Anti-Dion smear ads by Conservatives

[The Chameleon]

Anyone seen these yet?

They are really weak. All they can say is that Dion is not a leader and he does not stand strong on the environment. (talk about the pot calling the kettle black!)

None of which is corroborated. If this is all the Conservatives have they are in trouble.

I also like how the Conservatives say they are not going to call an election, yet they release these election style smear ads.

This only makes the Conservatives look even worse and desperate.

LAME!

[ollie]

Agreed. Way to kick off the tone of the session.

Watched a political roundtable on Goldhawk Live last night... looks like we're in for more of the same.

[Hux]

I wonder if this is the first time attack ads have been launched outside of an election?

There were likely a bunch of ads run on Free Trade and Charlottetown referendum at the time, but this could be the first time ads of this kind have aired.

[bradm]

The CBC report notes something interesting:

[The ads] also criticize Dion's record as environment minister, charging that greenhouse gas emissions went up and air quality went down under his watch between 2004 and 2006.

...

Dion also criticized Harper's environmental record, saying that several months ago the prime minister said that greenhouse gas emissions didn't exist.

Aloha,

Brad

[ollie]

I also think it's completely unfair to take the quotations out of the context of a leadership race.

[Birdy]

Let's just remember what party brought attack ads to Canada!

Here I thought Hux's picture thread could be an attack ad in itself!

[Hux]

Tell us Birdy, what party - and what ads?

[AD]

The Ontario Tories were notorious for releasing attack ads outside of election campaigns. Their ads about making a better Ontario were an attack on common sense and decency.

AD

[Kanada Kev]

The Ontario Tories were notorious for releasing attack ads outside of election campaigns. Their ads about making a better Ontario were an attack on common sense and decency.

And isn't it ironic that they then deemed themselves as the "common sense revolution"!

What a joke.

[ollie]

Let's just remember what party brought attack ads to Canada!

Here I thought Hux's picture thread could be an attack ad in itself!

Groundhog Day!

[phishtaper]

I also think it's completely unfair to take the quotations out of the context of a leadership race.

I ...like ...to ...race ...ship...s.

[The Chameleon]

I really think this early "pre-emptive" strike but th e conservative, in relation to their "smear" ads, will backfire.

Already in talking to average folks at work, at the gym etc... they all feel this look bad on the conservatives and don't like the negative tone. Not a good way to bolster public support going into a time of possible election.

[Birdy]

Tell us Birdy, what party - and what ads?

hinty hint.

2

0

0

4

all it takes is a quick google.

hhaha

[djmelbatoast]

Edited January 30, 2007 by Guest

[Hux]

all it takes is a quick google.

It required a little more actually - 2004? the begining of negative campaign ads in Canada? Sorry, wrong again!

(From Wikipedia)

During the 1993 Canadian federal election, the Progressive Conservative Party had an attack ad broadcast on television against Liberal leader Jean Chrétien. Many felt that the ad focused on Chrétien's facial deformity, caused by Bell's palsy. The resulting outcry is considered to be an example of voter backlash from negative campaigning.

On October 14, the second ad premiered. It featured still pictures of Chrétien’s face interspersed with comments by actors posing as regular Canadians. The first asked "Is this a Prime Minister?" and others questioned his record. The final, and most prominent, line was "I would be very embarrassed if he became Prime Minister of Canada." While the ad's creators insisted that the lines referred to Chrétien's policies and ethics, the intercutting with images of his face focusing on his facial deformity convinced many that the commercials were an attack on Chrétien's appearance.

[The Chameleon]

all it takes is a quick google.

It required a little more actually - 2004? the begining of negative campaign ads in Canada? Sorry, wrong again!

(From Wikipedia)

During the 1993 Canadian federal election, the Progressive Conservative Party had an attack ad broadcast on television against Liberal leader Jean Chrétien. Many felt that the ad focused on Chrétien's facial deformity, caused by Bell's palsy. The resulting outcry is considered to be an example of voter backlash from negative campaigning.

On October 14, the second ad premiered. It featured still pictures of Chrétien’s face interspersed with comments by actors posing as regular Canadians. The first asked "Is this a Prime Minister?" and others questioned his record. The final, and most prominent, line was "I would be very embarrassed if he became Prime Minister of Canada." While the ad's creators insisted that the lines referred to Chrétien's policies and ethics, the intercutting with images of his face focusing on his facial deformity convinced many that the commercials were an attack on Chrétien's appearance.

Oh yeah. I remeber that ad.smear campaign. That seriously backfired on the PCs at the time.

We'll see what happens this time.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

At least the incumbents are, and should be, open to whatever befalls them.

But then, at least everybody's willing to get in on the game - not too hard, mind you, since concern for the world has kicked into such a higher gear.

Harper Letter Decries Kyoto as "a Socialist Scheme" (Globe and Mail)

OTTAWA — A prime minister who now promises to fight climate change once ridiculed the Kyoto accord as a money-sucking socialist scheme and said he would battle to defeat it.

Stephen Harper derided the global treaty and questioned the science of climate change in a 2002 fundraising letter sent to members of his now-defunct Canadian Alliance party.

With polls showing the environment is a top priority with voters and Mr. Harper keen to bolster his environmental credentials, the letter could prove embarrassing.

It was circulated Tuesday by the Liberals, who said it unmasks Mr. Harper as a climate-change denier.

“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations,†says the letter, signed by Mr. Harper.

“Implementing Kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia . . .

“Workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD.â€

He also blasted the treaty for targeting carbon dioxide — which he said is “essential to life†— and played down the science of climate change as “tentative and contradictory.â€

Mr. Harper went on to promise a “battle of Kyoto†in hope of defeating the Chrétien Liberals' efforts to implement the treaty legislation in the House of Commons.

“But we can't do it alone. It will take an army of Canadians to beat Kyoto, just as it did to beat (the) Charlottetown (constitutional accord),†he wrote.

These days, Mr. Harper avoids criticizing the Kyoto accord, and simply dismisses its targets as unattainable.

Kyoto calls for a 6 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2012. Canada's emission levels have risen 27 per cent since 1990.

The prime minister's office would not comment on the letter but pointed out that the emission levels occurred under the previous Liberal government.

Now, with public-opinion polls indicating that climate change is becoming a dominant political concern for Canadians, the prime minister is promising serious action.

He intends to introduce a vastly revamped version of his Clean Air Act in the coming months. The original legislation has been ridiculed by opponents and opinion-makers as a work in progress that fails to set reduction targets before 2050.

The Liberals said the letter proves Mr. Harper isn't serious about tackling climate change.

“It's no wonder Mr. Harper's sudden change of heart is hard for Canadians to swallow,†said Liberal MP Mark Holland.

“Now, suddenly, because he has seen the polls and realized the political opportunism of going ‘green,' the prime minister has launched a new campaign — that of trying to convince Canadians that he actually cares about the environment.

“Well, no one is buying it.â€

The Prime Minister's Office refused to comment about the letter on the record.

A new poll released to The Canadian Press suggests Canadians are indeed skeptical about the government's environmental commitment.

Sixty-four per cent of the 1,023 respondents in the Decima survey said they believe recent Tory announcements are being driven by polls rather than conviction.

The Liberals also came in for criticism on the climate-change file Tuesday.

The NDP, which appears to be co-operating with the Tories on revamping the Clean Air Act, accused the Liberals of trying to stall the debate at a special legislative committee.

The Liberals and Bloc succeeded in gaining a two-week extension that will push the deadline for the committee's work to March 30.

The NDP says that's because the Liberals want to make sure the new bill can't pass before the federal budget — a confidence item which could mean the defeat of the minority government.

“(Liberals) would prefer that nothing gets done in this Parliament with respect to the environment,†said New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen.

“The Liberals are dedicated to the idea that they've got a one-trick pony as a leader. (Stéphane Dion) must present an environmental cause to Canadians — and they are willing to sacrifice the environment in order for that political gain.â€

Harper in this letter is even out of step with his evangelical constituency nowadays (funny how a little bit of time can make a difference), which has started, in spite of itself, to take all of this seriously.

It'd be a tough gig these days, being Stephen Harper. Gotta wish him luck.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Guest

[Birdy]

all it takes is a quick google.

It required a little more actually - 2004? the begining of negative campaign ads in Canada? Sorry, wrong again!

(From Wikipedia)

During the 1993 Canadian federal election, the Progressive Conservative Party had an attack ad broadcast on television against Liberal leader Jean Chrétien. Many felt that the ad focused on Chrétien's facial deformity, caused by Bell's palsy. The resulting outcry is considered to be an example of voter backlash from negative campaigning.

On October 14, the second ad premiered. It featured still pictures of Chrétien’s face interspersed with comments by actors posing as regular Canadians. The first asked "Is this a Prime Minister?" and others questioned his record. The final, and most prominent, line was "I would be very embarrassed if he became Prime Minister of Canada." While the ad's creators insisted that the lines referred to Chrétien's policies and ethics, the intercutting with images of his face focusing on his facial deformity convinced many that the commercials were an attack on Chrétien's appearance.

burn.

I hardly ever watch tv so i didn't catch these ads until last night... nnnnnnnnice.

[Blane]

At least the incumbents are, and should be, open to whatever befalls them.

But then, at least everybody's willing to get in on the game - not too hard, mind you, since concern for the world has kicked into such a higher gear.

Harper Letter Decries Kyoto as "a Socialist Scheme" (Globe and Mail)

OTTAWA — A prime minister who now promises to fight climate change once ridiculed the Kyoto accord as a money-sucking socialist scheme and said he would battle to defeat it.

Stephen Harper derided the global treaty and questioned the science of climate change in a 2002 fundraising letter sent to members of his now-defunct Canadian Alliance party.

With polls showing the environment is a top priority with voters and Mr. Harper keen to bolster his environmental credentials, the letter could prove embarrassing.

It was circulated Tuesday by the Liberals, who said it unmasks Mr. Harper as a climate-change denier.

“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations,†says the letter, signed by Mr. Harper.

“Implementing Kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia . . .

“Workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD.â€

He also blasted the treaty for targeting carbon dioxide — which he said is “essential to life†— and played down the science of climate change as “tentative and contradictory.â€

Mr. Harper went on to promise a “battle of Kyoto†in hope of defeating the Chrétien Liberals' efforts to implement the treaty legislation in the House of Commons.

“But we can't do it alone. It will take an army of Canadians to beat Kyoto, just as it did to beat (the) Charlottetown (constitutional accord),†he wrote.

These days, Mr. Harper avoids criticizing the Kyoto accord, and simply dismisses its targets as unattainable.

Kyoto calls for a 6 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2012. Canada's emission levels have risen 27 per cent since 1990.

The prime minister's office would not comment on the letter but pointed out that the emission levels occurred under the previous Liberal government.

Now, with public-opinion polls indicating that climate change is becoming a dominant political concern for Canadians, the prime minister is promising serious action.

He intends to introduce a vastly revamped version of his Clean Air Act in the coming months. The original legislation has been ridiculed by opponents and opinion-makers as a work in progress that fails to set reduction targets before 2050.

The Liberals said the letter proves Mr. Harper isn't serious about tackling climate change.

“It's no wonder Mr. Harper's sudden change of heart is hard for Canadians to swallow,†said Liberal MP Mark Holland.

“Now, suddenly, because he has seen the polls and realized the political opportunism of going ‘green,' the prime minister has launched a new campaign — that of trying to convince Canadians that he actually cares about the environment.

“Well, no one is buying it.â€

The Prime Minister's Office refused to comment about the letter on the record.

A new poll released to The Canadian Press suggests Canadians are indeed skeptical about the government's environmental commitment.

Sixty-four per cent of the 1,023 respondents in the Decima survey said they believe recent Tory announcements are being driven by polls rather than conviction.

The Liberals also came in for criticism on the climate-change file Tuesday.

The NDP, which appears to be co-operating with the Tories on revamping the Clean Air Act, accused the Liberals of trying to stall the debate at a special legislative committee.

The Liberals and Bloc succeeded in gaining a two-week extension that will push the deadline for the committee's work to March 30.

The NDP says that's because the Liberals want to make sure the new bill can't pass before the federal budget — a confidence item which could mean the defeat of the minority government.

“(Liberals) would prefer that nothing gets done in this Parliament with respect to the environment,†said New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen.

“The Liberals are dedicated to the idea that they've got a one-trick pony as a leader. (Stéphane Dion) must present an environmental cause to Canadians — and they are willing to sacrifice the environment in order for that political gain.â€

Harper in this letter is even out of step with his evangelical constituency nowadays (funny how a little bit of time can make a difference), which has started, in spite of itself, to take all of this seriously.

It'd be a tough gig these days, being Stephen Harper. Gotta wish him luck.

There's a more detailed write up on it quoting his description of how Kyoto is designed to suck up the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor. I wish this had been picked up by more news sources. Gives a better idea of what a steaming pile of excrement Harper is.

[allison]

In a more theoretical vein, they were discussing a book called In Defense of Negativity by John Geer, in relation to this subject on CBC.The basic gist of the book(which I have not read and I think is more geared to a study of american politics)being that negativity, criticism of the nature of the Dion ads is a nessecary mechanism of true democracy.That pointing out what is wrong is the first step in doing something right.

The question is whether change is more quickly propelled by a renunciation of what we feel is wrong(negativity) or an alignment with what we think is right(postivity).A corollary question would be whether the change elicited by those forces is qualitatively different.

My own view is that social movement tends to be propelled against something, is reactionary but that change wrought from positivity seems to be longer lasting.

[Blane]

I suppose that depends on whose social theory you subscribe to. Jurgen Habermas (as I've read him) would likely be dead against smear ads, arguing that the only way that we can accomplish much is by working toward "communicative action", which doesn't seek to dominate your interlocuter, but instead engage in reasoned debate (the ideal speech act).

This would instead fall under the category of dramaturgical action, which doesn't intend to actually engage in any debate at all. It's merely for public display to raise our own public image.

Of course, that idea plays well in philosophy and critical theory, but perhaps less well in politics.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

- I love seeing Habermas mentioned on the board.

Spot on. As I understand him, he'd group attack ads in with other kinds of systematically distorted communication, geared to manipulation rather than understanding; this is the same kind of communicative action that terrorism consists of - not quite as bloody, obviously, but issued with the same neglect towards the welfare of others.

[allison]

My question though is what causes the most political momentum-how do you reach a critical mass (or tipping point) of popular opinion most quickly-and I'd have to say on the whole the "masses" are reactionary(negative)NOT proactive(positive).And while that is my opinion of how things usually work, it is not my opinion of how they should work-which is more in line with Habermas.I think the Habermas model yields a qualitatively different reaction-for the good.That form of debate yields a deeper understanding of the issues, a respect for difference,etc etc.I also think its a lofty ideal held by academics,used by academics and not the "masses".

At the risk of sounding condescending, your average joe canadian is probably roused to political engagement by reacting against something-not positiveley identifying with an issue

[StoneMtn]

I think that is right.

Chomsky always goes on about "concision" and the fact that an article that would appear as 2000 words in business news (read only by wealthy businesspeople, by and large) can appear in a local newspaper in 75 words; essentially cut down to the level of rhetoric.

Unfortunately, rhetoricians have traditionally and historically been hugely successful, as the general populace just wants you to "give me the bottom line; I'm not a details-man".

[Blane]

At the risk of sounding condescending, your average joe canadian is probably roused to political engagement by reacting against something-not positiveley identifying with an issue

well, that's why I said it might work better in philosophy than in politics (though Habermas doesn't really see it that way).

However, I totally see where you're coming from. Like SM mentioned, Chomsky (on Propaganda) suggests that mainstream media basically works under the same premise that you're using Dirtybird. THat the "bewildered herd" (or your Joe Canadian), isn't with-it enough to make the right decisions based on reasoned thinking. Therefore, propaganda is replaced by balanced media take care of that problem.

(http://www.quotes2u.com/histdocs/propaganda.htm)

I prefer to hold a higher view of human agency, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get up in the morning. Perhaps we can agree that contemporary politics and the media that supports it have led many of us to thinking in this reactionary, knee-jerk way, but I'd like to hope that we have the agency (though not always the awareness) needed to change that. Paulo Freire's concept of "Conscientization" tries to do that, for example, through education.

Sorry for the ramblings. Working with a lot of this theory for my comprehensive exams at the very moment, and sometimes it's more fun to talk about them on a messageboard than in a long formal paper!

Edited February 2, 2007 by Guest