'His failure to define himself was his choice'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 10:05 AM - 128 Comments

Conservative campaign chairman Guy Giorno puts his faith in the voters.

Mr. Giorno said Mr. Ignatieff has no one to blame but himself for not taking the time to respond to the ads. The issue was not the fact that Mr. Ignatieff spent so much time living and teaching abroad, he said. Rather, it was his failure to explain his reasons for returning to Canada. “Ordinary Canadians said, ‘it looks like he came back just to run for prime minister,’ ” Mr. Giorno said. “You can agree or disagree with the sentiment, but that was a real-person reaction. His failure to define himself was his choice.”

… Mr. Giorno said the Tories simply let Canadians draw their own conclusions by presenting Mr. Ignatieff’s own words in the ads. “Voters deserve full credit,” he said. “They’re sharp and insightful.”

"That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

By Andrew Coyne - Friday, May 6, 2011 at 8:48 PM - 308 Comments

When people in politics talk about what they do — when they boast about it, as they do almost compulsively — they really have no idea how loathsome they sound:

Halfway through the 2011 campaign, a Conservative war room operative sat down in an Ottawa pub to discuss the party’s entire strategy against Ignatieff.

“They say that we try to portray Ignatieff in our ads and so on as a weak and flailing professor,” the war room staffer said. “No, that’s how we portrayed Dion. Dion was weak, you know, Dion was ‘not a leader.’ We’ve never said Michael Ignatieff isn’t a leader. We’ve never called him weak. And we’ve never called him a flip-flopper. Even when he changes his mind, we don’t say he’s a flip-flopper. Michael Ignatieff, in our narrative, is a political opportunist who is calculating, who will do and say anything to get elected.

“He’s a schemer. When he says one thing and then he changes his mind the next week, it’s not because he’s indecisive and a flip-flopper. It’s because he’s an opportunist who will say different things to different people. I don’t think we’ve even used the phrase, even internally, ‘He’s a malicious human being.’ But that’s kind of the sentiment we’re getting at. With Dion, we were trying to portray him as weak. You can’t trust him to lead us out of the economic recovery because he’s a weak man. With Ignatieff, it’s ‘He’s a bad man,’ right? He’s someone you don’t want your daughter to marry, right?”

The “strategy” of the Conservative party in this election was to spend millions of dollars — your money and mine, most of it — to portray the leader of the Liberal party as not just an “opportunist” and a “schemer,” but a “malicious human being,” a “bad man”. This is the same man for whom the Prime Minister in his election night victory speech claimed to have only the highest regard.

I don’t want to weep too many tears for the Liberals. They did much the same to Conservative leaders in the past — recall the ridicule of Stockwell Day’s religious beliefs in 2000, the fear campaigns of ’04 and ’06, of which the late campaign’s evocation of Stephen Harper’s desire for “absolute power” was a pale echo. But I can’t recall anything on this scale, or this vicious.

There are things we can do, consistent with freedom of speech, to prevent this in future. We can take away the public funds that subsidize this garbage. And we can require that party leaders voice their own ads, so that they can not pretend to dissociate themselves from the messages their minions spew.

But ultimately it’s not going to change unless we change the culture of politics: the culture that encourages people to believe it is a fine and good thing to devote their talents to destroying other people’s reputations. As Frank Graves, the Ekos pollster Liberal lobbyist Brian Klunder [Graves was retweeting him] put it on Twitter,

I’m sick of frat house nature of war rooms – thinking it fun to try to ruin lives and careers. People need to grow up.

A war on two fronts

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, April 30, 2011 at 11:00 AM - 36 Comments

The Liberals release two new adverts—one aimed at the NDP, the other at the Conservatives.

Second choices

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 4:57 PM - 36 Comments

Matthew Yglesias catches a Conservative ad and ponders the ramifications in multi-party politics.

The interesting thing is that in a multi-party system it’s difficult for the party behind an attack ad like this to reap all the benefits. This makes Ignatieff and the Liberals look terrible, but depending on your ex ante political preferences thinking worse of Ignatieff could turn you into a voter for the separatist Bloc Québécois or the social democratic NDP rather than the center-right Conservatives. And, indeed, over the past week we’ve been seeing a surge in support for the NDP.

On that point, make what you will of the latest second-choice numbers from Ekos. Among those Conservative, Liberal, Green and Bloc voters who have a second choice, the NDP is the leading back-up plan.

This woman seems very concerned

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 2:43 PM - 158 Comments

The Conservative spot that seems in highest rotation at the moment.

Does Stephen Harper approve of this message?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 6:23 PM - 24 Comments

The Liberals have edited and rereleased their disputed ad.

The stakes

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 3:45 PM - 77 Comments

The latest spot from the Liberal side.

There’s also a suite of new French ads.

Michael Ignatieff talks

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 30, 2011 at 2:53 PM - 57 Comments

In a set of new ads, the Liberal leader discusses Conservative attacks, pensions and family care.

The Liberals have also updated a previous ad about Mr. Harper.

Only Stephen Harper can protect us from foreign invaders

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, March 26, 2011 at 12:07 PM - 93 Comments

On cue, the Conservatives have two new adverts.

The second seems designed to confirm that Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Abuse, deceit, contempt

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 2:13 PM - 114 Comments

The Liberals have released two new ads.

The second spot, featuring Michael Ignatieff with an open collar, after the jump. Continue…

The YouTube vote

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM - 28 Comments

Green party attack on attack ads, released five days ago: 44,175 views.
Conservative party attack on Michael Ignatieff, released two months ago: 19,768 views.

'It doesn't have to be like this'

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM - 163 Comments

The Green Party launches a meta attack ad.

Beat 'em, join 'em (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, March 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM - 76 Comments

Elizabeth May tweets this way.

Maybe you should wait & see the ad before you cry hypocrisy

Beat 'em, join 'em

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 4, 2011 at 4:05 PM - 63 Comments

October. In working on my book I found the research from numerous experts on public opinion.  Attack ads work by driving down voter turn-out.  Attack ads discourage people from showing up to vote. So, by definition, attack ads are anti-democratic.

November. In order to have open, fair and participatory election campaigns, Canada should ban the use of television for political advertising before and during the writ periods.

January. Attack ads are anti-democratic and anti-Canadian. So what are we to make of a Prime Minister who resorts to using the nastiest of slurs when the House is in recess, there is no election and there is work to be done?

March. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has repeatedly lamented political attack ads. But, with their apparent effectiveness being repeatedly demonstrated by the federal Conservatives, the Green Party says it “has no option” but to release attack ads of its own to get its message across. The new attack, in English and French, will be released by Ms. May at a news conference Monday on Parliament Hill.

It's your stupidity, stupid

By Scott Feschuk - Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM - 75 Comments

Getty Images; Youtube; Photo Illustration By Taylor Shute

The latest political polls have proved it again: negative advertising works. We are powerless to resist the lure of anything told to us in an ominous baritone over sinister music.

The Conservatives are pushing 40 per cent thanks to their depiction of Michael Ignatieff as the greatest threat to the federation since gays were allowed to have parades and also rights. The Liberals are mired in the 20s. The NDP are, at last report, still the NDP. Stephen Harper is so upbeat these days that he often waits until after lunch to yell at his staff until they cry.

The Tory rise confirms what political strategists have long known—that it’s far more effective to dump on your opponent than to, you know, do things or believe stuff.

But how does negative advertising work? Are there really people out there so ideologically fragile that 30 seconds of dubious accusations are enough to alter their world view?

Voter: I intend to vote for the Liberals.

TV: Michael Ignatieff lived in the United States and liked it! Also, he sometimes uses effete hand gestures!

Voter: I’M A TORY MAN NOW.

Intrigued by this phenomenon, I have conducted painstaking research to develop a comprehensive theory that offers insight into the precise mechanism by which attack ads are able to affect popular opinion. My theory is as follows: people are dumb.

It’s important that you take this finding in its proper context. I am not saying you’re an idiot if you switch parties because of an ad you saw on television. But I am thinking it.

Our national dumbness transcends party lines. Politicians of all stripes have come to rely on it.

Our dumbness empowers Jack Layton to stress for months his party’s commitment to ending corporate tax cuts—then present to the PM a list of budget demands that doesn’t include ending corporate tax cuts.

Our dumbness allows Michael Ignatieff to give speeches in which he pledges to solve every plague known to humankind, from poverty and inequality to unemployment and Nickelback—and to somehow do it all while reducing the deficit.

Our dumbness guides us to be impressed instead of irritated when the federal government spends millions of our dollars on advertisements and thousands of our dollars on promotional signs to tell us they’re spending billions of our dollars on stimulus projects.

But the best recent example of a party banking on our national not-smartness is the latest Conservative fundraising letter.

The document purports to be a secret memo to Irving Gerstein, the party’s money man, from campaign chief Guy Giorno. “Irving, here is a little more on the critical pre-election situation,” it begins. It’s marked “URGENT” and says the Liberal leader will “stop at nothing” to win power. Holy Christmas, Dolores, that Ignatoohosit is at it again! It says so right here in this confidential letter that arrived via bulk mail. To the chequebook!

What’s that? You doubt the memo’s authenticity? Well, then, skeptic, I direct your gaze to the rubber-stamped words “Confidential Copy.” Obviously no one other than the legitimate head of the Conservative election campaign or a low-level staffer who lives near a Staples could produce such an imprint.

Question: is there a person alive who will believe this to be an actual confidential memo? The answer, terrifyingly, is yes. More shocking still, many of these same people have their own keys and are permitted to drive.

The Conservatives long ago learned that general requests for cash don’t work as well as pitches portrayed as urgent and specific. Giorno claims that, to ensure the party is “prepared” to fight an election, he needs $243,900. Exactly $243,900.

To be fair, that number actually holds up when you do the math:

• cost of shady attack ads: $243,900

• a human smile the PM can use during the campaign: free from McDonald’s.

If you send money to the Conservatives, that’s fine. You should be proud to donate financially to the political party you support. But if you send money based on this “confidential” memo, you’re saying you don’t mind being thought of as an idiot.

Then again, it’s refreshing to see that the Conservatives think as little of their own supporters as they do of their political opponents.

The view from afar

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM - 169 Comments

Alex Massie, who resides on that far off foreign island where Michael Ignatieff used to live, notes the Conservative party’s latest attack ads.

The only problem with this? It risks making the Conservatives seem provincial and oddly jealous of anyone who dares leave Canada and succeed somewhere else. Wrapping yourself in the Maple Leaf is fine and dandy but it can make you seem small too. Even when your target is Michael Ignatieff…

If you think it's bad now…

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 1:07 PM - 52 Comments

A Conservative senator defends the Senate’s decision to allow senators to continue sending partisan attacks through the mail, just so long as they don’t attack other senators.

David Tkachuk, chair of the committee on internal economy, budgets and administration, said he sees nothing wrong with partisan newsletters but his committee will revisit the issue later this month or next. “My newsletters in the 90s that I used to put out were way more partisan than anything that has been out there,” the Tory senator said Tuesday, after receiving more than 100 e-mails.

In other news, public support for abolishing the Senate has grown over the last four years.

Battle hymn of the republic

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 11:12 AM - 177 Comments

One of the more recent Conservative attack ads includes a short clip of Michael Ignatieff uttering the words, “I love the republic I live in.”

The fine print indicates that Mr. Ignatieff uttered those words on Sept. 16, 2001. A little research shows that specifically those words were uttered as part of a roundtable discussion on CBC radio’s Sunday Edition with Michael Enright.

Now, given the date on which that discussion took place, one can perhaps imagine what the subject of that discussion was. But for the sake of argument (and context), I’ve tracked down an edited transcript of the conversation that was published shortly thereafter and I reprint here the question and answer that resulted in those seven words being committed to the public record. Continue…

Back to work (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 31, 2011 at 5:02 PM - 8 Comments

A statement from Conservative backbencher Phil McColeman, tabled shortly before Question Period this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, today the House resumes sitting and I can proudly say that on this side of the House Conservative members are eager and ready to get to work for Canadians. This work includes moving on important crime bills that remain before the public safety committee. It is my hope that our eagerness is shared by opposition members across the way. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it already seems to be business as usual for some Liberals. Today the member for Ajax—Pickering is again sticking up for criminals and promoting the failed prison farm system, a program with a dismal rate of success of less than 1%, which loses millions of tax dollars each year. I call on the Liberal Party public safety critic and his coalition partners to work with us to get results for law-abiding Canadians and victims and to stop putting criminals’ rights before those of victims.

An equally objective statement from Liberal Rodger Cuzner after the jump. Continue…

Reports of Laurie Hawn's support for attack ads were greatly exaggerated

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 31, 2011 at 9:03 AM - 12 Comments

Over the weekend, CTV reported that Laurie Hawn was defending the Conservative side’s one! day! only! attack ads. On Sunday, Mr. Hawn took to Twitter to clarify his feelings.

CTV cherry picks my remarks. Didn’t support attack ads. Said they’re not my style and don’t pay attention to them.

Attack ad aficionados needn’t fret about the disappearance of the two clips in question as a quick check of the Conservative Party of Canada’s official YouTube page shows plenty of similar adverts are still available. Indeed, of the 30 videos posted there, 22 concern the opposition parties. Nineteen of those are specific to Mr. Ignatieff.

Too good to last

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM - 29 Comments

If you scroll down down to yesterday’s post on those new Conservative ads—”The no context zone“—and click on the video, you will receive the following message.

This video has been removed by the user.

Democracy, here and there

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 28, 2011 at 10:29 AM - 74 Comments

On the same day his party releases an ad declaring that an election would “jeopardize our recovery” from recession, Stephen Harper comments on the protests in Tunisia and Egypt.

“Canada supports the transition in Tunisia,” Harper said. “We support the democratic development that is taking place there and obviously want to see that proceed positively.” As for uprisings in Egypt, he said: “We want to see democratic development in that country as well and we’re very supportive of that. At the same time, we want to see that happen in a way that is peaceful and non-violent.”

The no context zone

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 4:20 PM - 138 Comments

The Conservatives have produced two more clips, these ones based primarily on the fact that Michael Ignatieff once used the word “yes” in a public setting.

The other is here. For the original context of Mr. Ignatieff’s affirmative comment, go to the 3:10 mark of this video. It’s unclear whether Mr. Harper has ever uttered the same word aloud, but in his recent interview with the CBC he did say “that’s right.”

Can you trust a man who doesn't drink his coffee from a Beatles mug?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM - 32 Comments

The Conservatives don’t want an election, but are willing to start the campaign here and now with half a dozen new adverts. In the first clip, we learn that to protect Canada from European rioters, Stephen Harper is sitting alone at his desk all day, doing a lot of paperwork.