Because, seriously, why wait two months?
From Doug Findlay's latest CPC fundraising letter, via David Akin:
P.S. Never forget that in 2004 the Liberal Party of Canada launched pre-campaign attack ads against Stephen Harper less than two months after he became leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Labels: watch out Tim Hudak
posted by calgarygrit at
7:06 p.m.
13 Comments:
The difference between the Conservative attack ads and the Liberal attack ads is that the Conservatives attack people on a personal level whereas the Liberals attack the Conservatives based on the performances and policies of their short time in government. Frankly the whole aspect of attacking people rather than policies is wearing thin with me and I wish they would just keep rhetoric to a minimal, but that’s just my opinion.
By
Frankly Canadian, at 8:06 p.m.
I honestly cannot take this anymore! Everyday it keeps getting worse and worse!! Please tell me that people will wake up and remove these dolts in the next election!
By
Anonymous, at 8:18 p.m.
"The ads being promoted by the Liberal "War Room" are full of errors. Time and time again, the Liberal attack ads misquote and distort the words of our Prime Minister"
Of course the CPC has never misquoted or distorted words.
I think the letter is sour grapes for spending all that money on air time rather than using the web.
I did notice the "whatever you can give" starts at $50. I guess CPC members aren't impacted by the recession.
By
Anonymous, at 9:06 p.m.
This is the third thing I remember never to forget, right after The Alamo and The Battle of the Plains of Abraham
By
Anonymous, at 10:59 a.m.
The difference between the Conservative attack ads and the Liberal attack ads is that the Conservatives attack people on a personal level whereas the Liberals attack the Conservatives based on the performances and policies of their short time in government.
Wow. Do you actually believe that? Or are you just trying to make friends with any blind Liberal partisans hanging around here?
The Liberals have gotten personal in the past. VERY personal. There is no party that can take the moral high ground on attack ads.
By
Robert Vollman, at 11:25 a.m.
I will NEVER for the Liberals...never. They still owe Canadians what they stole via Adscam and seeing as Martin and Chretien are at the controls this time too...sorry dudes....same old bunch of clowns.
By
Anonymous, at 2:28 p.m.
You think it's easy to make attack ads?
By
Mark, at 4:08 p.m.
There is no party that can take the moral high ground on attack ads.
Sad to say but true...
By
Ashley_Wilkes-Booth, at 4:18 p.m.
Are negative ads really bad? You can basically take your pick - here are the conclusions of the three most widely cited polisci articles (either from AJPS or APSR - two of the top journals in the field).
Freedman and Goldstein (1999)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2991823
Find that negative campaign ads increase voter turnout.
Finkel and Geer (1998)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2991771
Find no impact on turnout. In particular, the people most attentive to the mass media (and thus most likely to see negative ads) are also the least likely to be impacted by them.
Ansolabehere et al (1999)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2586120
PS: anybody who says "the difference between my party's ads and the other party's ads is that my party's ads are all true" is a kool-aid drinking partisan hack.
Conservative ads misrepresented the green shift, and largely made fun of Dion's appearance and Frenchness, rather than addressing substantive issues .
The Liberals have claimed in the past that Harper would bring in two-tier healthcare and take away a woman's right to choose. Us right-wing whackos have been disappointed on that front (actually I'm pretty okay with the abortion thing). They also ran ads accusing the NDP of having a hidden agenda to privatize water (if there is one thing a bunch of lefties would never do it is that - I've heard enough crazy rants about NAWAPA to verify that belief). I'm not even going to mention the 2006 campaign (and to those that think the Liberals held the high ground in 2008, they ran 14 different negative ads).
The NDP Quebec ad would have been correctly identified as insanely over-the-top if the NDP was a serious contender for power.
In other words, everybody sucks, but based on academic evidence, we must conclude that either their sucking makes things worse, makes no difference, or makes things better.
By
french wedding cat, at 7:39 p.m.
Hey, the Green Party doesn't run any attack ads. (I guess the fact that they can't afford to could kind of tarnish the halo). The fcat is that attack ads work in large part by suppressing turnout for the targets. A relentless round robin of attack ads has been a major contributing factor to lower voter turnout, and incidentally to the rising strength of the Green Party. keep it up fella's!
By
Anonymous, at 11:01 p.m.
The Greens should definitely advertise positively, not negatively.
By
Ashley_Wilkes-Booth, at 11:11 p.m.
Seriously, I want to see televised debate between Harper and Iggy, moderated by Alex Trebek. Then, let's all vote by phone, SMS, Twitter, etc. and whoever wins will be PM for the next five years.
(And the winner will also get a $50,000 cheque from Frank Stronach, once he finds himself in a sober moment.)
By
Anonymous, at 5:03 p.m.
hogan outlet
michael kors outlet
kyrie 3
nike roshe run
michael kors outlet online
nike air zoom
true religion jeans
longchamp handbags
kobe 11
longchamp outlet
By
jeje, at 11:19 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home