Conservatives guilty of what they accused the Liberals of doing...

[Rovik]

The Conservatives came out with a negative attack ad in BC personally attacking Leyton, (much like the Liberals personally attacked Harper), and distorted the facts. Guess the Conservatives are just as bad as the Liberals in this regard.

From the NDP web site, is their response to this negative ad.

For more than a week the Conservative Party has been complaining about Liberal TV ads they say are factually incorrect.

Now they've released their own.

Today the Conservatives finally posted it on their website - after running it for two days in British Columbia - an incorrect ad about NDP positions.

Will they do the right thing and pull their own misleading ad?

Conservatives say Jack says: "I support legalized drugs". What Jack really says is: We need to give support to the police and to communities to crack down on illegal drugs like crystal meth that are destroying lives and creating the conditions for the growth of crime in our communities.

Conservatives say Jack says: "Who needs tax cuts?" What Jack really says is: Not the profit-making corporations Mr. Harper and the Conservatives wanted to reward with a $4.6 billion tax cut last year. Jack Layton and the NDP think Canadians deserve the personal tax cuts Mr. Harper intends to scrap.

Conservatives say Jack says: "I want higher gas prices." What Jack really says is: The NDP is proposing legislation that would create an independent watchdog to make sure big oil and gas companies don't gouge consumers at the pump.

Conservatives say Jack says: "Please tax my estate." What Jack really says is: The NDP is not proposing any new personal income taxes, and no new taxes on inheritances or estates.

Here is the link to the reply. Link

I'm thinking there will be a backlash to this ad as there was to the Liberal attack ads.

[geoffrey]

Wow. If there was any lies I would be upset. But this is accurate.

Jack Layton supports legalizing drugs (marijuana).

Jack Layton supports no further tax cuts.

Jack Layton wanted to increase gas taxes.

Jack Layton supports the death tax.

The NDP has never denied any of this. Good spin in their answer, but they don't even deny it there. Its all criticism of current policy. Nice try.

[Rovik]

Wow. If there was any lies I would be upset. But this is accurate.

Jack Layton supports legalizing drugs (marijuana).

Jack Layton supports no further tax cuts.

Jack Layton wanted to increase gas taxes.

Jack Layton supports the death tax.

The NDP has never denied any of this. Good spin in their answer, but they don't even deny it there. Its all criticism of current policy. Nice try.

Accurate? no. Misleading? Distorting of facts? Usage of Liberal-type tactics? Yes.

The Ad first says that Jack Leyton supports legalized drugs without no explanation. A couple of things here. The assertion is so broad that it can be easily misconstrued. For example, I could see a neighbour taking asprin for a headache and then I could turn around and tell someone else that my neighbour is doing legalized drugs. Before you know it everybody will think that this neighbour is doing drugs, and many will assume heavy drugs such as heroin or cocaine. Most people seem to think the worst when not given the specifics and that is what the Conservatives are trying to do here by purposely making the statement very general. Second the drug in question is Marijunana (and just Marijunana) which is pretty tame compared to cocaine, heroin crystal meth and so on. And many people would consider alcohol a much stronger drug and nicotine a much more addictive drug. Click the link (to the CBC) for more info Link and no I don't do the stuff myself by I agree with the reasons for it.

Second the ad says that he supports no further tax cuts. Again, misleading. What he he saying is that he supports tax cuts for lower income, (in which the Conservatives are trying to take away a tax cut that is already there) but he doesn't support tax cuts for corporations.

Third, the ad says he wants to increase gas taxes. Again untrue. He wants to protect people from the predatory forces of the oil companies and the direct oil and gas sellers (you saw what happened to gas prices after Hurricane Katrina.) Some will warp this as saying that this would increase gas taxes but this is just spin.

Fourth, the ad says he supports an inheritance tax. This is not true. The NDP did support it in the last election but has since dropped this from their platform. For the Conservatives to reach back in the past and to bring up a policy that the NDP no longer supports is hypocritical because in this campaign, they have dropped a lot of their own policies they had in the past as well in order to seem more moderate. One example, is that they will now keep ACOA, it wasn't too long ago that they said ACOA should be scrapped.

[shoop]

I'm thinking there will be a backlash to this ad as there was to the Liberal attack ads.

I'm thinking you are wrong on that one.

Look at your second post in this thread. You had to *try* and give a nuanced, and a little rambling, response in order to prove why you *think* the CPC ads are wrong.

It takes 16 words to explain what was wrong with the Pinochet ad.

"Stephen Harper will not put armed soldiers in the streets of Canada, like Pierre Trudeau did."

That is why there hasn't been a backlash on these ads.

[Rovik]

I'm thinking there will be a backlash to this ad as there was to the Liberal attack ads.

I'm thinking you are wrong on that one.

Look at your second post in this thread. You had to *try* and give a nuanced, and a little rambling, response in order to prove why you *think* the CPC ads are wrong.

It takes 16 words to explain what was wrong with the Pinochet ad.

"Stephen Harper will not put armed soldiers in the streets of Canada, like Pierre Trudeau did."

That is why there hasn't been a backlash on these ads.

ok

- The NDP support discriminalizing just Marijuana

- The NDP does not support tax cuts for corporations

- The NDP does not want to increase gas taxes

- The NDP does not support any new inheritance taxes

Better?

[shoop]

Politics is all about staying on point. My point was that you were dreaming in talking about a backlash against the CPC.

Point is that none of these four issues are hot-button enough to create the backlash on the ads you talked about.

A couple reasons? Many Canadians *don't* favour legalizing marijuana. Some Canadians actually support tax cuts for corporations. = no backlash

Do any Canadians really want armed soldiers in the steets? See the contrast.

- The NDP support discriminalizing just Marijuana

- The NDP does not support tax cuts for corporations

- The NDP does not want to increase gas taxes

- The NDP does not support any new inheritance taxes

Better?

[Rovik]

Politics is all about staying on point. My point was that you were dreaming in talking about a backlash against the CPC.

Point is that none of these four issues are hot-button enough to create the backlash on the ads you talked about.

A couple reasons? Many Canadians *don't* favour legalizing marijuana. Some Canadians actually support tax cuts for corporations. = no backlash

Do any Canadians really want armed soldiers in the steets? See the contrast.

- The NDP support discriminalizing just Marijuana

- The NDP does not support tax cuts for corporations

- The NDP does not want to increase gas taxes

- The NDP does not support any new inheritance taxes

Better?

True, the message is important and if it's a "hot button" item, the impact is greater BUT how the message is conveyed is also important. People are turned off by personal attacks on the politicians; look at the Conservative ad in 1993 that attacked the way Jean Chretien's face looked. It had nothing to do with the political campaign and the backlash from this ad was instrumental in the huge Conservative defeat back then.

In this case, it's making fun of Jack Leyton and his "mustache." Many people consider it politically incorrect to make fun of someone in such a way.

[shoop]

Agreed, but part of the problem with the Chretien ads was that it appeared to mock his Bell's palsy. There is a huge difference between making fun of someboy's personal choice in facial hair and making fun of a medical condition. I didn't vote PC in that election. Those ads were a big part of my decision making process.

The only people who would be *offended* by ads of this nature are very unlikely to vote CPC in the first place.

Back on point, the *backlash* you predicted from these ads will not come about.

True, the message is important and if it's a "hot button" item, the impact is greater BUT how the message is conveyed is also important. People are turned off by personal attacks on the politicians; look at the Conservative ad in 1993 that attacked the way Jean Chretien's face looked. It had nothing to do with the political campaign and the backlash from this ad was instrumental in the huge Conservative defeat back then.

In this case, it's making fun of Jack Leyton and his "mustache." Many people consider it politically incorrect to make fun of someone in such a way.

[kimmy]

I think there's a notable difference between making fun of a medical affliction and making fun of a personal grooming choice... especially a bad one.

It was not Jean Chretien's choice to have Bell's Palsy.

Jack Layton's pornstache, on the otherhand, is nobody's fault but his own.

I also do not think the intention is to make fun of Layton's moustache. The idea of pasting Layton's mouth over top of "regular guy" Canadians is to ask "does Jack Layton really speak for you?" Obviously, this wouldn't work if Layton's mouth and stache weren't so recognizeable, but I don't think the ad makes fun of Layton's stache per se.

-k

[Hicksey]

I think that the NDP ad is a little over the top. The conservatives would be smart not to get into that realm and the leave Liberals to occupy that real estate on their own.

[shoop]

There is a reason why these ads were released just in BC. Persuadables in BC are definitely not voting Liberal. As strange as it sounds their choice is between the CPC and the NDP.

It is these people the ads are targeted at.

I think that the NDP ad is a little over the top. The conservatives would be smart not to get into that realm and the leave Liberals to occupy that real estate on their own.

[Hicksey]

There is a reason why these ads were released just in BC. Persuadables in BC are definitely not voting Liberal. As strange as it sounds their choice is between the CPC and the NDP.

It is these people the ads are targeted at.

I think that the NDP ad is a little over the top. The conservatives would be smart not to get into that realm and the leave Liberals to occupy that real estate on their own.

I still don't see where that kind of Martin-type fear-mongering is justified.

Until now the conservatives offered quotes and actions and asked Canadians to draw the conclusions on their own. In this ad they basically sunk to the low of the Liberal military ad.

I think Harper's refusal to match that level of negativity up to this point has been a large part of his success. This is Harper's to lose and considering ads of this ilk lost it for the Liberals ... they're hardly a good idea at this point.

[shoop]

The ad in question was the Jack Layton ad released in BC only.

*Are you referring to that ad as Martin-type fear-mongering?*

I still don't see where that kind of Martin-type fear-mongering is justified.

Until now the conservatives offered quotes and actions and asked Canadians to draw the conclusions on their own. In this ad they basically sunk to the low of the Liberal military ad.

I think Harper's refusal to match that level of negativity up to this point has been a large part of his success. This is Harper's to lose and considering ads of this ilk lost it for the Liberals ... they're hardly a good idea at this point.

[Hicksey]

I know. And yes, I am. There are plenty of quotes to play on the NDP position. Let Layton's words speak for themselves. It was the editorializing of the conservative positions in that produced the negativity to them.

That having been said. Nobody but broken glass NDPers have those values and it may hit. But, I doubt it.

The ad in question was the Jack Layton ad released in BC only.

*Are you referring to that ad as Martin-type fear-mongering?*

I still don't see where that kind of Martin-type fear-mongering is justified.

Until now the conservatives offered quotes and actions and asked Canadians to draw the conclusions on their own. In this ad they basically sunk to the low of the Liberal military ad.

I think Harper's refusal to match that level of negativity up to this point has been a large part of his success. This is Harper's to lose and considering ads of this ilk lost it for the Liberals ... they're hardly a good idea at this point.

[shoop]

The ads definitely aren't anywhere near as dark as what the Liberals are using against the Conservatives. Or what the Conservatives are using against the Liberals for that matter.

I am not sure if they will work or not. But there is zero chance of them blowing up in the CPCs faces.

I know. And yes, I am. There are plenty of quotes to play on the NDP position. Let Layton's words speak for themselves. It was the editorializing of the conservative positions in that produced the negativity to them.

That having been said. Nobody but broken glass NDPers have those values and it may hit. But, I doubt it.

[Hicksey]

The ads definitely aren't anywhere near as dark as what the Liberals are using against the Conservatives. Or what the Conservatives are using against the Liberals for that matter.

I am not sure if they will work or not. But there is zero chance of them blowing up in the CPCs faces.

I know. And yes, I am. There are plenty of quotes to play on the NDP position. Let Layton's words speak for themselves. It was the editorializing of the conservative positions in that produced the negativity to them.

That having been said. Nobody but broken glass NDPers have those values and it may hit. But, I doubt it.

I stand by my viewpoint that the ad in question here is as bad as those of the Liberals. I really believe that Canadians are exasperated with that kind of smears and that joining Martin in that arena is a mistake.

I'll give you that the downside to such a region-targeted ad is not one that would take Harper down, but I think it could be the difference between a minority and a majority. I believe the relative positivity of Harper's campaign has really resonated with Canadians. I don't believe that ad goes anywhere in furthering the positive message.

[shoop]

There has been no mention of a backlash anywhere in the media as a result of these ads.

A targeted ad at this point is necessary in these days given the number of tight, tight races in BC.

Canadians only react negatively to attack ads when they aren't based in fact and/or are unfairly personal.

These ads deal with NDP policies that don't appeal to the persuadables that are now choosing between the NDP and the Conservatives.

I'll give you that the downside to such a region-targeted ad is not one that would take Harper down, but I think it could be the difference between a minority and a majority. I believe the relative positivity of Harper's campaign has really resonated with Canadians. I don't believe that ad goes anywhere in furthering the positive message.

[Hicksey]

The NDP and their socialist message just don't let up. I'd be less than surprised if they came up with a federally funded plan for supplying junkies with illicit drugs and places where they can do the drugs without fear of persecution.

That said, their post secondary schooling plans have merit. Tuition rates are getting farther and farther from what ordinary people can afford and the student load program either comes up short in funding or leaves students with an exhorbitant level of debt.

There has been no mention of a backlash anywhere in the media as a result of these ads.

A targeted ad at this point is necessary in these days given the number of tight, tight races in BC.

Canadians only react negatively to attack ads when they aren't based in fact and/or are unfairly personal.

These ads deal with NDP policies that don't appeal to the persuadables that are now choosing between the NDP and the Conservatives.

I'll give you that the downside to such a region-targeted ad is not one that would take Harper down, but I think it could be the difference between a minority and a majority. I believe the relative positivity of Harper's campaign has really resonated with Canadians. I don't believe that ad goes anywhere in furthering the positive message.

[BubberMiley]

What's socialism got to do with supplying junkies? Most socialist and communist countries have traditionally dealt with junkies with a bullet to the head.

Nonetheless, when my own quality of life is affected by drug addicts mugging and stealing from innocent people to get a fix, and I see neighbourhoods like around Hastings in Vancouver and the West End of Winnipeg wind up looking like Sarajevo in the 90s, I think people who are interested in maintaining the status quo are either incredibly stupid or profiting off the situation.

Criminalization hurts everybody. Treating it like a disease is not being soft on the problem. It faces the reality of the situation and actually deals with the problem.

[Hicksey]

What's socialism got to do with supplying junkies? Most socialist and communist countries have traditionally dealt with junkies with a bullet to the head.

Nonetheless, when my own quality of life is affected by drug addicts mugging and stealing from innocent people to get a fix, and I see neighbourhoods like around Hastings in Vancouver and the West End of Winnipeg wind up looking like Sarajevo in the 90s, I think people who are interested in maintaining the status quo are either incredibly stupid or profiting off the situation.

Criminalization hurts everybody. Treating it like a disease is not being soft on the problem. It faces the reality of the situation and actually deals with the problem.

You know ... a social program to supply them ...

There's no party except the NDP advocating places where junkies can go to do their drugs without fear of police action. The next step would have to be supplying them.

[BubberMiley]

So you consider the status quo is working perfectly and there's no need to change it? Obviously you don't own property on Hastings.