Liberal attack ads backfiring already.

[kimmy]

Is there no end to the stupidity and ignorance of Conservative supporters? Is there one of them on this board with any capacity for thought and reason?

(...)

But donkeys have to bray, don't they?

(you honestly don't understand why people have become hostile toward you, or why nobody takes you seriously when you claim you're the least partisan person on the forum, do you...)

Let us look at this instead:

If they stop their chortling and braying for a little while, they might discover that even a conservative military historian like Granatstein has called this a foolish idea.

I assume this article is what you're referring to.

Initial reaction was skeptical. Military historian Jack Granatstein called Harper's plan of having 100 regular soldiers stationed with 400 or more reservists in major cities across Canada "silly."

"This is nuts, dispersing penny-packets of troops in major cities," he told the Toronto Star. "It makes more sense to build up the reserves."

(...)

But Granatstein said establishing territorial defence units in cities was a mistake.

"You really don't need to do this," he said, arguing that it was more important to have the capacity to move troops quickly. "One hundred are too few to do anything."

(...)

But Granatstein stressed that he was positively inclined to the rest of the Conservative military proposal announced yesterday, especially Harper's argument that there is not enough military presence in British Columbia.

"All that sounds pretty good to me," he said of the announcement. "It's just the silliness of the troops in the cities. He must be thinking people in Toronto want regulars to deal with the gangs."

This is good: some reasoned criticism of the plan from somebody who is apparently knowledgeable on the subject. He contends the units are too small to be useful and that the resources could better be spent on bolstering the reserves. Superb! Wouldn't we have all been better served if you had led with that instead of blathering about braying donkeys? Wouldn't the Liberals had been better off if they'd challenged the specifics of Harper's ideas instead of hatching a half-baked scheme to try to make it sound like Harper was declaring Martial Law on urban voters?

-k

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy, I could care less about ther Liberals' response. I am criticising the usual unthinking response of the Conservative supporters on this board. And they will have to be hostile to me if it makes them uncomfortable to be reminded that a little thought never hurt anybody.

The idea of troops in the cities is an absurdity. It takes no brain to understand that. Particularly to anyone who has ever had any acqualintance with the logistical necessities of a military.

Frankly, I think the level of the discussions has become rock bottom. No "Conservative" on the boards is giving any thought to all the criticism of Harper's "destructive policies." There is little response to the real criticism by even Right Wing economists of a number of his proposals.

As a few gave pointed out, the large majority of the participants seem to be supporters of Harper and they simply try to drown out reasoned analysis of the various platforms with their loud and frequently asinine heckling of others.

[Hicksey]

Kimmy, I could care less about ther Liberals' response. I am criticising the usual unthinking response of the Conservative supporters on this board. And they will have to be hostile to me if it makes them uncomfortable to be reminded that a little thought never hurt anybody.

The idea of troops in the cities is an absurdity. It takes no brain to understand that. Particularly to anyone who has ever had any acqualintance with the logistical necessities of a military.

Frankly, I think the level of the discussions has become rock bottom. No "Conservative" on the boards is giving any thought to all the criticism of Harper's "destructive policies." There is little response to the real criticism by even Right Wing economists of a number of his proposals.

As a few gave pointed out, the large majority of the participants seem to be supporters of Harper and they simply try to drown out reasoned analysis of the various platforms with their loud and frequently asinine heckling of others.

Yes ... like that open-minded signature of yours.

[Canuck E Stan]

As a few gave pointed out, the large majority of the participants seem to be supporters of Harper and they simply try to drown out reasoned analysis of the various platforms with their loud and frequently asinine heckling of others.

As you wish,Eureka.

WooooooooHooooooo!

[fellowtraveller]

There has been a strong backlash today in the letters sections of my CanWest rag, normally gungho Liberal supporters.

Many letters from veterans, angry at the ad that was not broadcast. They are pissed because they feel their intergrity as Canadians has been challenged, upset that the Libs are implying they are attack dogs to be turned against fellow Canadians at the whim of a Tory govt.

[kimmy]

The idea of troops in the cities is an absurdity. It takes no brain to understand that. Particularly to anyone who has ever had any acqualintance with the logistical necessities of a military.

It is *not* true that the idea is absurd on the face of it. The reason it might not be practical is *not* obvious to the casual observer.

Your argument, and the discussion, and the forum, would have been much better served by pointing to the reason rather than attacking people.

Kimmy, I could care less about ther Liberals' response. I am criticising the usual unthinking response of the Conservative supporters on this board. And they will have to be hostile to me if it makes them uncomfortable to be reminded that a little thought never hurt anybody.

(...)

As a few gave pointed out, the large majority of the participants seem to be supporters of Harper and they simply try to drown out reasoned analysis of the various platforms with their loud and frequently asinine heckling of others.

Frankly, I think the level of the discussions has become rock bottom. No "Conservative" on the boards is giving any thought to all the criticism of Harper's "destructive policies." There is little response to the real criticism by even Right Wing economists of a number of his proposals.

This has hardly been a one-way street. I could point you to a number of threads and posts and members who've degenerated the level of discussion here with ludicrous attacks on Harper, and you're not exactly doing much to raise the level of discourse yourself.

-k

[scribblet]

Kimmy, I could care less about ther Liberals' response. I am criticising the usual unthinking response of the Conservative supporters on this board. And they will have to be hostile to me if it makes them uncomfortable to be reminded that a little thought never hurt anybody.

The idea of troops in the cities is an absurdity. It takes no brain to understand that. Particularly to anyone who has ever had any acqualintance with the logistical necessities of a military.

Frankly, I think the level of the discussions has become rock bottom. No "Conservative" on the boards is giving any thought to all the criticism of Harper's "destructive policies." There is little response to the real criticism by even Right Wing economists of a number of his proposals.

As a few gave pointed out, the large majority of the participants seem to be supporters of Harper and they simply try to drown out reasoned analysis of the various platforms with their loud and frequently asinine heckling of others.

Yes ... like that open-minded signature of yours.

Well, if we saw any 'reasoned analysis' instead of hostile vicious attacks, Eureka might get some feedback. I was thinking of using a similar signature but didn't want to lower myself to the same level.

[Hicksey]

Kimmy, I could care less about ther Liberals' response. I am criticising the usual unthinking response of the Conservative supporters on this board. And they will have to be hostile to me if it makes them uncomfortable to be reminded that a little thought never hurt anybody.

The idea of troops in the cities is an absurdity. It takes no brain to understand that. Particularly to anyone who has ever had any acqualintance with the logistical necessities of a military.

Frankly, I think the level of the discussions has become rock bottom. No "Conservative" on the boards is giving any thought to all the criticism of Harper's "destructive policies." There is little response to the real criticism by even Right Wing economists of a number of his proposals.

As a few gave pointed out, the large majority of the participants seem to be supporters of Harper and they simply try to drown out reasoned analysis of the various platforms with their loud and frequently asinine heckling of others.

Yes ... like that open-minded signature of yours.

Well, if we saw any 'reasoned analysis' instead of hostile vicious attacks, Eureka might get some feedback. I was thinking of using a similar signature but didn't want to lower myself to the same level.

So you mean by your signature that Canadians should stand up and pull up their pants?

[Canuck E Stan]

Conservatives are lower than vermin.

Vermin Club

The Vermin Club was an organisation of grassroots Conservative Party supporters in Britain in the late 1940s.

In a speech in July 1948, Aneurin Bevan described Conservatives as 'lower than vermin'. This was at a point when Conservative fortunes were starting to turn and Bevan's Labour Party was facing disillusionment and division. Young Tories took on the description with ironic self-deprecation and set up the Vermin Club.

Members took to wearing wearing 'vermin' badges - a little blue rat. A whole hierarchy was established, so that those who recruited ten new party members wore badges identifying them as 'vile vermin'; those who recruited twenty were 'very vile vermin'. Margaret Thatcher, a Vermin Club member, described a Chief Rat, who lived somewhere in Twickenham.

This was at a point when Conservative fortunes were starting to turn and Bevan's Labour Party was facing disillusionment and division.

Deja Vu all over again. Wecome to the Canadian Vermin Club.

[Hicksey]

Conservatives are lower than vermin.

Vermin Club

The Vermin Club was an organisation of grassroots Conservative Party supporters in Britain in the late 1940s.

In a speech in July 1948, Aneurin Bevan described Conservatives as 'lower than vermin'. This was at a point when Conservative fortunes were starting to turn and Bevan's Labour Party was facing disillusionment and division. Young Tories took on the description with ironic self-deprecation and set up the Vermin Club.

Members took to wearing wearing 'vermin' badges - a little blue rat. A whole hierarchy was established, so that those who recruited ten new party members wore badges identifying them as 'vile vermin'; those who recruited twenty were 'very vile vermin'. Margaret Thatcher, a Vermin Club member, described a Chief Rat, who lived somewhere in Twickenham.

This was at a point when Conservative fortunes were starting to turn and Bevan's Labour Party was facing disillusionment and division.

Deja Vu all over again. Wecome to the Canadian Vermin Club.

Talk about masterful spin. I think if the Liberals read this you may get a job offer.

[Army Guy]

Is there no end to the stupidity and ignorance of Conservative supporters? Is there one of them on this board with any capacity for thought and reason?

If they stop their chortling and braying for a little while, they might discover that even a conservative military historian like Granatstein has called this a foolish idea.

But donkeys have to bray, don't they?

I agree that spreading already existing and established Regular force units or formations across the nation is "not" the answer, and would only dilute thier effectiveness in any situation , be it preparing for combat or national crisses. Unless they were new formations that were created.

On the other hand Harper never really was specfic in what "Military forces he wanted in our cities" regular or reserve forces, and perhaps we are all just assuming that is what he meant (putting in regular force units) .

The Dept of national defense has been saying for years that it wants to increase the size of our reserve and Militia forces. These forces are already located in most if not all major popualation centers across the country. Yes they have guns, Tanks, even aircraft. and have had this equipment for decades.

They are postioned in each of these population centers because that is where thier primary jobs are, being a reserve or part of a militia unit is thier secondary job. Thier not there to control the population, or in case of a national crisses ie forest fire, Ice strom, or flood, those units are there because that is where the population is based.

Mr. Martin is not only the leader of the liberal party but is responsiable for all it's actions including all those that happen in the election campiagn, But he is also the PM of this country...of which the Department of National defense serve. His comments depict every man,women that has served or is currently serving our country as blood thristy beasts that threaten the very people they are paid to serve, and are unworthy or uncapable of living side by side with the rest of ordinary citizens of Canada.

These comments only go to prove what the Liberal party truly thinks about the men and women of our Armed Forces. That risk thier lives on a daily basis putting our governments words and promises into action. These are not the comments expected of the leader of this Nation, but words of a desperate liberal trying to stay in the pork barrel.

[Canuck E Stan]

Paul Martin explains why he pulled controversial ad

"The ad was pulled because the ad was pulled, and because there were better ads -- that's essentially it," Martin said

The proof of the proof......

[mar]

Clearly the ad was ill conceived and ill executed to the point that whatever the message was supposed to be got lost.

As to the Conservative policy they were presumably attempting to attack there are several factors.

First, a succession of federal governments since the Trudeau days have been trying to rationalize CFB's and recently, the sheer cost of maintaining bases in large urban centres - cities are increasingly unwilling to accept fed monies in lieu of taxes, especially on prime real estate - has driven a move to more rural bases (something not real popular with personnel who prefer urban locations). The cost of reversing this would be immense.

Second, if Mr. Harper wants to use CAF as a kind of adjunct to civil authorities (as the U.S. does with the National Guard at some airports) a lot would have to be done. One of the problems that always plagues the CAF is politicians tend to see it as an underutilized labour pool that can be tasked to serve in any understaffed role that comes up. The CAF tends to resist this as it rarely comes with the requisite budgetary commitment for training and equipment or even a clear definition of tasking.

If we wanted to use military forces for civilian police/security purposes we would have to provide adequate training (CAF perform admirably in any role we ask of them but it would be courting disaster to expect them to assume the role of a civil authoity without extensive training). There would also be a major equipment question as very little of their current arsenal or vehicle pool is suited to civilian security.

That raises the question of whether the tasking the military is the best choice; perhaps creating a secuurity unit within the RCMP would be more logical and efficient. About the only thing you can say in favour of this is its probably saner than Layton's suggestion to arm Customs Officers at the border (many European countries used military personnel at border crossings long before 9-11).

[Hicksey]

Clearly the ad was ill conceived and ill executed to the point that whatever the message was supposed to be got lost.

As to the Conservative policy they were presumably attempting to attack there are several factors.

First, a succession of federal governments since the Trudeau days have been trying to rationalize CFB's and recently, the sheer cost of maintaining bases in large urban centres - cities are increasingly unwilling to accept fed monies in lieu of taxes, especially on prime real estate - has driven a move to more rural bases (something not real popular with personnel who prefer urban locations). The cost of reversing this would be immense.

Second, if Mr. Harper wants to use CAF as a kind of adjunct to civil authorities (as the U.S. does with the National Guard at some airports) a lot would have to be done. One of the problems that always plagues the CAF is politicians tend to see it as an underutilized labour pool that can be tasked to serve in any understaffed role that comes up. The CAF tends to resist this as it rarely comes with the requisite budgetary commitment for training and equipment or even a clear definition of tasking.

If we wanted to use military forces for civilian police/security purposes we would have to provide adequate training (CAF perform admirably in any role we ask of them but it would be courting disaster to expect them to assume the role of a civil authoity without extensive training). There would also be a major equipment question as very little of their current arsenal or vehicle pool is suited to civilian security.

That raises the question of whether the tasking the military is the best choice; perhaps creating a secuurity unit within the RCMP would be more logical and efficient. About the only thing you can say in favour of this is its probably saner than Layton's suggestion to arm Customs Officers at the border (many European countries used military personnel at border crossings long before 9-11).

Layton's idea isn't all bad. I know from experience at customs, seeing customs agents finding firearms in vehicles. Once I heard a couple of them say to another:

"If this guy puts up a fight with this I'm dead. Remind me again why I still do this?!"

[Army Guy]

That explains it all, a worldly quote from a man who wants to continue running our nation. I hope that is not the best Canada can do and i hope the rest of Canada speaks through thier votes.

[mar]

Layton's idea isn't all bad. I know from experience at customs, seeing customs agents finding firearms in vehicles. Once I heard a couple of them say to another:

"If this guy puts up a fight with this I'm dead. Remind me again why I still do this?!"

I would disagree. I am not saying you could not add the task to the role of Customs officers, provide adequate training and recruit new personnel more suited to the task, but it is very different from the present and historical role of customs officers.

I agree with you that its always been a problem for customs officers to be disarming "tourists." A friend of mine was a customs officer at an airpot with a lot of private and small plane activity and had all sorts of stories of turning Americans back at the border (then one-time policy of holding illegal firearms had been adandoned due to the sheer danger of attempting to confiscate weapons and the logistical problems of storing them).

However, I think it would be far more logical to either task the RCMP or even the CAF (with an approproate budgetary commitment) to provide border security if we feel that extensive an armed presence is necessary and let Customs Officers continue in their current role. I just don't think you can turn personnel trained in customs and excise duties and immigration into a disciplined armed force without major problems in the short-run. Its hard enough for professionals like police and military personnel with extensive training to learn that balance between over-reacting and under-reacting in confrontational situations and I think its too much to expect of our current Customs Officers.

[Hicksey]

Layton's idea isn't all bad. I know from experience at customs, seeing customs agents finding firearms in vehicles. Once I heard a couple of them say to another:

"If this guy puts up a fight with this I'm dead. Remind me again why I still do this?!"

I would disagree. I am not saying you could not add the task to the role of Customs officers, provide adequate training and recruit new personnel more suited to the task, but it is very different from the present and historical role of customs officers.

I agree with you that its always been a problem for customs officers to be disarming "tourists." A friend of mine was a customs officer at an airpot with a lot of private and small plane activity and had all sorts of stories of turning Americans back at the border (then one-time policy of holding illegal firearms had been adandoned due to the sheer danger of attempting to confiscate weapons and the logistical problems of storing them).

However, I think it would be far more logical to either task the RCMP or even the CAF (with an approproate budgetary commitment) to provide border security if we feel that extensive an armed presence is necessary and let Customs Officers continue in their current role. I just don't think you can turn personnel trained in customs and excise duties and immigration into a disciplined armed force without major problems in the short-run. Its hard enough for professionals like police and military personnel with extensive training to learn that balance between over-reacting and under-reacting in confrontational situations and I think its too much to expect of our current Customs Officers.

I believe our customs agents can be suitably trained. I see these people on a regular basis and I think you're highly underestimating them. As well, I think it is much more cost effective to train the officers already there.

And that's not to mention that I have seen the American Customs Agents work with them seamlessly. I can't see Canadian agents being incapable.

[Big Blue Machine]

What was the actual context of what Harper said about military presence in our cites?

[mar]

I believe our customs agents can be suitably trained. I see these people on a regular basis and I think you're highly underestimating them. As well, I think it is much more cost effective to train the officers already there.

And that's not to mention that I have seen the American Customs Agents work with them seamlessly. I can't see Canadian agents being incapable.

Doesn't seem we're gonna agree in this. My point is not that Customs offiers are too stupid or whatever to learn this, its a question of specialization which is applied in all military and policing organizations.

I think its unfair to change the working conditions of customs officers simply because it would be cheaper than providing trained professionals and it would be interesting to see how their union would approach this if it became law. And there is the question of proportion. Its one thing to confiscate the handgun a U.S. couple habitually carry in their glove compartment, another to disarm a carload of gang members. If, as all politicians are saying, our priority is to stop the flow of firearms deliberately smugggled by criminals and if there is enough of this going on to warrant action, then surely we need a force with sufficiently greater firepower than one or two customs agents with handguns . . . say small teams of highly trained personnel with automatic weapons.

Even the British police with a century long history of civilian security has had a number of problems in becoming an armed force and I really think arming Customs agents is one of those ideas driven more by economy than logic. If we look at the problem as providing adequate security to deal with any likely situation AND providing a secure environment for Customs Officers to perform their necessary duties, I think a specialized force is the better solution.

[kimmy]

Clearly the ad was ill conceived and ill executed to the point that whatever the message was supposed to be got lost.

As to the Conservative policy they were presumably attempting to attack there are several factors.

There are some legitimate issues that are worth discussing in the proposal, some of which you've articulated, some of which were articulated by Joe Granatstein in the Toronto Star article that Eureka referenced, and some of which the Liberals themselves have belatedly articulated in wake of the controversy over the ad. I think probably the arguments could probably be summarized under 2 headings: purpose/role confusion, and cost/benefit ratio. Congratulations to yourself, and to Eureka, the Star, Joe Granatstein, and even the Liberals, for attempting some real discussion of the issue.

Something I wanted to take issue, though, is the suggestion that "the message got lost". I think the ad conveys the message it was intended to convey: the person who conceived the ad either believes soldiers in cities is a sinister idea, or hopes that voters will believe it is.

"Soldiers with guns. In cities. In Canada." I mean, for me the ad brought to mind Tienamen Square. For my parents, martial law in Poland was what they mentioned. Mike Duffy said Pinochet. Virtually everyone I know in person or online who has seen the ad had the same sort of reaction, and it's hard to believe that experienced professional ad-men created such a universal reaction by accident.

No, I just cannot accept the excuse that they've conveyed a message here that was different from what they intended. I believe the ad conveys exactly what it was intended to convey, and I believe that it was the intent and the idea behind the ad that was either malicious or just poorly thought through.

-k

[Hicksey]

I was listening to Mark Elliot on CFRB AM in Toronto on my way through tonite and it seems that the Liberal Attack Ads have become a joke. They're taking the snippets like "We're not making this up." and using them in comical roles.

I had a good laugh. He even had a call in and gave listeners the opporunity to craft their own attack ads.

[Hydraboss]

Stephen Harper said that he wants to see more Tim Horton's serving soup in our cities.

In our cities.

Soup with buns.

In Canadian cities.

In Canada.

We're not making this up.

Choose your flavour.

[shoop]

Yeah, the ad was terrible. I have a feeling the "Pinochet ad" nickname is going to stick.

I think the Liberals just got arrogant and thought they could go as far as possible to *make sure* they won the election.

Another example of the poor political instincts of the Martinites.

"Soldiers with guns. In cities. In Canada." I mean, for me the ad brought to mind Tienamen Square. For my parents, martial law in Poland was what they mentioned. Mike Duffy said Pinochet. Virtually everyone I know in person or online who has seen the ad had the same sort of reaction, and it's hard to believe that experienced professional ad-men created such a universal reaction by accident.

-k