Justin Trudeau running for Liberal leadership

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Are you saying that Trudeau is being bullied? seriously?

That term is so badly overused lately. Politics is a blood sport, every time Trudeau opens his mouth he attacks Harper.

Whats the difference between the high school cyber-bullying we see and these ridiculous attack ads? I suppose just that the combatants are older and should know better.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

Whats the difference between the high school cyber-bullying we see and these ridiculous attack ads? I suppose just that the combatants are older and should know better.

They are both willing parties.

That's like comparing someone getting assaulted in the street to an MMA bout.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You could basically the say the same thing about Haper and the Conservatives in the post-Chretien years.

You could; yet Harper's best showing garned 39% and change of the popular vote, following two minorities.

What does that say about the level of trust Canadians have in Stephen Harper as their leader?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jacks

They are both willing parties.

That's like comparing someone getting assaulted in the street to an MMA bout.

Though these are sort of like punching someone at the weigh-in...

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jacks

They are both willing parties.

That's like comparing someone getting assaulted in the street to an MMA bout.

Really? There's an agreement between the parties that this is okay?

Or did Trudeau "consent" to it by aspiring to be one of the country's leaders?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by SebC

Really? There's an agreement between the parties that this is okay?

Or did Trudeau "consent" to it by aspiring to be one of the country's leaders?

When you volunteer to enter politics, you do so knowing that your opponents are going to comb through every aspect of your life looking for anything they can use against you.

That doesn't mean the this particular attack ad was in good taste or even an accurate portrayal of Trudeau's character, but he knew this would be coming when he signed up to become the Liberal leader.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

When you volunteer to enter politics, you do so knowing that your opponents are going to comb through every aspect of your life looking for anything they can use against you.

That doesn't mean the this particular attack ad was in good taste or even an accurate portrayal of Trudeau's character, but he knew this would be coming when he signed up to become the Liberal leader.

Knowing it's coming doesn't mean you agree to it. If a kid knows he's going to be bullied at school but goes anyways, that's not agreeing to it either.

The comparison to an MMA match is absurd.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by SebC

The comparison to an MMA match is absurd.

Assuming that Slava was referring to Parsons case, the comparision to a teenage girl being raped and then tormented for months until she kills herself is absurd.

Trudeau does plenty of attacking every time he gets near a microphone. If the Libs had any money they would probably be running ads too.

[PsYcNeT]

The obvious solution is to have Harper and Trudeau face off on 106 & Park.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by SebC

Knowing it's coming doesn't mean you agree to it. If a kid knows he's going to be bullied at school but goes anyways, that's not agreeing to it either.

The comparison to an MMA match is absurd.

I don't know, I view this as an "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" kind of thing.

In any event, it looks like this ad might have backfired on the Conservatives. The Liberal Party is claiming a huge uptick in donations since the ad aired (although how much of that can be attributed specifically to backlash against the attack ad and how much is in response to the weekend's leadership convention cannot be said), and even the liver charity for which Trudeau was raising money in the video reported a significantly higher amount of donations than their weekly average.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't know, I view this as an "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" kind of thing.

In any event, it looks like this ad might have backfired on the Conservatives. The Liberal Party is claiming a huge uptick in donations since the ad aired (although how much of that can be attributed specifically to backlash against the attack ad and how much is in response to the weekend's leadership convention cannot be said), and even the liver charity for which Trudeau was raising money in the video reported a significantly higher amount of donations than their weekly average.

Yup, give the CPC some credit. Their terrible attack ads got the Liver Foundation double what it makes in a month in unsolicited donations in just two days.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I will say that I'm completely against any religious bashing, and it should have no part in politics. If there were attack ads put forth about Stockwell Day and his beliefs then I have no problem in calling them deplorable. I'm just not convinced they ever existed though.

What I do find striking is that with some recent events, Harper and the PCs have rightly come out against bullying. A week later they put out this attack ad, which has nothing to do with any issues and is virtually the same thing. I mainly laugh at attack ads honestly; I don't find them offensive in the least and I don't care which party they're for/against. I just wish that politicians and parties would grow-up in general though.

Both parties have used attack ads, the only reason why it slowed down for the Liberals is that they pretty much ran out of money under the last two leaders and are still far behind the NDP and Cons in terms of finances.

the whole hidden agenda commercials including the troops on the street commercials run by the Liberals were just as odorous if not more so then any commercials run by the Conservatives.

However I will state that the by far worst attack strategy was Campbell basically going after Chretien's face.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't know, I view this as an "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" kind of thing.

I would agree to that, if "the heat" were merely scrutiny. There's a line that these ads can cross where you go from competition of ideas (which is a necessary part of the process) to outright malice.

[MarchHare]

the whole hidden agenda commercials including the troops on the street commercials run by the Liberals were just as odorous if not more so then any commercials run by the Conservatives.

For clarification, since this has come up a few times: the "troops on our streets" ad was never actually aired. The party declined to use it after they saw the finished product. It was briefly uploaded to the web along with the rest of the ads in that series but quickly pulled. Of course, by then it was too late.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2...-military.html

During a CBC News Town Hall meeting hosted by Peter Mansbridge on Thursday, Martin said the ad was pulled when he saw the finished product and realized it could be misconstrued.

[...]

The ad, which was never broadcast, stems from the Conservative platform which calls for 100 regular troops and 400 reservists to be based in major Canadian cities. But, according to that plan, their purpose would be only for humanitarian means or disaster relief efforts.

Martin said the ad was intended to criticize the Conservatives' policy, saying it would spread soldiers too far apart across the country.

But Mansbridge questioned Martin further about the ad, saying it makes no mention of policy and instead highlights the fact that would be soldiers in Canadian cities with guns.

Martin said it was when he and his campaign team saw the ad, and not just read the transcript, that they realized it was going to be misconstrued.

I suppose whether or not you believe Martin when he says that the ad was never meant to be seen publicly is a matter of opinion.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You give Chretien credit he does not deserve there. The Mulrooney PCs split massively because of their own internal strife, causing the PC-Reform split, and even giving the Bloq a good boost. Chretien and the Liberals were major beneficiaries of that, but they didn't cause any of it.

Yes, I worded it wrong and you explained it so much better than I did.

It really is no different than what has happened to the Liberals since about 2005. The Conservatives have been the beneficiaries of no viable alternative on the left.

[Daradon]

Man the conservative cheerleading in the Sun today was beyond idiotic. Not only that it seemed to obvious, and a little desperate.

I try not to read the Sun, but given that it's usually the paper at the pub I'll leaf through it.

Anyway, I didn't think Trudeau's comments on the attacks were bad. I think maybe poorly timed, but he was on an interview show and was asked his opinion. It's not like he jumped into the fray on his own right after it happened.

His comments weren't wrong, looking at the causes is going to be way more effective than just focusing on the justice side. He might have been able to word it better or maybe preface it with a condemnation of the act. But, it's out there now.

Makes me a little upset that the CPC tried to twist his meaning. It does appear that thwy are a little bit worried of him. Kinda stupid cause like a few have said here a few small changes to their platform and they'd win going away. But they might be their own worst enemy at this point.

[MarchHare]

Had an interested conversation with my father last night. For context, he's a 40-year veteran of the PR industry and knows a thing or two about influencing public opinion. He also hated -- HATED -- Pierre Trudeau and isn't much of a fan of Justin either.

He claimed that the attack ad is backfiring on the Conservatives in a big way. He's actually shocked that they haven't pulled it yet. The media narrative about the ad hasn't been that Trudeau is too inexperienced and immature to be PM, but rather it's been that the Conservatives are using lowbrow tactics by resorting to out-of-context quotes and footage from a charity event. The popular response on social media has been even more critical. When he read that a Conservative strategist was quoted saying this ad has by far the greatest number of views of any ad they've released and that it even temporarily crashed their web server because of too much traffic, he said that should have been a huge warning sign that something was amiss.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You could basically the say the same thing about Haper and the Conservatives in the post-Chretien years.

Sure if you can show me how the Liberals broke into three parties.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by redforever

Yes, I worded it wrong and you explained it so much better than I did.

It really is no different than what has happened to the Liberals since about 2005. The Conservatives have been the beneficiaries of no viable alternative on the left.

Well, a lot of people felt the NDP were viable last time around.

Give or take Stephane Dion, the left vs. right angle doesn't work at the federal level. As much as the people who hate Harper don't want to admit it, there is no such thing as a "fractured left" in Canadian politics (or perhaps only a small one if you feel the Greens are relevant). Canada has long been a three party system with opponents on the left, centre and right. Traditionally, the Liberals and Conservatives have been closer to each other than the Liberals and NDP have been.

Now, that being said, it is fair to argue that the Liberal base itself fractured. Blue Liberals disenchanted with Chretien's corruption went to the Conservatives to help build their minority governments, and later Dion and Ignatieff's incompetence cause those on the left to flock NDP. But that is simply the case of a party losing support rather than a sign that one side of the spectrum has fractured into multiple entities.

Trudeau is the great Liberal hope to pull those factions back. I honestly do think he has a chance, merely due to charisma and prevailing opinion of Harper and Mulcair's personalities - or lack thereof. Which, of course, is why we see the other parties attempting to control the narrative about the new leader. Exactly as the Liberals and NDP sought (and eventually failed) to control the narrative on Harper when he stepped into the top Conservative post.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

For clarification, since this has come up a few times: the "troops on our streets" ad was never actually aired. The party declined to use it after they saw the finished product. It was briefly uploaded to the web along with the rest of the ads in that series but quickly pulled. Of course, by then it was too late.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2...-military.html



I suppose whether or not you believe Martin when he says that the ad was never meant to be seen publicly is a matter of opinion.

An ad that is not meant to be seen publicly doesn't get posted to the party website. I don't think anyone could argue with a straight face that the ad was pulled for any reason other than massive negative reaction.

But your later post becomes relevant to this one as well. People often see through transparent attempts to use quotes out of context. And it usually doesn't go well for the person trying.