Monday, January 02, 2006

And so it begins...

From Jason Cherniak comes news that the Tories have begun the attack ads.

It's not on the CPC website yet, but someone has put the ad on-line. It basically has Paul Martin on a loop saying "the Liberal Party is not corrupt" while they show clips of Gomery and Dingwall. It's strikingly similar to what I suggested the Tories do in my pre-election preview:
Go for reality. Show clips of Sheila Fraser blasting the Liberals, a few "culture of entitlement" quotes, Jean Brault's testimony, Dingwall holding up the gum packet, newspaper headlines about Volpe's pizza party, and the Mr. Dithers economist article. End the commercial with a calming voice saying "there's an alternative".

It's a little noisy and they've re-used a lot of the same stuff from their "change" commercial, but they stuck to reality instead of wild accusations so there shouldn't be any backlash. I'll give it a thumbs up, although it's far from a home run (mixed metaphor alert...).


  • It's undeniably real.

    They Went Neg!!! haha

    By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 7:14 p.m.  

  • Two things:

    1. The Connies are in bigtime debial over this spot.

    2. Your "reality" advice is the reality of people who are no longer in government.

    By Blogger Edward Hollett, at 7:37 p.m.  

  • Lib. bloggers have their panties in a knot about this because...??

    The sound is very poor, almost seems like is was thrown together by some hack. I'm not sure it is fake, but if it was real wouldn't it have been all over the conservative blogs first?

    Who ever made it, I LIKE IT!! I am entitled to like it because I am entitled to my entitlements.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:38 p.m.  

  • I went and saw Brokeback Mountain this evening, and the stupid thing was playing in the theatre.

    As if 1% of the audience was even considering voting for the Conservatives.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:49 p.m.  

  • I just saw this ad on TQS in english up here in Alma. It cannot be a coincidence as Stephen Harper was in nearby Jonquiere today.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:50 p.m.  

  • Heard it on radio in northern Saskatchewan, MBC.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:52 p.m.  

  • You bigoted conservatives need to level with the Canadian people. The contrast today could not have been more clear: Prime Minister Paul Martin was at a bakery laying out policy and his positive, progressive vision for Canada, whereas Steven Harper is nowhere to be found, as the Conservatives attack with cheap shot advertisements, and don't even have the guts to own up to it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:52 p.m.  

  • Hey Anonymous, you already posted that at 7:50 at Cherniak's place. Take your talking points and vamoose.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:56 p.m.  

  • A slightly different version of the ad ran on the OMNI News hour Chinese. Some of the text is Chinese, the voice Chinese.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:06 p.m.  

  • I don't think that it is real, and if it is, the tories should really fire their ad company, that thing looks like it was slapped together by a ten year old. I think the "broken record" idea is a good way for them to set up an attack ad, but just put some effort into it...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:19 p.m.  

  • By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 8:23 p.m.  

  • Gotta love the old "the Liberals are talking about policy whereas the CPC is attacking":

    The CPC spent the last month talking about their policies and still are in fact.

    Poor Libs. They have the worst record (corrupt, incompetent, dithering) in recent political history and expect the opposition to keep quiet about it. Now that's arrogant.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:26 p.m.  

  • Re "going negative":

    I guess if I call a someone who killed my parents a "murderer" or someone who robbed my home a "thief" or a political party that used public funds to enrich their coffers "corrupt",

    I'd be going negative.

    I'd also be telling the truth.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:29 p.m.  

  • the theives are complaining that their recieving negativity.

    i feel so bad for them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:32 p.m.  

  • You braying jackasses. The whole point of going negative is to punch and run.

    It's amazing that for some bloggers if it's not posted on some website it's a big bad seekrit or somthing.

    In the immortal words of William Shatner: "GET A LIFE!!!"

    The website is for the positive spin, the matter of record, the happy side. Everything else is, well, everything else.

    Or, to put it in Internet terms, haven't you read the FAQ yet?

    By Blogger Michael, at 8:42 p.m.  

  • I'm not sure how many of you caught this earlier, but Robert Fife was on CTV Newsnet earlier and referred to the Martin campaign as the worst one since John Turner. They've been playing catchup with the Tories from Day One. In that sense, it's almost appropriate that the Tories be the first ones to supposedly "go neg" (IMO, the ad is far from negative. It's an attack ad, yes, but they're not providing any editorial comment at all, just letting the comments on public record speak for themselves), because you can bet your bottom dollar that the Liberal attack ads begin in the next 48 hours now.

    By Blogger RGM, at 8:50 p.m.  

  • I'm not ready to deal with the "who went negative first" case until we've resolved the "whose responsible for the Christmas election" controversy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:02 p.m.  

  • There's another one..


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:33 p.m.  

  • I have seen the ad personally and I've called in my blog today that the Liberals have to start running their own negative ads given how they're getting hit hard by their opponents negative ads.

    By Blogger Blogger, at 10:13 p.m.  

  • Let's see two ads.

    #1 no longer seems to be on any site to be seen. Why ?

    #2 I downloaded, watched it. One thing different from any other add that the Conservative have had so far : IT DOES NOT SAY WHO AUTHORIZED THE AD. Every ad must say this, it is an election Canada rule and could not have been aired without it !! Obviously this is a fake. Pretty sleazy, Bart.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:48 p.m.  

  • It's not the right time for the Conservatives to go negative. That being said, I thought the ad I saw was good (The "you Paid for it" ad)

    I don't think we should have released the "They'll go Neg" ad so early. Media goodwill towards the Conservatives can't last forever, and at some point they'll realize the hypocricy. But I'm not worried, we're winning this election bigtime.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:55 p.m.  

  • As I mentioned last night on my blog, I spotted the red faced "You Paid For It" ad on TSN last night around midnight-ish and it looked legit to me. The boys around the poker table got talking about whether it crossed the line or not, but no one thought it wasn't a negative spot.

    I'm also of the opinion that the Gomery/Dingwall spot is negative, but very appropriate and very effective.

    By Blogger The Hack, at 12:00 a.m.  

  • Hahha... Keith Boag's story on the National tonight opened with Paul Martin and full footage of the flat tire on his wagon.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:36 a.m.  

  • "Ralph Goodale the squeaky cleanest minister in Cabinet"

    "long before the police arrived, he cleared himself of impropriety"


    Harper boxing is the Contender.


    Martin's election hopes depend on the national unity question, but enter the sponsorship question.


    Protestors in faux prison outfits yelling at the Martin campaign buses: "Where is the money! Give us back the money Paul"

    Keith: "That money is gone, but obviously not forgotten."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:46 a.m.  

  • My seat forecaster is now showing things all tied up!

    By Blogger Blogger, at 1:02 a.m.  


    First Keith Boag... now Tom Clark on the Martin campaign.

    "He's in the fight of his political life, but in his only public appearance today Paul Martin made bagels."

    "Trailed by his local candidate who mused a bit too openly what they might be doing next."

    "We could get a job here."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:03 a.m.  

  • I wouldn't hire them for my bagel shop, I constantly be worried about "dough" going missing!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:31 a.m.  

  • Like it or not. The message being delivered is nothing we all haven't seen before. This time however the Conservative ad nicely hammers away at the Liberal corruption...using the Liberals own words. Brilliant!

    Oh, and as a former Liberal voter, there's no way I'd give the Liberals my vote this time. I'm tempted to go NDP only because Buzz told the union boys not to. Bite me Buzz!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:12 a.m.  

  • My proposed Conservative ad.. voiceover is just a rough draft.

    "Monday Mornings"

    - On Monday mornings, Liberals put out their own box with the garbage and recycling.

    (insert image of a red recycling-type box being put by the curb)

    (Hand drops fistfuls of cash into the box)

    - Liberal gov't waste quote/Sheila Fraser etc.

    (Copy of the Gomery report)

    - Gomery report quote

    (Some fake contracts)

    - Liberals entitlements, Dingwall etc.

    (Some fake appointments to Senate papers)

    - More entitlements..

    (Ending scene, Paul Martin in a garbage truck drives up. Throws the box of stuff into the truck, rolls off and stops at the next house with another red box)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:58 a.m.  

  • Slight update: The first stop for the garbage truck is 24 Sussex.

    If Paul Martin isn't unavailable, I'll got with a stereotypical big burly garbageman.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:33 a.m.  

  • I gotta say, these "cheap" Conservative ads, that we all mock as cheap, seem to be getting the message out....

    This time hokey and classroom cutting is in. Polished and showy is so 2004.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:12 p.m.  

  • Let's all take a different TV channel to monitor for these negative connie adds. I will take the Playboy channel and monitor it all day.

    Bruce E, you can take the Pride Channel if you want.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:22 p.m.  

  • The CPC ads are fake!

    Sorry, try again.

    They are now on the C's website.


    By Blogger A.L., at 1:57 p.m.  

  • I don't have a big problem with the Ad's, as long as they tell the truth, which they do... but good god, who hired the Ad guy? He is pure unadulterated shit when it comes to advertising. You'd think with 20 mil. in the bank, they'd at least have some well made comercials. Honestly, I know a grade school kid who does better work than the conservative ad campaign manager.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 2:13 p.m.  

  • Joe, So you don't mind the message, and so you have to take a shot at the people that made the ad? Come on, your not biased are you?

    The best advertisers know that the real money is to be make with the Liberals anyhow.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:54 p.m.  

  • Attack ads? This would be my approach. Too crass you say?


    Moving expenses or a slush fund for more undeserved perks for *Special Liberals?*

    ========== Imagination fails - Moving??===========

    Disney World Resort, Lake Bueno Vista for $25,000 in Jan 2004

    Marriott Resort and Spa, Waikiki Beach, Honolulu for $97,410.00

    Laguna Brisas Resort and Spa, Laguna Beach California for $25,000 in Jan 2005

    Le Meridien Resort/Spa, Cancun Mexico for $25,000 in 2004 and another $25,000 in 2005

    Melia Santo Hotel and Casino, Santo Domingo for $25,000 in Jan 2005.

    There is no end in sight for scams galore. Guess Liberals feel entitled to spend their / our surplus? TG

    By Blogger TonyGuitar, at 6:35 p.m.  

  • This wouldn't be an issue if the CPC had not first released that ad telling everyone that it would be the Liberals running the negative ad campaign. The diversity ad that so many CPC supporters are calling a negative ad is clearly not an attack/negative ad. What it does is state what the Liberals claim to stand for and what they have done. Now, admittedly, the way it is done is so as to imply that since the Liberals and Martin stand for these things their opposition does not, but it does not do so in a direct manner, nor does it name anyone specifically.

    So basically it does not come off as an attack ad, even though one can make an argument it is one. However, the ads the CPC are running are clearly attack ads, whether they are factual or not is irrelevant to whether they are negative/attack ads. The tone of these CPC ads is clearly negative and intended to turn people away from the Liberals, which is clearly an attack ad.

    None of this would matter if the CPC had not launched the ad regarding the Liberals being the ones to go negative, and by their being the ones to first go clearly negative, both in that ad and in the ones that just came out, they may well end up having it boomeranging on them. One of Harper's and the CPC's greatest weaknesses is the image of anger/contempt that has pervaded their party from the outset. These ads may end up reminding people of that again, and why they are hesitant to trust Harper and the CPC. Not to mention the various scandals this last year they got worked up about that turned out to be either no scandal at all (Dingwall expense account "scandal" of Pallister's) or actually was a CPC scandal (Grewal).

    In any event we shall see, but if nothing else this makes it far easier for the Liberals to trot out some real attack ads and say they had to in self defence because the CPC decided to go negative first, which also will make the first ad the CPC did about the Liberals going negative only look more than a little hypocritical. Any time a party looks hypocritical on one thing it will tend to make people wonder about what else they might be hypocritical about. That is something the CPC cannot afford much of given the doubts in the electorate about Harper and the CPC to begin with.

    By Blogger Scotian, at 8:08 p.m.  

  • Patrick:

    It never occurred to you that perhaps some of us came to this impression without having to get it from Jason Cherniak? This was my own impression before I came online and found out there was a discussion going on about it in the blogs, and not because it was raised by Cherniak and those debating it with him. The potential for this to become an issue as I laid it out has nothing to do with what Cherniak was talking about. It was the declaration of the CPC of how the Liberals would be the ones to go negative, especially negative first, only to see the first clearly negative attack ads originating from the CPC that I find an issue, and not Jason's take on it all.

    It is the clear hypocrisy of condemning one's opponents for needing to use negative ads to win only to be the ones using negative ads to win first. Remember, negative/attack ads can be completely factual and still be negative/attack ads, so claiming that just because it is their own words being used, or that it is completely truthful does not alter the reality that something is an negative/attack ad.

    I realize this might be hard for you to grasp, but if I preferred being called something other than Scotian then I would have called myself something other than Scotian. I find this tendency of giving others nicknames rude, and when it is some sort of derogatory nickname (not saying yours was, just referring to something I see way too often online) I find it indicative of a juvenile mindset.

    By Blogger Scotian, at 10:03 p.m.  

  • I simply need to peruse however many audits as could reasonably be expected as of now, and that is the reason I ask you to convey here Edubirdie review. That would make me one of the most joyful individual in the entire world.

    By Blogger smith12, at 3:11 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home