Libs starting to get incredibly desperate now. In their latest attack ad, they misapporpriate a claim to Harper pretending it came from 2010 when, it fact, it was from 1997 and wasn't even said by Harper! Worse: they knew it wasn't Harper's quote, and have since 2004, but used it anyway.
More and more desperate by the day it would seem.
Oh, back peddling now after saying they knew the quote wasn't Harper's but weren't going to change the ad because "he said things like that before" to now saying they'll "fix" the ad... guns in our streets anyone?
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.
Speaking of Mr. Duceppe and his Bloc brigade, some might say Quebeckers are right up there with Albertans when it comes to herding the vote. But then they do it strategically, right? “Holding the knife to the throat” is what I believe it’s called.
Quote:
We had such hopes for that nice Michael Ignatieff. Shortly after taking the Liberal helm, he bravely stood before a Montreal audience and (gasp!) defended Alberta’s oil sands as an engine of economic growth and opportunity for all Canadians. But the election writ had barely dried when there he was, vowing to ban tanker traffic on the West Coast that might one day take Alberta crude to Asian markets – a brazen overture, I tell you, to our more comely B.C. cousins.
The Following User Says Thank You to J pold For This Useful Post:
Libs starting to get incredibly desperate now. In their latest attack ad, they misapporpriate a claim to Harper pretending it came from 2010 when, it fact, it was from 1997 and wasn't even said by Harper! Worse: they knew it wasn't Harper's quote, and have since 2004, but used it anyway.
More and more desperate by the day it would seem.
Oh, back peddling now after saying they knew the quote wasn't Harper's but weren't going to change the ad because "he said things like that before" to now saying they'll "fix" the ad... guns in our streets anyone?
For all of the Conservative attack ads, I thought that the Liberal version on health care was over the top, not only in the quoted context, but in terms of basically accusing the Conservatives of murdering people with their choices.
On another note Warren Kinsella wrote a nasty big of work in the Sun yesterday that went back to the whole Evil Conservative Hidden agenda spiel that the Liberal Party liked to use.
considering that Kinsella is in tight with Jean Chretien and Paul Martin I thought it was a weak jab at the Conservatives recycling the same old things that we've heard over the last 7 years.
When I sent Mr Kinsella an email debating his points, I got a nice email back from him wishing me well, which is great, but doing nothing to defend his viewpoints.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
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.
So you're suggesting that it would be completely fine for the Conservatives to fire up an attack ad saying "Canada should join Russin to fight the big bad USA - Michael Ignatieff" and "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote - Michael Igantieff". I mean, he never actually said that, but that's ok, right?
I'm pretty sure the Cons don't care about the Libs running attack ads. Blatantly lieing and manufacturing quotes though?
So you're suggesting that it would be completely fine for the Conservatives to fire up an attack ad saying "Canada should join Russin to fight the big bad USA - Michael Ignatieff" and "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote - Michael Igantieff". I mean, he never actually said that, but that's ok, right?
I'm pretty sure the Cons don't care about the Libs running attack ads. Blatantly lieing and manufacturing quotes though?
Well considering that quote appeared attributed to Harper in the Globe in 2010, you're comparing apples and oranges here.
So you're suggesting that it would be completely fine for the Conservatives to fire up an attack ad saying "Canada should join Russin to fight the big bad USA - Michael Ignatieff" and "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote - Michael Igantieff". I mean, he never actually said that, but that's ok, right?
I'm pretty sure the Cons don't care about the Libs running attack ads. Blatantly lieing and manufacturing quotes though?
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.
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.
I'm not saying that the strategy isn't effective. I don't particularly care for it, but it is what it is.
I don't know about the boy who cried wolf though. A majority and the power that comes with that is a very different game than a minority where there are more obvious checks and balances.
I posted this last week sometime, but the CPC doesn't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about ads that misrepresent a party leader. That doesn't excuse this latest Liberal ad, of course, but when your party runs an ad like the below before the election campaign even begins, you forfeit the right to complain that another party is running unfair attacks ads now.
Cheap and weasley MarchHare, I agree. However, in context, Michael Ignatieff did say he wants to raise taxes - it's in his platform clear as day. And he did say 'yes, yes, yes' as depicted in the video. Nothing in that particular ad is an outright lie.
If the voice over originally says "Michael Ignatieff was asked if he was going to eat your babies and sell your women into slavery... what did he say?" and then cut to the "yes yes yes" video.... that'd be the same as the latest Liberal embarrassement.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
I posted this last week sometime, but the CPC doesn't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about ads that misrepresent a party leader. That doesn't excuse this latest Liberal ad, of course, but when your party runs an ad like the below before the election campaign even begins, you forfeit the right to complain that another party is running unfair attacks ads now.
Thats the old Michael Moore school of filming...exact same thing he did with the Heston quote.
As for the context though....the Liberals do want to raise taxes dont they?...even if thats not what Ignatieff was answeing in that clip
I don't know about the boy who cried wolf though. A majority and the power that comes with that is a very different game than a minority where there are more obvious checks and balances.
Sure, but what then is the plea of the ad: "The polls have indicated that we won't form government, but please only give him a minority!"
Because if the plea is to vote in a Liberal government, I'm pretty sure the uncertainty of that would be greater.
Thats the old Michael Moore school of filming...exact same thing he did with the Heston quote.
Yeah, and it's intellectually dishonest and downright wrong when Michael Moore does it too. I'm sure we agree on that point.
Quote:
As for the context though....the Liberals do want to raise taxes dont they?
AFAIK (and I very well might be wrong on this point), the Liberal platform contains a provision to cancel a planned but as-yet-unimplemented corporate tax cut. We could get into a semantics debate about whether that's the same thing as planning to raise taxes or not.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
Sure, but what then is the plea of the ad: "The polls have indicated that we won't form government, but please only give him a minority!"
Because if the plea is to vote in a Liberal government, I'm pretty sure the uncertainty of that would be greater.
While technically I guess the Liberals are still running for government I'm sure that they're aware of the polls that all seem to point to a similar result as we had at dissolution.
I know that this is going to go over well, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see some social legislation come forth if the Conservatives have a majority. That might not be the thrust of the election campaign, but that element of the party is still there. We saw some of that with the funding for Africa and the reluctance to fund birth control for example.
I'm not fear mongering, and I don't mean this as the sole reason that people should vote against them (there are many legitimate, well known reasons after-all!), nut I don't doubt that some of the "flat-earthers" will come out of the woodwork with the safety of a majority as well.
If the Cons were interested in shaping social policy and then never ever governing again, I could see your point Slava.
But Gay Marriage, Abortion and the Death Penalty have pretty much become the third rail of Canadian Politics, if you touch them you die.
If the Cons changed any of those, they would be bounced in the next election by a Liberal Party that would promise to recind those changes and the Conservatives would suffer a Kim Campbell loss, and probably never be given the keys to government again.
I think that the whole Cons scary hidden agenda has really gone on long enough.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
While technically I guess the Liberals are still running for government I'm sure that they're aware of the polls that all seem to point to a similar result as we had at dissolution.
I know that this is going to go over well, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see some social legislation come forth if the Conservatives have a majority. That might not be the thrust of the election campaign, but that element of the party is still there. We saw some of that with the funding for Africa and the reluctance to fund birth control for example.
I'm not fear mongering, and I don't mean this as the sole reason that people should vote against them (there are many legitimate, well known reasons after-all!), nut I don't doubt that some of the "flat-earthers" will come out of the woodwork with the safety of a majority as well.
Let 'em. there is no way that the more level minded ( vast majority) of the rest of the members are going to pass any legislation that is too far out of the scope of what Canadians want. Harper himself doesn't seem like he is very extreme about much except maybe crime and punishment...which is something that does need reform in a bad bad way in Canada.
Any radical changes back to where things used to be ( gay mariiage, abortion) is a battle no one can win because the courts have spoken and they are dead issues. The guys running things know this as well as anyone.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
I'm not fear mongering, and I don't mean this as the sole reason that people should vote against them (there are many legitimate, well known reasons after-all!), nut I don't doubt that some of the "flat-earthers" will come out of the woodwork with the safety of a majority as well.
Which candidates/former MPs are 'flat earthers'? Start naming names if you're going to throw around baseless claims.
As an aside I find it really entertaining to be having a partisan conversation with someone who claims to be 'undecided'!
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
I have no doubt that Harper and the senior CPC strategists agree with you, CaptainCrunch, but many rank-and-file Conservative MPs and candidates are indeed very much far-right social conservatives.
If the Conservative slate had more moderate candidates like former minister Jim Prentice and less like this guy, they would probably have won my vote in this election and the last one.
