What they, and pretty much everybody except the Rabble/Babble crowd, find offensive was the effort to spin it as some sort of police-state martial law scenario. The Liberals themselves belatedly realized what a bad idea that was... unfortunately for them, they'd already handed out the tapes to media outlets by that time.

-kimmy

{soldiers... with guns... are stationed a short drive from me right now... }

[tml12]

In case you haven't seen it:

http://video.canada.com/VideoContent.aspx?&fl=&popup=1

Better be wary of those people handing out poppies in the fall!!!

[Wilber]

We all knew these adds were coming if the election was close or the Liberals got behind. They have been a major part of their strategy for some years. It just remains to be seen what the public will make of them. I think the more you resort to them, the greater gamble they become because you never know which day the electorate is going to get sick of them and turn on you. I guess we will see by the 23rd.

Every party has been guilty of using attack adds at some time or another. The trouble is, they are not inclusive. Instead of drawing someone to your point of view, they demonize anyone who doesn't agree with you, not just the people at which they are directed. It's little wonder politicians have sunk so low on the public's evolutionary scale.

[tml12]

We all knew these adds were coming if the election was close or the Liberals got behind. They have been a major part of their strategy for some years. It just remains to be seen what the public will make of them. I think the more you resort to them, the greater gamble they become because you never know which day the electorate is going to get sick of them and turn on you. I guess we will see by the 23rd.

Every party has been guilty of using attack adds at some time or another. The trouble is, they are not inclusive. Instead of drawing someone to your point of view, they demonize anyone who doesn't agree with you, not just the people at which they are directed. It's little wonder politicians have sunk so low on the public's evolutionary scale.

I have a new idea in mind:

A photo of former Justice Minister Anne McLellan and Jean Chretien embracing, then:

These two created a gun registry that would apparently cost 30 million of your dollars.

It cost $2 billion dollars.

But at least it got guns off the streets and AK-47s out of kids hands.

Wait.

It didn't.

The Liberals...did you choose this Canada???

That would be a great ad...

[Wilber]

Well at least it would be about the real history of a real government, not some bedtime story of a bogyman and his hidden agenda.

[Wilber]

Would this be an attack ad?

Link