Tories to Run Negative TV Ad Campaign

[jdobbin]

I think there's a difference between pointing out your opposition's dishonesty and hypocrisy, and trying to insinuate your opposition is evil and has evil plans to destroy health care, social welfare programs, education, etc., not to mention to bow before the evil Americans.

Paul Martin's last ditch appeal to anti-Americanism in the last campaign was one of the more disgusting tactics I've witnessed of late. After all his bluster about wanting to improve relations with the Americans he goes on a ridiculous anti-American tangent on the environment and security, trying to link Harper to Bush. Then it turned out the Americans were actually doing twice as good on the environment as his shitty government had.

There is no difference when it comes to negative advertising.

[Argus]

I think there's a difference between pointing out your opposition's dishonesty and hypocrisy, and trying to insinuate your opposition is evil and has evil plans to destroy health care, social welfare programs, education, etc., not to mention to bow before the evil Americans.

Paul Martin's last ditch appeal to anti-Americanism in the last campaign was one of the more disgusting tactics I've witnessed of late. After all his bluster about wanting to improve relations with the Americans he goes on a ridiculous anti-American tangent on the environment and security, trying to link Harper to Bush. Then it turned out the Americans were actually doing twice as good on the environment as his shitty government had.

There is no difference when it comes to negative advertising.

There is negative and honest, and negative and dishonest. The tories might be the former, the Liberals are certainly the latter (soldiers, with guns, in our streets). And there is another level below which is advertising which is potentially damaging to Canada, but done anyway because you hope it is good for your party. That is something only the Liberals do.

[Ricki Bobbi]

There is no difference when it comes to negative advertising.

There is negative and honest, and negative and dishonest. The tories might be the former, the Liberals are certainly the latter (soldiers, with guns, in our streets). And there is another level below which is advertising which is potentially damaging to Canada, but done anyway because you hope it is good for your party. That is something only the Liberals do.

That negative and dishonest sums up all of jdobbin's points exactly.

His standards for the Conservatives are ever-changing. Always moving so that the Conservatives just can't meet them.

Poor, poor Harper-haters.

[Saturn]

Indeed, all the big newspapers endorsed Harper (except The Star). CanWest's owners (David Asper) even went on the campaign trail with Harper. All the Jewish media (except the CBC and the Star) endorsed Harper for his pro-Israeli stance (and the GST cut which would be beneficial to media corporations unlike Martin's personal income tax cut). The Jewish media came out with headlines like "Why You Should Vote Conservative" the weekend before the election and then they go after the CBC for not being biased enough. Even Larry Zolf on the CBC went from criticizing Harper for his many acts of hypocrisy to nearly worshiping him after Harper's government became the first to openly support Israel against the Palestinians. And then you wonder why MacKay meets with all foreign ministers on his Middle East trip except the Palestinian minister, whom he openly snubs. It's a very mutually beneficial relationship the Conservatives have with the Jewish media. The Conservatives support the Jewish position and the media, lead by CanWest, get to ask all the questions at Harper's press conferences and endorse him between and during election campaigns.

Wow. I find the comments above extremely distasteful.

Is this sort of overt bigotry normally tolerated here?

Or is everybody except me a victim of Zionist Mind Control?

Saturn is an ultra leftist, so to his mind it is impossible for him to be a bigot. Obviously, he doesn't like Jews, but he'll probably tell you he's being very reasonable in that, and not a bigot at all. Probably some of his best friends are Jews, right?

There we go. Just pointing out the fact that the majority of Canadian media is owned or controlled by Jews makes one an anti-semite. Why Argus? Is owning media some sort of a crime in your eyes? Do you find that embarrassing somehow?

[Charles Anthony]

Condense your quotations and posts.

At least half of this thread is scroller-coaster white-space and entirely repeated posts.

Using the [ Quote ] Feature: Avoid using more too many quotes!

Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

[Ricki Bobbi]

At least half of this thread is scroller-coaster white-space and entirely repeated posts.

Scroller-coaster

Paul Wells said it best about contrast ads on his blog today.

I've long believed that attack ads, or negative ads, or contrast ads, or whatever you like to call them are perfectly legitimate. They are what they are: they tell you what one camp thinks about another, and their message often sticks. On the other hand, voters aren't fools and they notice that the guys with the attack ads are more eager to talk about the other guy than about themselves, and that they seem pretty cranky. All of this information goes into voters' calculus. It's all fair game.

Anybody taking offence to the Conservatives for running these ads really needs to look at the recent history of political advertising in Canada.

[watching&waiting]

The CPC has decided to make sure they brand Dion with his past perforamances over the last decade or so. The Liberals have been busy trying to brand him as something different, but in the end of the day, it just comes down to what is the clear truth and what is a concieved lie. There is nothing abou the ads that is not true and it is only making Dion accept the deeds as they have played out of his past. It is not as if any of this is made up or blown out of proportion. What the ads will say, will be the true and honest accounting of Dions past and also mixed in with some of his more noteable present. IE the fact that Dions thinks that those who were banned for life from the party, because they were found to be very much be involved with the Sponsorship Scandle, to have paid enough and they should be welcomed again into the party. That did come from Dions own mouth and yes it was himself that made that negative, and one has to wonder at the reasons why he even had any thoughts on this, let alone to put them in public. .

Dion's past performance will be brought to light of day, and yes he should be made to explain this to the people as to why and what was the context of each of these. This will show the Canadian people more about his character then any branding the Liberals would have us look at. Face it, most Canadians now know that you can not trust the Liberals by what they say, so it is not that hard to then realize that the people will then have to go on what he has done, as the way to show his true character.

I find it funny that the liberals want to call them attack ads, when really they are just ads about Dions past performance, and issues where he took a stand. I guess the Libs take using past deeds as an attack. That is only because they think we should only look to present promises to base the vote. You know the same type of promises that the Libs are known for never keeping once elected! How dare we force the people to see the past record, so they cry foul.

[Figleaf]

How perfectly Tory -- let their base instincts lead them to shoot themselves in the foot. It's so deliciously in character. Like the Leafs blowing it.

Attack ads against an untainted, low-profile Opposition leader (outside an election yet!), are a sign of two things: desperation, and the poor judgment of partisan extremism. Canadian voters will not be fooled by this sort of sideshow.

Doesn't Harper have a government to run?

[Cameron]

Doesn't Harper have a government to run?

He is, the party is putting them out.

[Keepitsimple]

How perfectly Tory -- let their base instincts lead them to shoot themselves in the foot. It's so deliciously in character. Like the Leafs blowing it.

Attack ads against an untainted, low-profile Opposition leader (outside an election yet!), are a sign of two things: desperation, and the poor judgment of partisan extremism. Canadian voters will not be fooled by this sort of sideshow.

Doesn't Harper have a government to run?

Dion is the leader of an opposition party who, rightly or wrongly, could find themselves back in power in the near future. Yet the media has chosen not to analyse and critique Dion's past performance and ability to lead. If the media had at least provided an ongoing balanced review, these ads would not be necessary. Just imagine if someone like Stephane Dion had been elected as leader of the Conservatives....can you imagine the unrelenting attacks that the media would carry out? There is plenty of ammunition.

[jdobbin]

There is negative and honest, and negative and dishonest. The tories might be the former, the Liberals are certainly the latter (soldiers, with guns, in our streets). And there is another level below which is advertising which is potentially damaging to Canada, but done anyway because you hope it is good for your party. That is something only the Liberals do.

I seem to remember Tory advertising making fun of Chretien's paralysis.

Look, I doubt very much the public is going to distinguish between good negative advertising and bad negative advertising. They know that if a company such as Pepsi does the taste test, it is negative advertising. It might rate a look from people, it might even change some brand loyalty but it also eventually gets old no matter how "friendly" it looks.

[jdobbin]

I find it funny that the liberals want to call them attack ads, when really they are just ads about Dions past performance, and issues where he took a stand. I guess the Libs take using past deeds as an attack. That is only because they think we should only look to present promises to base the vote. You know the same type of promises that the Libs are known for never keeping once elected! How dare we force the people to see the past record, so they cry foul.

Liberals don't have to brand them negative ads. They *are* negative ads. Why do Conservatives keep denying they are? And why do they have to point out what past Liberal administrations have done for advertising. Didn't Harper say he was going to do things differently?

[tml12]

There is negative and honest, and negative and dishonest. The tories might be the former, the Liberals are certainly the latter (soldiers, with guns, in our streets). And there is another level below which is advertising which is potentially damaging to Canada, but done anyway because you hope it is good for your party. That is something only the Liberals do.

I seem to remember Tory advertising making fun of Chretien's paralysis.

Look, I doubt very much the public is going to distinguish between good negative advertising and bad negative advertising. They know that if a company such as Pepsi does the taste test, it is negative advertising. It might rate a look from people, it might even change some brand loyalty but it also eventually gets old no matter how "friendly" it looks.

jodobbin, that Tory ad from 1993 has been discussed endlessly. It was bad...REAL bad...and no one in their right mind is going to say otherwise.

That being said, Argus is correct in saying that there is a difference between good and bad negative advertising. I'll put myself in an anti-Harper position for this example:

If I saw Dion do another "soldiers in our streets" commercial, I'd just be disgusted knowing the Liberals were just desperate and making up things.

BUT if I saw the Liberals doing a "Harper promised no more taxes and taxed income trusts" or something like that, I'd be like "hey, I'm a Conservative supporter but it really angered me that Harper did that."

My point being: one disgusts me and the other reminds me that my party let me down on something I thought they wouldn't do. Same with the Liberals and the environment.

[jdobbin]

Dion is the leader of an opposition party who, rightly or wrongly, could find themselves back in power in the near future. Yet the media has chosen not to analyse and critique Dion's past performance and ability to lead. If the media had at least provided an ongoing balanced review, these ads would not be necessary. Just imagine if someone like Stephane Dion had been elected as leader of the Conservatives....can you imagine the unrelenting attacks that the media would carry out? There is plenty of ammunition.

Exactly who other than some people here say that the media coverage is imbalanced in Dion's favour. Is the media calling for Harper's defeat? Who has been measuring this out?

Seems to me the media is prepared to jump on Dion when he missteps. Witness the Liberal party membership thing with Cote.

There are plenty of newspapers and new broadcasts that talk about his performance as Environment minister as well.

The right wing always harps about the media but the media was hardly negative for them during the past election.

[jdobbin]

jodobbin, that Tory ad from 1993 has been discussed endlessly. It was bad...REAL bad...and no one in their right mind is going to say otherwise.

That being said, Argus is correct in saying that there is a difference between good and bad negative advertising. I'll put myself in an anti-Harper position for this example:

If I saw Dion do another "soldiers in our streets" commercial, I'd just be disgusted knowing the Liberals were just desperate and making up things.

BUT if I saw the Liberals doing a "Harper promised no more taxes and taxed income trusts" or something like that, I'd be like "hey, I'm a Conservative supporter but it really angered me that Harper did that."

My point being: one disgusts me and the other reminds me that my party let me down on something I thought they wouldn't do. Same with the Liberals and the environment.

I haven't seen the Chretien Tory ad discussed here. I've only heard about the Liberal ads and the one mentioned most is the one that never made it to air.

Commercial advertisers make no distinction when it comes to negative advertising. Most elections have some form of negative advertising. Harper said he was going to do things differently and when the Liberals got a new leader, many people were waiting to see who would be the first to go negative in election advertising or if both campaigns would refrain from it for as long as possible. In this case, it has been the Tories who have fired the first shot.

[tml12]

jodobbin, that Tory ad from 1993 has been discussed endlessly. It was bad...REAL bad...and no one in their right mind is going to say otherwise.

That being said, Argus is correct in saying that there is a difference between good and bad negative advertising. I'll put myself in an anti-Harper position for this example:

If I saw Dion do another "soldiers in our streets" commercial, I'd just be disgusted knowing the Liberals were just desperate and making up things.

BUT if I saw the Liberals doing a "Harper promised no more taxes and taxed income trusts" or something like that, I'd be like "hey, I'm a Conservative supporter but it really angered me that Harper did that."

My point being: one disgusts me and the other reminds me that my party let me down on something I thought they wouldn't do. Same with the Liberals and the environment.

I haven't seen the Chretien Tory ad discussed here. I've only heard about the Liberal ads and the one mentioned most is the one that never made it to air.

Commercial advertisers make no distinction when it comes to negative advertising. Most elections have some form of negative advertising. Harper said he was going to do things differently and when the Liberals got a new leader, many people were waiting to see who would be the first to go negative in election advertising or if both campaigns would refrain from it for as long as possible. In this case, it has been the Tories who have fired the first shot.

When I said "discussed endlessly" I meant in academic circles, not necessarily here.

It is not important what distinction commercial advertisers make. The reality is, it is the voters who are supposed to be swayed. I never heard Harper say he was never going to show "negative" advertising and, if you consider the ad negative, perhaps you should see for yourself what the Liberal record is on the environment. Here's a hint: it's pretty negative.

[Cameron]

They are up on the site now

http://www.conservative.ca

right hand column.

[August1991]

Well, you can see all three English ads here.

I think they're funny rather than serious.

The one ad that is sure to raise hackles is the "not a leader ad". First, it uses Ignatieff and Dryden (to good effect) and second, if Dion has a sensitive ego or thin skin, he's sure to take it bad. (I wonder if that is partly the point of these ads. To bug Dion.)

Politicians should have feathers like a duck - let it all roll off. Otherwise, they're in the wrong business. Think of how much criticsm and mockery Harper, Chretien and Martin have had to sufer over the years.

Paul Martin's last ditch appeal to anti-Americanism in the last campaign was one of the more disgusting tactics I've witnessed of late.

I thought the insinuations that Harper (and his advisors) were from Calgary and hence were somehow not Canadian was the absolute low point in that campaign.

These Tory ads of Dion are nothing like that. They're really rather funny. Dion looks like an another academic wannabe politician.

[jdobbin]

When I said "discussed endlessly" I meant in academic circles, not necessarily here.

It is not important what distinction commercial advertisers make. The reality is, it is the voters who are supposed to be swayed. I never heard Harper say he was never going to show "negative" advertising and, if you consider the ad negative, perhaps you should see for yourself what the Liberal record is on the environment. Here's a hint: it's pretty negative.

I know what the Liberal record on the environment was like. It was terrible. And part of the reason I know is because the media reported it.

I see two things here: the first is the negative ads are being shown because the Liberals did it in the past, the second because the media won't tell the truth about Dion.

Most people know the Liberals ran negative ads in the past and many didn't like it. Dion has not run negative ads so far. As far as this idea that the media doesn't tell the truth on Dion's environment record, I can look at any paper in the last weeks and find stories that criticize that record.

[tml12]

When I said "discussed endlessly" I meant in academic circles, not necessarily here.

It is not important what distinction commercial advertisers make. The reality is, it is the voters who are supposed to be swayed. I never heard Harper say he was never going to show "negative" advertising and, if you consider the ad negative, perhaps you should see for yourself what the Liberal record is on the environment. Here's a hint: it's pretty negative.

I know what the Liberal record on the environment was like. It was terrible. And part of the reason I know is because the media reported it.

I see two things here: the first is the negative ads are being shown because the Liberals did it in the past, the second because the media won't tell the truth about Dion.

Most people know the Liberals ran negative ads in the past and many didn't like it. Dion has not run negative ads so far. As far as this idea that the media doesn't tell the truth on Dion's environment record, I can look at any paper in the last weeks and find stories that criticize that record.

Guaranteed the Liberals run on "Harper majority *scary* *scary* *scary*" in the next election.

[jdobbin]

Guaranteed the Liberals run on "Harper majority *scary* *scary* *scary*" in the next election.

Sort of what the Tory campaign is like now?

[tml12]

Guaranteed the Liberals run on "Harper majority *scary* *scary* *scary*" in the next election.

Sort of what the Tory campaign is like now?

Those ads (I just watched them) do not even compare to scary. In fact, they are telling. I hope Canadians get the message.

"Do you know how hard it is to set priorities?" What a ridiculous comment to make. I can't believe this guy wants to be PM. And that one where he says "we need to be back in power." These guys are power-hungry crackpots. Unbelievable.

[jdobbin]

Those ads (I just watched them) do not even compare to scary. In fact, they are telling. I hope Canadians get the message.

"Do you know how hard it is to set priorities?" What a ridiculous comment to make. I can't believe this guy wants to be PM. And that one where he says "we need to be back in power." These guys are power-hungry crackpots. Unbelievable.

Quoting out of context is a favourite form of negative advertising.

[tml12]

Those ads (I just watched them) do not even compare to scary. In fact, they are telling. I hope Canadians get the message.

"Do you know how hard it is to set priorities?" What a ridiculous comment to make. I can't believe this guy wants to be PM. And that one where he says "we need to be back in power." These guys are power-hungry crackpots. Unbelievable.

Quoting out of context is a favourite form of negative advertising.

Actually, those quotes I think were quite fair. And you know what, Iggy was right...the Liberals didn't get it done. Actually, I do not think it was too hard for the CPC crew to find those quotes.

[August1991]

Those ads (I just watched them) do not even compare to scary. In fact, they are telling. I hope Canadians get the message.

In the "Not a leader" ad, it's Dion's tone of voice when saying "This is not fair!" and "You don't know what you speak about."

He sounds whiny.