Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Schoolyard tripe! Poisonous! Demeaning! Anti-American!

by Aaron Wherry on Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:07pm - 93 Comments

The critics are raving.

Rex Murphy. They are not good at reaching out. They are not good at broadening the tent. They are not good at getting beyond the bristling, mean way they view everyone who is an opponent. Even after their victories – they are in power, remember – the Conservatives of the Stephen Harper party, still radiate the sullenness of a party denied, a party – even though it is in power, is making the big calls, setting the agenda – nursing a sense of injury that they haven’t been fully acknowledged, fully appreciated for the wonderful folks they are.

Chantal Hebert. In the larger unity picture, the notion of a prime minister launching an advertising campaign to fuel a nationalist backlash against another national party leader is the equivalent of poisoning a common well in the hope that one’s neighbour will be the first to die.

Jim Travers. Conservatives have a political interest as well as a right to ask where Michael Ignatieff has been. A more pressing question for the rest of us is where, exactly, is Stephen Harper taking this country and its declining democracy.

Stephen Hume. Frankly, this kind of politics demeans democracy, insults the voters and further undermines their desire to participate in the process and says far more about those who embrace such a campaign of divisive belittlement than it does about the targets of the advertising. If you ask me, these attack ads are what’s un-Canadian, not Ignatieff’s career as a world-class intellectual.

Michael Den Tandt. These ads are schoolyard tripe — insular, provincial, anti-intellectual. Is this the best that Harper and the finest conservative minds in the land can do? Enough of this, dare we say it, crap. Let’s have a clash of ideas, in the House and in the street and in the news. Let’s look up, not down.

Andrew Hunt. The latest Conservative party television advertisements attacking Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff are among the most offensive smear ads I’ve ever seen … These Conservative attack ads appeal to the basest sort of anti-Americanism by stirring hate toward the United States.

Angelo Persichilli. Last week the Conservative party started another round of negative ads against Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and, according to some pollsters, Canadians are fed up with it. So am I.

Globe and Mail. Only the next election will tell if the Conservatives have succeeded in striking a nerve with voters. But it is disheartening that, after extensive research into public attitudes toward Mr. Ignatieff, their strategists have concluded that it is his intellectualism and his worldliness that make him vulnerable. If Canadians reject the Liberal Leader, it should be for other reasons.

Toronto Star. Regardless of whether they were wearing Conservative party hats or PMO hats on Wednesday, the two officials have already been unmasked as Harper’s director of communications, Kory Teneycke, and his senior Quebec adviser, Dimitri Soudas. At a time of economic upheaval, when Canadians should be debating the effectiveness of the national stimulus plan and the problems with employment insurance, this is what the top minds in the PMO are preoccupied with?

Kitchener-Waterloo Record. Of course, negative attack ads will appeal to certain individuals, perhaps to those who always see the world through partisan eyes. But Conservatives shouldn’t settle for that. If they want to form a majority government, they are going to have to appeal to people outside their base. They need to seek the votes of Canadians who didn’t previously vote for them. Negative attack ads won’t do that.

Edmonton Journal. Indeed, there is more than one way the salvo could home back in on the Conservatives: It could tell voters the government fears its record is not a strong selling point in the middle of a recession; and perhaps even more dangerously from a Tory point of view, it could give Ignatieff a heaven-sent opportunity to shine in the public spotlight at a time, in between elections, when opposition leaders usually find it difficult to attract public attention or to avoid sounding negative themselves.

Letters to the editor here, here, here, here, here and here.

Bookmark and Share
  • Patrick

    Hopefully this will be the final straw for voters come the next election.

    • Jarrid

      Warren Kinsella, hand-picked by Michael Ignatieff’ to run the Liberal Party election room for the next election, says negative ads work. In fact, he wrote a book about it.

      Says Persichilli in his article above:

      “I know that Jean Chrétien is very proud of his three back-to-back majorities,.. mainly the result of negative campaigns against the leaders of the Reform party, Preston Manning, and the Canadian Alliance, Stockwell Day. As soon as they opened their mouths, they were labelled as racists and un-Canadian.”

      Warren Kinsella was Chretien’s hatchet man at that time. I guess Iggy’s likes negative advertising since he’s picked the master negative advertiser himself, Warren Kinsella.

      • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

        Oh, no! They did it first!

        Grow up and govern for fcks sake.

        • Jarrid

          What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

          • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

            Then govern like your a government, not a petty bully. The Liberals could do that.

          • A.Poltical

            or the Conservatives other favourite…two wrongs make a right.

            really, grow up.

  • http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/ Transcanada

    I’m not sure these type of Anit-American ads would play well in Alberta.

    Albertans identify closer to Americans in a lot of ways than they do to Eastern Canadians. Do the Conservative gurus in Ottawa get that?

    • Critical Reasoning

      I’m not thrilled with the ads, but it’s ludicrous to suggest that they’re somehow anti-American.

    • Mike T.

      Even if this were true about Albertans, the conservatives don’t care about how Alberta views them.

    • Kelly

      I guarantee you what unites Molson Canadians of any political stripe is their common dislike of carpetbaggers, silver spoon elitists and those who do not pay their dues.

      If you think these ads are not going to work, then you are blissfully ignorant about the kinds of people who live, work and raise families in this country.

      • Douglass

        Kelly, maybe you should look around. I live, work and raise a family in this country and yet I agree with nothing you wrote.

        Maybe you should leave the stereotyping to the CPC.

        Oh yeah, and Molson is an American company FYI.

        • Kat

          You know what Douglass, I have to agree with Kelly that these ads will work but for a completely different set of reasons.

          Most people don’t follow current events as much as we do. They get their news by reading the headlines, 3 minutes from the radio while driving to work or maybe, a 30 minute show before bed.

          How many people watched the survivor finale last night, because the ads played.

          Ignatieff has tried very hard to put himself out there, he’s crossed the country, wrote a book and has probably had more face time in the media than any other opposition leader. It was a real struggle for Dion to get media attention in his early days. Iggy’s done good but is it enough?

  • http://deleted Sandi

    Some keep going back to old attack ads to play gotcha – but, perhaps people are just sick and tired of it no matter who does it and have finally had enough.

    Just because Libs, NDP and Cons did it in the past doesn’t mean people want it anymore.

  • anonymous

    God, Aaron, you have really gone round the bend.

    Rather than just posting slanted lists of “facts”, clearly meant to imply that criticisms of Michael Ignatieff somehow invalid, why not try to address the substance of those criticisms–that Michael Ignaiteff doesn’t have the necessary experience in Canadian public life and public affairs to qualify him to be prime minister?

    Barack Obama was criticized for announcing that he was running for president after serving only two years in the US Senate and twelve years in the State Senate in Illinois.

    Ignatieff had three months in office and eight months in the country! How is that not relevant?

    • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

      What’s even more relevant is how the choir of Tory supporters sings when you press “Play.” Where was all this concern about Ignatieff’s past last week? Don’t you sometimes feel bad knowing that Ryan Sparrow is the guy pushing your buttons?

      • anonymous

        I’m not a Conservative and I’ve always thought it was ridiculous that we’re considering electing a man prime minister that has absolutely no experience working in public policy in this country.

        • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

          My apologies re: your affiliation.

          • anonymous

            “You do realize Canada has a cabinet government accountable to an entire body of elected Parliamentarians, I hope. That’s the theory, anyway.”

            I’ve now seen a couple of people make this argument. I’m not sure I get it really.

            Experience helps you do a better job. Sure, any leader will consult with others–I’m not worried that Ignatieff will try to birn the country to the ground and we’ll need parliaemnt to step in and stop him–but knowning the country you lead helps you lead it. And when we’re talking about a job as difficult as PM, I think more than knowledge–personal experience–is required.

            “Besides, I’d really like to understand what impact Stephen Harper’s ‘experience working in public policy’ in Canada has had with respect to his performance as PM.”

            A great deal, I imagine. I happen to disagree with almost everything his done, but he hasn’t suggested any nonsensical ideas like widening the TransCanada to four lanes across the entire country and building high speed rail through the Rocky Mountains. Michael Ignatieff proposed both those things in his book. And I’m worried about the good ideas Michael Ignatieff won’t recognize or failures he will have in trying to executes his ideas than the bad ideas that would get stop somewhere along the way anyway.

          • Ted

            Ignatieff has far more leadership and governance experience now than Harper did when he became Prime Minister. Moreover, his experience was not all behind a desk living the live of a career pundit/politician but actually getting out there and seeing how the world in Canada and all over the world actually works.

            Besides, what good is Harper’s years of “policy experience” if he jettisons it all the moment he gets in office? Harper has broken records with the amount of money he has spent on endless polling and focus groups trying to figure out what he should say and do. Doesn’t seem to me that is much of a “plus” for him though.

          • Critical Reasoning

            Ted:

            Ignatieff has far more leadership and governance experience now than Harper did when he became Prime Minister.

            This is a patently false statement.

          • anonymous

            “Ignatieff has far more leadership and governance experience now than Harper did when he became Prime Minister.”

            What the frack? That’s just objectively untrue.

            I don’t like Stephen Harper but he did far more related to governance and inifinitely more than Michael Ignatieff before being elected prime minister.

            -Masters in economics
            -Parliamentary staffer
            -Founding member of the Reform Party
            -Member of Parliament
            -Head of a national NGO
            -Elected leader of the Canadian Alliance
            -MP, again
            -Founding partner in the creation of the Conservative Party
            -Elect leader of the Conservtive Party

            By contrast Michael Ignatieff got his PhD in history, wrote about foreign affairs issues for years and then came back to Canada to run for prime minister. He had an exceptional career but absolutely no leadership experience and his only government related experience was in writing and studying about foreign affairs. Great experience for one of three hundred MPs, but not for a Prime Minister.

          • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

            So, Harper had lots of political experience. But he had almost no experience thinking about ideas. Iggy has that. So pick your poison.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t know that Harper has no experience thinking about ideas–politics does involve ideas–but I grant you that Ignatieff has a lot greater and better experience in this regard. It is most definitely Ignatieff promenance in this area–academia and the world of ideas–that has fueled his rise to the leadership of Liberal Party.

            The question is, is that enough?

      • anonymous

        And, again, can anyone address the substance here?

        Is there some long record of Ignatieff record of involvement in Canadians soceity that I’m unaware of? Is someone going to argue that the problems we face in Canada are completely generic and don’t require engagement in the country itself? Is someone going to argue that three months experience as an MP is more impressive than it sounds? Is someone going to argue that Harper and Layton and Duceppe have dedicate less of their lives to their country (odd in the case of Duceppe, I admit) than Michael Ignatieff has?

        • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

          “Is there some long record of Ignatieff record of involvement in Canadians soceity that I’m unaware of?”

          Mr. Wherry had a post on Iggy’s background during the “lost years.”

          I don’t deny that a lot of Ignatieff’s experience is not Canada-specific, but I don’t see why our PM’s necessarily need to be career politicians. He was likely following Canadian politics and policy pretty closely — he was on TV after the 1995 referendum, for instance, and sounded completely up to date. I honestly don’t understand why living in Toronto or Vancouver offers a greater level of insight into Canadian politics than living in London does. Fundamentally we’re all just reading the newspapers and (now) surfing the Internet, not gathering for closed-door think-tank sessions where the secret essence of policy will be revealed. Anyway, there’s also the bonus of not seeing everything through parochial-coloured glasses, which must weigh against physical distance.

          HTML fixed – admin

          • sf

            This is the kind of argument I hope to see more of.

            “Hey voters, as Liberals, we’ve always promoted the idea that Canada is an exceptional and unique place. But now that Iggy’s in charge, please forget we ever said that! In reality there is no difference between New York, London, or Toronto. Nor is there any difference between Austin, Manchester or Regina. Now vote for me, Iggy from Harvard.”

            “Oh yeah, also please forget the argument we’ve made during every campaign in our history that America is the evil incarnate! Vote for me, Iggy from England.”

          • anonymous

            Oops, that was supposed to be “Is there some long record of Ignatieff’s involvement in Canadian soceity that I’m unaware of?”. Most of his work has had little to do with Canadian governance–directly or indirectly.

            That said, I certainly don’t think our prime minister has to be a career politician. Five or ten years in a significant elected office before you think you’re ready run for PM would be fine by me. That would still leave two or three decades to do something else.

            In fact, forget about experience in elected office all together. In depth experience in Canada pulic life in a number of other sectors would be good too: law, business, government, non-profits, NGOs–whatever.

            As for knowledge and reading about Canada, there no substitute for experience. Newspapers, TV, water-cooler converstions: you can’t get the same level of engagement from a far. Not mention, there’s a big difference between reading about an issue and having the skills to roll up your sleeves and get stuff done.

          • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

            (Thanks, admin!!)

        • Douglass

          I’ll argue one of your points. He may have put his hat in the ring for leadership of the Liberals after only three months. However, he only became their leader after serving 4 years as a twice elected MP.

          But I’ll agree the way you phrase it makes him sound way worse. If thats your goal, good on you.

          • anonymous

            A small corrrection: Ignatieff was elected at the end of January 2006; he became leader in early December of 2008. That’s a little less than three years, not four years. I’d also give him a lot more credit for getting elected twice if he hadn’t been parachuted into a safe riding without a nomination and then circumvented any vote in the leadership contest.

            I agree that you have to give Ignatieff some credit for the experience he’s gained since declaring for the leadership. If it had been ten years between leadership races, I don’t think we’d be having this conversation. But I think it’s less valuable than it might be for two reasons.

            First, Ignatieff was engaged in a leadership race nearly that entire time–not doing the normal work of an MP. Second, I think that when Ignatieff first announced his leadeship run shows that he didn’t actually think that he needed real world experience dealing with Canadian policy issues before becoming PM–and that in turn makes me question what kind of genuine, subtantive experience he has gained since.

            All that being said: yeah, it’s also just a clever way of phrasing it.

        • Hugh Taylor

          According to Wikipedia …. “He (Ignatieff) returned to Canada in 2005 and took a position as a visiting professor and senior fellow of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto. In 2006, he was elected as the Member of Parliament for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Ignatieff was named associate critic for Human Resources and Skills Development in the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet on February 22, 2006. He left this position on April 7, 2006 to become a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party. Front-runner for most of the campaign, he was defeated by Stéphane Dion on the leadership convention’s fourth and final ballot. Ignatieff served as the party’s deputy leader from December 18, 2006 to November 14, 2008. He was re-elected as Member of Parliament for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in the 2008 federal election.” He has a significant relationship with Canadian politics and history through his mother’s family …. and lately he has been criss-crossing Canada answering to ordinary folks in small halls and open forums. Sounds solid to me …..

          • anonymous

            “He (Ignatieff) returned to Canada in 2005 and took a position as a visiting professor and senior fellow of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto.”

            He had already been giving the nomination in Etobicoke–Lakeshore for the coming election.

            “In 2006, he was elected as the Member of Parliament for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Ignatieff was named associate critic for Human Resources and Skills Development in the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet on February 22, 2006. He left this position on April 7, 2006 to become a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party.”

            So he actually had to give up the chance to gain experince as the critic to the minister in charge of the largest government department in order to run for the leadership.

            “He has a significant relationship with Canadian politics and history through his mother’s family …. and lately he has been criss-crossing Canada answering to ordinary folks in small halls and open forums. Sounds solid to me.”

            Really? I just disagree.

        • http://deleted Sandi

          Sorry, but Duceppe has spent all his life trying to separate from Canada.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, what I meant by “odd in the case of Duceppe, I admit” is that I’m sure he considers Quebec to be “his country”. I should have been more clear.

        • Jenn

          I asked you on the last thread on this very topic (somewhat disappointed to discover this one has morphed into the very same arguments being repeated over here) why history stopped at 2006? He had three months experience three YEARS ago! And, also a reminder; in spite of the election-style attack ads, we really aren’t in an election right now.

          • Anonymous

            Sorry, I must have missed that part in the other thread. As I wrote to someone else who asked that same question above:

            “I agree that you have to give Ignatieff some credit for the experience he’s gained since declaring for the leadership. If it had been ten years between leadership races, I don’t think we’d be having this conversation. But I think it’s less valuable than it might be for two reasons.”

            “First, Ignatieff was engaged in a leadership race nearly that entire time–not doing the normal work of an MP. Second, I think that when Ignatieff first announced his leadeship run shows that he didn’t actually think that he needed real world experience dealing with Canadian policy issues before becoming PM–and that in turn makes me question what kind of genuine, subtantive experience he has gained since.”

            “All that being said: yeah, it’s also just a clever [i.e. sarcastic] way of phrasing it.”

            To your paranthetical point, I, for one, raised this point again because Aaron again dismissed this whole criticism as devoid of any substance–”Schoolyard tripe! Poisonous! Demeaning! Anti-American!”–as he has in about half a dozen consectutive posts.

    • anonymous

      Aaron has been writing posts like these for weeks. Posts that juxtapose a couple quotes, posts list a set of facts, posts that highlight seemingly contradictory criticisms of Mcihael Ignatieff. All without comment.

      That’s very convenient as it allows Aaron to suggest these criticisms are invalid without ever (a) technically offering an opinion of his own that he would have to defend or (b) addressing the atcual substance of the criticisms against Michael Igantieff. But, of course, these posts ARE reflective of Aaron’s opinion as indicated by their near obsessive fequency.

      And that’s fine. I’d actually LIKE to hear (read) Aaron explain/support/defend the opinion that these criticisms should be dismissed.

      So, I am mearly challenging Aaron to address the substance of the arguments that he has claimed, by implication, are baseless. That’s why I’m not ‘writing about this only my own blog’ and that’s why I referred to Aaron having “gone round the bend” (the obsessive and detached nature of his posts about Ignatieff).

      Does that answer your question?

      • Douglass

        I’d suggest taking a look at Jack’s post above. Where he quotes and links a post of Mr.Wherry’s where he seems to answer your questions.

        • anonymous

          Unless I’m mistaken, Jack is not quoting from Mr. Wherry in his comment above.

          Jack linked to Wherry’s earlier post–which deals with Ignatieff’s time abroad, not his Canadian experience. It then appears that Jack inadvertantly left his hyperlink block open so the rest of his text was highlighted as if it were part of the a link. But that adiditional text doesn’t appear anywhere in Wherry’s post that I can see; I think it just got highlighted by accident.

          Jack, is this correct? Is your comment above your own, or are you quoting some Wherry post that I missed.

        • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

          Ah, sorry, yes, that was a loose hyperlink; the spiel was mine.

      • anonymous

        “I don’t believe you’re not a Conservative, by the way.”

        I really don’t care. Nor do I care if you don’t like how many comments I’ve posted. But if you really doubt it perhaps you should read the comments I posted on the Mulroney threads. Not exactly pro-Conservative.

        “If you want to accuse a MacLean’s blogger of intolerable partisanship, do it. If you want to accuse him/her of poor journalism, go for it. If you want to accuse him/her of not providing you with a post that is extensive enough for your tastes, well…you get what you pay for.”

        I don’t know what Aaron is motivated by–partisanship, or otherwise–and I don’t think he’s a poor journalist–I quite like his writing most of the time. That’s why I want him to address the subtances of the criticisms made against Ignatieff rather than buy into this silly spin that they somehow amount to an accusation that he’s “spent too much time abroad”.

      • Anonymous

        No, I don’t think they’re intended to get people to think. They’re intended to provoke a visceral reaction in people and–as I’ve written in other comments–it’s a visceral reaction that certainly plays on some people’s lesser instincts. Stephen Harper’s motives don’t interest me–I assume they’re bad.

        But most political commercials play on people’s visceral reactions. And a lotta political commmercials play on people’s lesser instincts too. That doesn’t mean, per se, that there’s no substance to them.

        Now, in this case, you seem to disagree that there’s any substance to the idea that Michael Igantieff has parctically no experience in Canadian public affairs and that that makes him unqualified to be prime minister. Fair enough. If you have any reasons to believe that Ignatieff does have experience in Canadian public affairs–or an argument for why such experience is irrelevant–I’d certainly read it. That’s also what I’d like to see from Aaron.

      • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

        “If you have any reasons to believe that Ignatieff does have experience in Canadian public affairs–or an argument for why such experience is irrelevant–I’d certainly read it.”

        But that begs the question of whether experience in Canadian public affairs is a good thing. I’m not saying it’s not, but given how many insipid Hill veterans there are banging around, who have (collectively) more or less totally screwed up our country’s political culture, the onus (IMHO) is on those who lament Iggy’s inexperience to say what they’d prefer: a twenty-year backbencher? A career lobbyist? An ex-premier? A think-tank man? A Canadian academic? And then start naming names, because everybody’s got defects; or is this just tall-poppy stuff?

      • Anonymous

        I should say that another perfectly reasonable point of view to hold is that Mcihael Ignatieff does lack Canadian experience–and that that does matter–but that he’d still make a far better PM than Stephen Harper.

        I can totally buy that, but in that case we shouldn’t pretend that simply because Ignatieff wins that head-to-head comparison that means the underlying criticism of him is invalid.

      • http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

        Well, when I think of the perfect balance of real-world experience and political experience, I think of someone like Gerard Kennedy, with contributions in both the [public and private spheres. I don’t think that Iggy’s time outside the country or lack of political experience is an issue, but if I had my druthers I’d pick someone with a good blend of experience like Kennedy.

      • Anonymous

        Jack,

        I think that’s a completely fair point. One could certainly mount an effective outsider campaign, arguing that they want to change the political culture in Ottawa.

        I think it would be difficult for Michael Ignatieff to do that given how he got his nomination, how he won the leadership and how he generally comes off as a member of the elite who are largely seen as being responsible for our political culture. But that’s all politics; Ignatieff could run such a campaign if he so chose.

  • sf

    Well, if such a disparate collection of traditional Liberal supporters say it’s true (you did manage to find one non-Liberal, good for you Aaron!), then it must be true, despite the lack of evidence. Four of the links point to the Toronto Red Star, that bastion of even-handedness, in the city that has always had a strong following of the Conservatives, where they won a grand total of 0 seats in the last election.

    • anonymous

      Yeah, it’s not at all surprising that urban intellectuals–particularly centre-left urban intellectuals–would find these ads a bit off putting. As a centre-left urban intellectual myself, I find them a bit off putting.

      But forget about what side you’re on for a minute and think. There’s legimate criticism of Ignatieff here.

      • Critical Reasoning

        Anonymous, you are genuinely principled and nonpartisan, and I salute you. Thanks for standing up to all those partisan shills who would like nothing better than to sweep Ignatieff’s historically unprecedented lack of Canadian experience under the rug.

      • http://deleted Sandi

        You have a lot to say for someone with no identity – why are you hiding? What are you afraid of? Are you a Harper operative?

        • Anonymous

          I’m sick and stuck and home this long weekend, so I guess I just have time on my hands.

          I choose to post anonymously for my own privacy (it’s not really all that uncommon on internet, is it?).

          I can assure you I am not a “Harper operative” :).

  • Kat

    Michael Den Tandt “These ads are schoolyard tripe — insular, provincial, anti-intellectual. Is this the best that Harper and the finest conservative minds in the land can do? Enough of this, dare we say it, crap. Let’s have a clash of ideas, in the House and in the street and in the news. Let’s look up, not down.”

    Wouldn’t it be grand to have a clash of ideas? It would be even better if it didn’t come with a threat of an election from both sides – but, such is the nature of a minority government.

    • Douglass

      and who are you exactly??

    • http://deleted Sandi

      My oh my, a lot to say for someone who actually believes the Harper BS.

  • anon

    Aaron seems to think that the people that these ads are designed to reach are the same people who bother to read the political columns like those he linked to, or write letters to the editor to complain about them.

    This and his other posts on the matter are media-elite navel-gazing at its most self-indulgent level, and pretty much miss the point of these ads entirely.

    Every person who has written anything — including comments to blogs, letters to the editor, or opinion columns, for instance — has already developed a pretty firm opinion of Ignatieff, whether they care to admit it or not, and will respond to the ads in a way that’s consistent with that opinion.

    It is that HUGE swath of people who know maybe two things about Ignatieff (1. that he’s the Liberal leader and 2. that he’s not Stephane Dion) that these ads are targeted to. It is a most unflattering way for a leader of the opposition to be introduced to these people. But I don’t think people should talk themselves into thinking that Ignatieff’s own PR push (dozens of interviews, a book, speeches, etc. etc.) has resulted in a firm opinion in the country of him. I wouldn’t underestimate how many people are truly getting their first impressions of the man through these ads.

    • Conan the Agrarian

      Yes, you’re right. The strategy the Cons are using here is obvious: Define Ignatieff in the minds of the clueless plurality of apolitical citizens, before Ignatieff has managed to define himself in those same minds. It worked with Dion. and, sadly, it’ll work again. These ads are going to work just fine, despite the dismay of pundits.

      Harper has won two elections by liberal use of defamation — first using Adscam to tar and feather the entire Liberal Party and its leader, Paul Martin, who clearly had nothing whatever to do with Adscam and who indeed bent over backward (stupidly) to highlight Adscam and its small network of Chretien-linked miscreants in an effort to show he, Martin, was Mr. Clean.

      Then, in a second round, Harper’s crew negatively defined Dion in attack ads – and also raged with populist demagoguery against the carbon tax proposal, claiming it would destroy Canada’s economy, when, as Mr. Harper (M.A. Economics) surely knows, every economist on Planet Earth endorses carbon taxation as a sensible and economically efficient way forward to a clean-energy economy. That was dirty, too. Dirty, dishonest, and against the public interest in sound economic policy, just like his reductions in the GST. But who cares about the public interest, or sound economic policy? For Harper and his crew, these count for nothing in comparison to winning elections.

      Now, in a third round, Harper is defining Ignatieff as an “elitist” (whatever the hell that means) and as “un-Canadian”, surely an irony of particularly grand proportions, given that Ignatieff’s central political mission is strengthening Canada’s “spine of citizenship” and national unity, whereas Harper quite clearly would be happy to see Canada’s Anglo provinces break apart and join his idolized USA with its jingoism, big military and extreme capitalism. Which is perhaps why Harper doesn’t shy away from whipping up a bit of divisiveness in Quebec… after all, if Quebec separates, then one day, Harper’s kids could run for President.

      Meanwhile, Harper is willing to do tell any kind of lie, spin any kind of story, defame any honorable man, and do any sort of damage to Canada’s political culture, as long as it helps him win elections. That’s what ruthless narcissistic sociopaths will do: pretty much anything that will feed their urge to dominate in the short term. Harper is an unattractive combination: unprincipled pragmatist and rigid plutocratic-militarist capitalist ideologue who would obviously much rather be governor of Texas. But he loves memorizing hockey statistics (though he’s never played), so he’s a patriotic Canadian, eh?

      Nonetheless, the ads will work a charm on many a Joe and Jane Sixpack.

  • Critical Reasoning

    Aaron, did you have a chance to figure out how much time Ignatieff has actually lived in Canada? Has he spent more time here than FDR, who summered here for decades?

  • http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

    “. Conservatives have a political interest as well as a right to ask where Michael Ignatieff has been. A more pressing question for the rest of us is where, exactly, is Stephen Harper taking this country and its declining democracy.”
    Jim Travers usually irritates the heck out of me, but I am very glad he made this point: feel free to question anything you find about Michael Ignatieff, but the Tories are still the government, and they are the ones we need to be scrutinizing, or next thing you know, we’ll wake up one day an dfind out that there are Canadians being tortured in foreign countries, unable to come home.
    What?
    That already happened?
    Never mind, we’re screwed.

    • anon

      We should be scrutinizing the people who are running to replace them as the government too. The Conservatives got plenty of that before they were elected.

    • http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

      If you’re referring to child abuse, then I agree that the rates are appalling. We have to change them if we want to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror every morning. However, that still does not give us leave to abandon our nationals or to do nothing to ease the suffering in massive humanitarian crises- I refer here to Darfur in particular- simply because, to quote something that was said about the Rwandan genocide, ‘there’s no oil[at risk], only people’

    • anonymous

      Yes, that happened under the Liberals. And it was Michael Igantieff who was writing American magazine article at the time defending “enhanced interrogation techniques”.

      How is this supposed to make me feel better about Michael Ignatieff?

      • http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

        That wasn’t the point I was trying to make.
        I was trying to say that, sure, question and scrutinize the Liberals and their Leader all you want. However, don’t let it take away from the more important, immediate work of scrutinizing the government and what Canada is doing in the world.

        • Patrick

          What we’re seeing here, is that the Conservatives are simply deflecting attention from their own lack of ideas and lack of good governance. Unfortunately for them, the media is not taking the bait this time, and that’s why all these outlets are criticizing the government! The bigger issue here, is not how long Ignatieff spent outside Canada, it’s why do the conservatives care so much that in the middle of an economic crisis, they spend their efforts on cheap shots at the leader of the opposition.

          • http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

            Do you know, I wouldn’t mind if all as hunky dory and the Conservatives were running attack ads purely because they had nothing better to do, but here’s the thing:
            there’s an economic crisis, we’re in a war where young Canadians are dying what seems like every goddamned day, apparently we’re set to run out of hydrocarbons shortly, there’s global warming, a genocide in Darfur, Canadian nationals held in foreign countries, sectarian violence in the Middle East, the Taliban are ever closer to gaining total control of Pakistan, North Korea has nukes, so does Iran, a skyrocketing global birth rate, an ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor, human rights abuses all over the world, China is refusing to import Canadian pork products, and the EU Canadian seal products, children being sold into the sex-trade, people dying from curable or treatable disease all over the world, polio, AIDS, and we’re moving ever closer to the tipping point-and I’m supposed to be worried about how long the LIberal Leader’s been outside the country and how he was once on GQ?
            I’m sorry, Mr. Harper, but I barely have enough time to worry about the things I do need to worry about, like the above, let alone try to fix them (although technically sir, I believe that’s your job. My friends and I keep having to pick up your slack) without worrying about Michael Ignatieff’s CV.

          • Jenn

            Wow. Sophie, I said on the last thread on this subject that I hoped you would plan on becoming Prime Minister someday. Hell, I’d vote for you now if that was how it worked, and if you didn’t have to be of voting age to apply.

    • Mike T.

      I doubt factual is the word you’re looking for…

  • Critical Reasoning

    WTF? Whoever you are, FC, I assume you were trying to be funny, but this is in extremely poor taste.

    • anonymous

      Can we get some moderation over here in aisle 3, to give FC the boot?

      • http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

        Report the comment… I believe it has to be reported three times before they kick it to moderation hell.

      • Jenn

        Just remember Sophie (sorry for sounding like your mother): Anytime anyone anywhere calls you naive, that is a compliment. It really means principled, above-board and honourable. It usually also means you need to get away from whomever it is that called you naive, since they are none of those things.

  • Mike T.

    Damn Liberal media lefty communists!

    Indeed, Iggy’s experience actually spent in Canada as opposed to the world stage is lacking (although as Wherry points out, he was likely paying close attention). Harper’s is profoundly negative .

    Advantage: Iggy.

  • Blues Clair

    Expats at work
    - The Economist

    “ANECDOTAL evidence has long held that creativity in artists and writers can be associated with living in foreign parts. Rudyard Kipling, Pablo Picasso, Ernest Hemingway, Paul Gauguin, Samuel Beckett and others spent years dwelling abroad. Now a pair of psychologists has proved that there is indeed a link.”

    • Blues Clair

      “And Harper is doing just great so proves that point.”

      Huh?
      Are you surrealist?

    • Patrick

      I’d much rather have an artist like Picasso lead the country than Harper! :)

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    “To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.” Oscar WIlde

    Substitute British public for Canadian public and I am with Oscar.

    And how did so many nervous nellie ninnies end up in the msm? Is it part of the job description that I am unaware of. I love well crafted attack ads, tho I don’t think this bunch of Con ads are all that great, and I don’t understand why so many people get the vapors when thinking of them.

  • http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com Scott Tribe

    “The personal attack is the last refuge of the scoundrel who has nothing of substance to say”- Edmund Burke

    A quote from someone seen as the founder of modern-day Conservatism that those in Canada’s Conservative Party have forgotten or ignore.

    • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

      I agree, up to a point. I think the current round of Con ads are poorly done. They should raise Iggy’s time abroad but let people draw their own conclusions. It could be a national Rorschach test on what Canadians think about having as PM someone who has lived longer in other countries than he has here.

    • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

      Burke is hardly the founder of modern-day conservatism. He was a Tory; our charming conservative comrades are die-hard Whigs.

      • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

        Agreed Jack M. I am curious to know if there are many old fashioned Cons around anymore, I don’t think there are but who knows. And many of us Whigs are enamoured with Burke’s belief in ‘little platoons’.

        • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

          “I am curious to know if there are many old fashioned Cons around anymore, I don’t think there are but who knows.”

          Dude, we’ve been exchanging views on these boards for a year — and you don’t recognise me?

          • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

            Do you think of yourself as an old-style Tory? I have never been certain what to classify you as but I remember you went through a stage of posting Mao quotes so I always think of you as being somewhere on the left.

          • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

            That’s my self-image, anyway: 18th C Tory. An affectation, to be sure, but that’s traditional too. (The Mao quotes pertained to Gilles Duceppe, ex-Maoist.) I also have days when I feel like a Bonapartist.

  • Sean

    Are these guys kidding me? Where were you three years ago when Paul Martin basically called Stephen Harper Bush’s lapdog? Remember the debates: “America is our neighbour Mr. Harper, not our country”. Where were you then McLean’s magazine? If anything is going to lead to Harper’s downfall its the one-sided commentary that comes from the media in this country! You people will be the death knell of responsible democracy in this country. And you wonder why he has a confrontational attitude with you guys? PLLLEEAASSEEE!!!

  • http://Winnipeg Bazoo

    I don’t see how the name ‘anonymous’ is really any more anonymous than any other nick that might be chosen. I do understand it makes things more difficult, with regard to tracking post histories (as many people use the nick anonymous), but if you have something you want to say that is in any way recognizeable, the difficulty is less. If the posts are all on one thread, it seems particularly pointless. It is a very peculiar tactic, it seems to me. Very dramatic though… LOVE THAT!

  • delford t louis

    straight from the ‘schoolyard bully handbook on how to be the best’…sale price…a canadian looney… a portion will go towards the building of a national monument on the historic ideal of majority elected political party

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Time to pull out the long guns and point them in Harper’s direction!
    What qualifications did he and his cabinet of flower pots have in governing before they came to office?
    Somewhere between nada and nearly nada!
    Give me an example of one who has shone – with any of the portfolios given to him / her?
    Grasping for names are we?
    What broad experience of life did these folks have before they opted for public life – starting with Harper?
    A political apparatschick from the get go.
    Heck – to get someone with any internations affairs / negotiations experience – they had to get someone to cross the floor (Emerson) – and they couldn’t even keep somone else who had experience running an international business (Stronach) to stay on their side of the aisle?
    And they DARE to try and spin their negative ads. to try and paint the leader of the opposition as inexperienced?
    Hah!

  • Denise Julien

    It’s absolutely obvious that we have the most narrow minded, Prime Minister in the history of the country.

    As we face Harper’s proposed new mandatory minimums, 1marijuana plant ,6 months in prison ,every judge in this country will be TOLD how to sentence.

    The irony is, that this 40 year old American failure has seen a repeal process begin in the U.S., after 100′s of billions were wasted. They did not work., not even a little bit. The Americans have the largest prison population in the world. Is that a dubious distintion? and what crimes constitute these swelling incarceration rates?
    Just more proof that Mr Harper uses fear tactics to continuously mislead the country with no regard for the opinion of the experts, who say this will be a moral and financial disaster.

    Who but Stephen Harper, and his small little idological mind would consider, 1 plant to be a crime warranting a 6 month mandatory prison sentence? There is no mandatory sentence for a child molester in this country , and correct me if I’m wrong, but I know of no cartel growing 1 plant. The American prototype resulted in absolute collosal failure after decades of using policies such as these.

    After years of being a proud Canadian, I am having an identity crisis. Under the current leadership I am no longer sure what we stand for here in Canada.

    Where is Stephen Harper taking Canadian democracy? Does he even want one? Ignatieff may have not spent his entire life in Canada, but this extreme form of govenance by the old Reform Party, is reminding me that the country I was always proud to call home, is being represented by the ideals of one man. I thought he was an economist. Too bad he wouldn’t set his ego aside once in a while, and consider how his actions will effect the country, or does he care?

  • Jenn

    I don’t know if any of you subscribes to the Word of the Day, but here’s today’s word:

    Cosmopolite (noun)
    Pronunciation: [kahz-'mah-pê-lIt]
    Usage: It sounds like the chief ingredient for a light-weight electronic mop but a cosmopolite is far from that. A cosmopolite is usually taken as the antithesis of a patriot. However, Tennyson wrote in 1885, “That man’s the best Cosmopolite, Who loves his native country best,” so the two do not mutually exclude each other.

    I just thought it was so perfect I had to share.

  • Jean Proulx

    Ah casual Quebec bashing. We can always count on some in any comments section.

  • Scott M.

    And Stephen Harper’s love affair with, alternately, Jean Charest and Mario Dumont, his delivery of “nationhood” to Quebec and his huge equalization bonus to Quebec (which immediately became provincial tax cuts) certainly doesn’t show any preference for Quebec.

    • Jean Proulx

      I think it shows a lust for a majority. Your point being?

  • NovaDog

    These ads are negative, but they are truthful. Mr Ignatieff is; as he should be, proud of his accomplishments. It just so happens that Mr Ignatieff’s accomplishments don’t make him a great Canadian, they make him a decent person. Mr Ignatieff has not gone above and beyond the call of duty for his Country, above and beyond the call of duty for himself maybe.

    Canadian if necessary, but not necessarily Canadian.

  • LucRubitHigh

    So much bleating from the MSM! The similarity of their rants just underscores the lack of balance in Canadian (and American, for that matter) journalism. After all, how many self respecting and successful capitalists would choose to become a modestly paid journalist? Exactly none.

    Of course it"s relevant that Ignatieff spent most of his life outside Canada! Still want to vote for him? Go ahead! Me, I'll be voting against him because of his policy positions. His life story is only interesting to me as a possible explanation for his ill-conceived positions.

From Macleans