Monday, January 02, 2006

Common sense stupidity

Some much has been written this evening in the blogsphere about the new Conservative attack ad that there isn’t much for me to add, except to try to make the point so many Conservatives seem to be missing. This isn’t about going negative, it’s about hypocrisy!

There’s nothing wrong with so-called negative ads that call parties and governments on their records (when done accurately, and this piece is accurate [the ad is right, the Liberals aren’t corrupt J]). When a negative ad goes out of bounds is when it gets personal, like the Conservative ads making fun of Jean Chretien’s facial paralysis in 1993. Attacking the record is fair game, which is why the Liberals shouldn’t let Stephen Harper escape his (firewall around Alberta, Canada a second-tier socialist country, and so on), and attacking the Liberals on theirs is perfectly in bounds.

What galls me about this ad is that it comes mere days after the Conservatives tried to seize the high ground with a negative ad lambasting the Liberals for probably launching a negative campaign at some point in the future, they themselves launch a pure negative ad first! Hypocrisy much? It’s moronic. A reference to cake and the consumption thereof comes to mind.

Prediction: Now, to this criticism my Conservative friends will say “so what, the Liberanos are the devil, gomery-gate, ad scam, golf balls, shawinigate, hrdc, three zillion dollars, gst, conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription, it’s time for a change, stand up for Canada, honk honk.”

Oh, what fun! As I’m writing this, the now infamous ad aired on Sportsnet Pacific (on a side note, come on Canucks, you’re freakin killing me!). Having seen it on TV it’s not as amateurish as it appeared in the clip I saw online. I actually kind of like it, it’s catchy. I’m looking forward to the techno remix. I’ll take the train to Ottawa to be there with DJ Snazzy Stephen Harper plays Zaphod’s.
If only to get a shwarma (chicken garlic) at Maroush's afterward.

Edited to add: And why go negative now? I’m not a Political Genius like the boys the war rooms, so could someone please explain the Conservative strategy here to me? The polls show you’re taking the lead and trending higher, with the income trust stuff making 905 Ontario think twice. The MSM are doing your job for you. Why dirty yourselves with a negative ad and risk a backlash, instead of sticking to the policy highroad and letting the media hammer the Liberals on corruption and scandal? I won’t make a Cherniakian-like prediction, but I think this will sway the polls somewhat, and not positively for the CPC.

P.S. Goalie wanted. Apply to Dave Nonis, General Manager, Vancouver Canucks.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers


Anonymous said...

The 'hypocritical' Conservative ad was "They'll go negative"... it wasn't

- "They'll go negative before we do"
- "They'll run a negative commercial before we run one"

Erik Sorenson said...

Hmmm. Quebec can build a "firewall" around itself, but Alberta can't?

Is it possible that you wouldn't recognise a firewall if you tripped over it? OK, then, try the phrase "fiscal imbalance". Does that work for you?

The problem with copycating and dogma is that it tends to remove independent, cogent thinking from one's skillset.

A BCer in Toronto said...

I'm afraid you've completly lost me Erik, I have no idea what you're talking about and/or how it relates to what I'd posted.

So instead, I'll take a page from Conservative Debating for Dummies, shifting the debate by setting up a strawman and then attacking it.

Well sure Erik, but how can Stephen Harper and the Conservaranos condone baby eating? I think babies should be hugged, not eaten, and so do the Paul Martin Liberals. Paul Martin loves babies. They're soft and they smell nice. Why won't Stephen Harper stand-up for babies and come out against their being eaten?