Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I just laugh at the CPC calling Liberal attack ads desperate after they've run ads for what, 3 straight years now? Seems like a taste of their own medicine.
All of these attack ads contain little half-truths and quotes taken out of context, or pieces of quotes that don't tell the whole story.
|
Ethics aside I think the new Liberal Attack ads should be taken in context of the election campaign, as it seems they trot out their 'fear-based' ads once it's pretty clear they're en route to losing. Alternatively the Conservatives use attack ads to damage reputations before election campaigns are even fought, thus forcing the opposition to waste time and energy breaking out of that mold (In my opinion a pretty good strategy if not a dirty one).
In 2004 and 2006 the Liberals did this when the polls were looking dire for them in the late weeks. In 2004 the ads and campaign of fear of 'hidden agendas' and the like might have salvaged a minority for Martin as the country really didn't know what to think about the CPC, but wanted to move on from Adscam. In 2006 their use of attack ads might have lost them a slim minority as they stretched the truth far too much and made it sounds like the CPC were led by Mussolini and the black shirts were going to crack skulls on Canadians.
This time around I think the ads are better done, as they outline wedge issues and points out the ambiguity of future potential conservative budgets that might threaten health care and other programs. The only problem I see with the ads and the strategy is that the 'hidden agenda' card really has got to be like the boy who cried wolf. It's a tired old strategy. Harper has been Prime Minister for over 5 years now, he's now the devil you know. You can't argue that 'a CPC majority is the devil you don't know so vote for us the Liberals' when now two leaders and 5 years later they have effectively become a devil you know even less about.