01.27.2011 03:11 PM

New Reformatory ads

Seen their latest?

What to do?  Well, for one thing, I doubt they’re intended for broadcast, as they’d never pass the advertising standards stage. But if I’m wrong, and if they show up anywhere on-air, I’d just have Ignatieff say the following, over and over, from coast to coast:

“Stephen Harper is a liar.  He is a liar.”

That’s it.

At that point, the Cons have three options.  One, they can sue, but Ignatieff would win; truth is a defence. Two, they can stick with ads that are utter bullshit, and consider the prospect of their leader being branded a liar.  Or, three, they can pull the ads, and live to fight another day.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Wow.

55 Comments

  1. WJM says:

    In 2008, Stephen Harper called — called — went across the street to Rideau Hall and called — an “unnecessary election”.

    Then there was a recession.

    Stephen Harper’s election must have caused it.

  2. Namesake says:

    How many of the new ones were operational when you last looked? Just now, only 3 — “Needless Election” [except when PMS breaks his own law to call it] & “Job [read ‘CEO bonus’] killing Taxes,” both featuring the completely out of context “Yes, Yes, Yes!”

    And the “Ignatieff Coalition” still works, but was there last week, I think.

    But the other 4: Ignatieff Taxes ; Ignatieff Canada ; Ignatieff America ; NDP Ambition —

    which no doubt will all feature those out of context, debunked quotes that Consistent / Observant has been spreading around,

    just show a sad-faced, non-operational lego piece face right now.

    Maybe the Little Shop of Tories saw your post & are rethinking. already…

    • Namesake says:

      oh, never mind: all the other, older ones are working again.

      But now Jane Taber, who kind of shares responsibility for this for her careless branding of that as a “Howard Dean moment,” is at least rebuking them for taking that answer to whether the Liberals were ready to govern out of context, in these 2 new ads:
      http://urlm.in/gvar

  3. WesternGrit says:

    Thanks for the link Warren… Last thing I like to do is add a “hit” to the Conservatives’ grade-schooler created website…

    Harper is an f’n liar… It couldn’t be more obvious.

    Nice that they capture a very invigorated and inspiring Ignatieff… Something for mainstream Canadians to get excited for.

    Time for us to:
    1) Counter
    2) Get ugly
    3) Counter ugly

    We don’t need to be dishonest – just quote Harper like we never have before. Don’t hold anything back anymore – Harper isn’t. Give him what he’s got coming in the world of political advertising…

  4. Ted says:

    “In a period of fragile economic recovery, does it make sense to raise taxes on job creators?”

    This from the party that raised payroll taxes which, unlike corporate taxes, is a huge job killer and actually eats directly into family incomes “during a period of fragile economic recovery”.

    From the party that raised approximately $1.5 billion in taxes with its air tax that definitely kills economic growth.

    Meanwhile, under the Chretien and Martin Liberals, unemployment reached its 30 year low with corporate taxes that were higher than they are now.

    Harper is the biggest flip flopper, promise breaking, liar and hypocrite we have ever elected as Prime Minister.

    • Brammer says:

      Why does the term “job creators” sound so familiar, like something put together by a child with a limited vocabulary…?

      “evil doers”

      Oh yeah, now I remember.

    • Almost half of the Liberal caucus voted along with the NDP and Bloc for a much bigger increase.

      The CPC delayed the independent EI panel for raising rates to a bare minimum. I remember them getting criticism by your team.

      Are you suggesting the new security measures being paid for by ACTUAL air travelers is unfair? Did the government lower airport landing fees and help the weak airline industry?

      I understand why so many Liberals are upset. The Howard Dean moment maybe the defining moment simply because the CPC can afford to “air it” and show Ignatieff as unhinged. ( It only has to be plausible, right?)

      • Ted says:

        Yeah, but it has to be at least plausible. Even Conservatives are saying the Conservatives have hurt themselves with these lies.

        Bottom line is that Harper raises taxes, over and over, on those most damaged by increased taxes – like the elderly and their life savings, the ordinary hard working Canadian, the small business – and prefers showy taxes to big corporations. He’ll increase a tax your income (one of the first things he did) and give you a tax cut that his own Finannce Minster thought was dumb. He’ll increase an air tax Harper himself said is harmful to the industry and ordinary middle class Canadians trying to travel with their families.

        • Ted your talking points don’t match what has taken place. The Liberals and than the Conservatives have moved in the SAME direction of reducing business costs in Canada. (Full stop)

          You have this theory small, medium and big corporations were not affected by the reductions in corporate rates. In 2007 your party agreed to the multi-year plan check the Hansard. We have had ONLY a minority since 2004 and it requires the support of at least one party or a dozen MP to skip the vote for the Government to pass legislation.

          Fees on users have gone up. If you travel you pay an airport improvement fee amongst many others. That is NOT a genera tax on the entire population. You can by pass many Airport fees by driving to the US (and we are in larger numbers).

          During the last (tech bubble) recession many companies went under. The airlines did not get sucked and require a massive bailout. They are in a much healthier position with charging fees for everything today.

          Your income tax point makes little sense. The Federal government has already removed 700,000 people from the rolls in their first two years. They have made it a priority to give families more options in raising their families vs directing their money to nanny state entitlements.

          I am impressed as your posts reflect the mindset of the NDP more everyday. You attack large companies as some evil construct. It must be funny watching the Liberals demand billions for the auto bailout and the NHL arena in Quebec to satisfy their Bloc ally.

          I am on the record of being against the rescue package for the auto companies and the NHL arena. I am also free to admit the loans were paid back and Canada holds millions of shares hoping to make a profit. ( I could be wrong and our Federal government could break even or make a profit if GM shares hit $ 50 in 2012)

          It is a shame you can’t see how you are inconsistent on the smash and grab decade of the Liberals with Pensions, EI funds and Pay Equity lawsuit that dragged on for 13 years.

    • MCBellecourt says:

      Since EI insurance premiums are often shifted to general revenue, they are indeed taxes–and they are taxes because you are forced to pay into it. You don’t have the option of backing out of the program, you are FORCED to pay into it if you work for someone.

      A tax by any other name, Gord, is a tax.

      Having not seen any sort of job security for the last three decades, in spite of numerous upgrades to my education, I have had to deal with EI more times than I care to remember, and, even though there was no error in those criminals stealing my hard-earned money, they have bent over backwards to screw me out of every program they have ever touted.

      It is a TAX, and an unfair one, that’s it, and that’s all.

    • MCBellecourt says:

      Footnote: If there ever was an option to opt out, I’d be the first in line. Too much of the money goes to make-work programs for government lackeys anyway.

      What the F$@# is an “Integrity Service Officer” anyway?

      • Namesake says:

        “Integrity” is the division of EI that investigates whether people are scamming the system: by getting work & not declaring those earnings while getting full benefits, e.g.; or by going out of the country or on holiday while on benefits; or by not looking for work even after they are explicitly directed to.

        • MCBellecourt says:

          Oh.

          I can tell you, that in my area, one of the largest Con ridings in the country, right next to another of the largest Con ridings in the country, there are precious few people who are trying to find honest work, not trying to scam the system. There are a huge number of people whose EI has run out and are no longer counted by the system. Many of these people used to work in the logging industry, but Harper’s bum buddy Gordon Campbell has mismanaged the forest industry into oblivion and his ilk are now working at turning BCHydro into a corporate joke.

          What do we get for help from these two idiots? “Integrity Service Officers”. Another kick in the teeth to add to a long, long list of kicks in the teeth.

          It’s a TAX, friends, in more ways than one, because your tax dollars, and my tax dollars pay for these “officers”.

        • MCBellecourt says:

          Oh, nuts, I should proofread before I hit “post”. It should read “There are many, many people who are trying to find honest work, and precious few who are trying to scam the system”.

          Northern BC is a third world mess now. There are a lot of people who are struggling here–far more than people realize.

  5. james Smith says:

    Well, at least they cleaned it up from the original : http://is.gd/L0t8Ba
    But hey, it cuts both ways: http://twitvid.com/F1AAV

  6. Craig Chamberlain says:

    Wow. They’ve just over-reached. It’s now plain to me that they’re afraid of going up against Mr. Ignatieff.

  7. Cath says:

    Yes it seems that Jane Taber’s on this also here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/would-tories-use-an-ignatieff-clip-out-of-context-yes-yes-yes/article1885230/

    Except I could have sworn that the whole Howard Dean reference to Ignatieff’s screaming was made by CTV in reporting it afterward. Taber’s still using it in her column.

    It doesn’t help your guy for sure context or not it just makes him look angrier than his opponents these days.

    • Warren says:

      He isn’t “my guy,” and you know it.

      I do, however, object to flat-out liars.

      You, repeatedly, don’t.

      • Cath says:

        Yes I know he’s not your guy. How many times has not your guy said one thing and done another? Sometimes on the same day and issue. I’d be critical of a lie if I heard one. I don’t. Harper’s been pretty much on his message. Ignatieff unplugged a bit and gave the oppo. an opportunity. CTV helped draw the link between that Dean moment and Ignatieff’s yelps.

        I don’t want an election.

    • Craig Chamberlain says:

      “… it just makes him look angrier than his opponents these days.”

      In your dreams. At least that much is truthful…

  8. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Warren,

    No election? No practically “assured” Conservative majority government? Well, knock me over with a feather…

  9. Craig Chamberlain says:

    It’s a bit trickly reminding folks of economic uncertainty when you’re the governing party. Either, we are on track having spent an unprecedented pile of taxpayer money and they can take credit for that in an election, or they don’t quite have a handle on the economy’s recovery and should therefore now be replaced in an election.

    To CPC’s: time to choose which way it is. This Joe Canadian is calling bull-crap.

  10. W.B. says:

    Why doesn’t he fight back? Why has he never fought back? Cowering. The Cons can get away with anything, with the Liberals helpless, and he media, especially Ottawa, in their back pocket.
    Do you think they might feel so all powerful and untouchable that they will be lulled into just going too far and creating a shift in the public from amusement to revulsion? The Liberals must think people see through it all, but of course that’s not true. The seeds against Iggy are being planted.

    • Namesake says:

      Huh? The Libs did fight back with their two ads, which halted the momentum on the CPC’s attacks ads & put them on the defensive all week on the corporate tax cuts (even ordering the whole front bench to go out & defend something they did two years ago).

      And these ones just came out 2 hours ago… what do you expect?

      • W.B. says:

        They were pitiful. Attack the guy as Warren suggests. I have always thought if you put the kind of pressure on Harper that the Cons have put on Dion and Iggy, and he might be forced into a big blunder. Can he take it? Never been pushed.

        • Namesake says:

          I dunno… that would cancel out the revulsion-factor votes the Libs could get from the undecided, over those ads.

          And Frank Graves was just on P&P pointing out that people indicate the platform is twice as important (for about 40%) as the party leader (about 20%) in deciding who to vote for.

          So there may be a lot of method in what you see as the madness of their deliberately deciding to go after the issues, not the person.

          • Namesake says:

            So, connecting the dots, that means you believe the CPC knows full well that their supporters are shallow. Sounds about right.

    • It takes money. The free publicity from the CBC/CTV/Toronto Star can only go so far.

      The MSM is losing it’s credibility.

      No money no ads. The rest is noise and whining.

  11. Kirbycairo says:

    The Cons reminding us of Economic is, as Craig says, a tricky message. It sort of reminds me of when John Major was in his election campaign with Tony Blair. One day Major would say that Blair represented the old-style tax and spend Labour and the next day he would tell people that Tony Blair had stolen Tory policies. A rather conflicting message. Surely the CP are in a similar boat here – everything that they try to tell us the Liberals are, are precisely what the CP has been in the past five years. That is why they have no message to lead with except personal attacks or vague platitudes. Surely people will see through this.

  12. james Smith says:

    Seems you’re hitting a nerve with the last couple of posts. The Reform Party Trolls must have their marching orders.

  13. yoou says:

    I do not beleive Harper is liar I think he is control frick and selfish rud person take look at blogging tories list you know what I mean

    he says what he thinks is right not based on facts but also based on his heart and his opinion
    He has two personality disorder he is kind and polit and not close with his party and he is too rud with all rest of Canada
    he is like employee for his party he does not feel he is employee and paid to work for all Canadian

    I think Harper is too dum that he does not know he is too dum

    he thinks he so smart and rest of us are dum

    sorry for my frank opionion if get hurt

  14. Dave says:

    They’re really trying to milk that “yes, yes” clip, aren’t they – if Harper was taped speaking with passion like that he’d look ridiculous.

  15. Namesake says:

    Good ol’ Gord: always has his finger on the pulse… of a sophomoric attack site that’s been up for nearly 2 years

    http://thetruenorth.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/ignatieff-me/

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/ignatieffme/article1144916/

  16. Craig Chamberlain says:

    “I’m confused. I thought the Harper government was doing an OK job managing our economic recovery, but now, with all the money that was spent and I see the ads about our economic uncertainty, I’m not so sure about that now. Maybe it’s time to let the other guys have a shot at it — they seemed to do a good job at it before” — Joe Canadian

    DISCOUNT THIS AT YOUR PERIL, CPC!

  17. Dave Roberts says:

    The ads are pretty sophomoric but the new website is gold. It sets out a theme and defines Ignatieff using his own words – pure Kinsella war machine stuff.

  18. Bruce the painter says:

    You know what bothers me about the ad? The tories have had an abundance of time to produce ads to frame the next election and this is the best they can do? Wow! At a precarious time economically, voters are desparate for a leader with “vision” and dignity – guess its too much to ask for. Harper is too busy fencing -off his kindergarten sandbox.

  19. orval says:

    I heard whining that last week’s “blowing kisses” ads using 2006 footage was too stale and everyone had seen Ignatieff come down that Montreal escalator too many times to count.

    Ignatieff says something on Wednesday and it’s in a Conservative ad on Thursday. That’s impressive.

    The ammunition just keeps on coming. Duceppe brazenly sets out his price – $5 billion to Quebec, as a bribe to support the budget. Perfect! The ads practically make themselves.

    Ominous voice: “What will the separatists demand to prop up the Ignatieff Coalition? Let’s ask Gilles. ‘Five….billion….dollars’. And they won’t stop there (dollar signs falling from sky with Quebec flag in background). Who will stand up for a strong, united Canada? Stephen Harper. (PM speaking to crowd, giant Canadian flag in background).”

    Liberals, you got to come back hard to have a chance. Read WK’s book. Stop whining and get to work if you want to kick ass and win.

    • smelter rat says:

      Um, I think Harper will cave on the $5 billion first.

      • orval says:

        Doubt it. Besides, Layton is already blinking. The Coalition blunder will hurt the NDP more than the Liberals. NDP see more Winnipeg Norths coming at them. They will let the budget pass. Harper won’t have to concede a thing.

        For the coalition to go away, Harper has to call the election, not have Lib/NDP/Bloc vote non-confidence (proving the Coalition exists). Harper will be patient, no election until fall 2012.

        Both Ignatieff and Layton have come out to support federal funding of the the Quebec City arena, so PM now has political cover to do this if he chooses to. And because Duceppe has overreached himself on the $5 billion bribe, Harper can knock that away and put in $450 M, which is way less that $5 billion, so Quebec City gets its arena and the Bloc loses.

        The opposition parties are making it too easy for the Conservatives.

        • Craig Chamberlain says:

          Hit hard. Force second guessing. Force mistakes. They can be beaten. They will do it for us if we give it the right pressure. Mr. Harper cannot sustain his control when panic begins it’s creep… He cannot sustain his control — first of all over himself.

  20. Namesake says:

    very Observant of you

    • Craig Chamberlain says:

      This is more of the same kind of fear mongering that is highly risky for the CPC to undertake now — the CPC has over reached with it and it’s now plain to me that the CPC is afraid of meeting Mr. Ignatieff in an election. This is truly the stuff of a bully trying to avoid a fight by saying all kinds of things about how badly the other guy is going to get it, and people are beginning to see that.

      Question for you, Willy: do you suppose if given enough time, enough examples, people do figure things out? Do you not suppose certain strategies decline in their effectiveness, or even become liabilities? Or do you think Canadians would somehow respond positively to even uglier attack ads from Mr. Harper — having become sensitized to what is actually going on here — that Mr. Haprer is afraid of meeting Mr. Ignatieff an election? You must liken Canadians, especially Liberals, to a junkie that just needs a bigger hit of the UGLY PILL. I think you have that backwards.

      I put my trust in my fellow Canadians. We’ll get there, and then the work begins of cleaning up the mess. As for the CPC membership, they will be busy reading memoirs from former cabinet ministers. Care to guess what the common theme will be? Do you not suppose Mr. Harper attacks his opponents with some consistency — including members of his own party?

      The truth will come out.

  21. Sean says:

    1. It is very easy for Joe and Jane Frontporch to understand what the Tories did…

    2. The facts re. what they did are undisputed…

    3. This begs several serious questions… What else are they lying about? Why do they need to tell lies when things are “going so well”? If Ignatieff really is so hopeless, why do they need to tell lies about him?

    4. It is a great de-stabilizer… Tories will begin to ask themselves if their campaign war room ought to be staffed by a bunch of frat boys.

    5. The Tories are very, very lucky that this happened during the pre – writ (when no one is paying attention) as opposed to say week 2 or 3 of the campaign when people are actually talking about this sort of thing. They will have a chance to correct their coms. process.

    6. The tone, level of silliness, desperation reminds me of Team Martin in 2004 / 2006, Eves 2003.

    7. The Liberals ought to demand details: who approved this? when? how?

    8. Respective of pt. 7, Liberals need to be calm… Let the media play with it. I’m thinking of ch. 1 of Kicking Ass re. the Face Ad.

  22. Granny says:

    Over the last couple of months I have been noticing something different about Stephen Harper. It is true that his speeches have always been …”ya-da..ya-da..ya-da.” monotone. But lately they have been even more so. He really looks to me as if he were bored out of his tree with being Prime Minister. I read his face and I see him say..”Do I really need this XXX ?”

    If I am right, watch for the Conservative ads to get even more distasteful, perhaps even to the level of those ridiculously offensive Jean Chretien ads produced by the Conservatives way back when. It could be possible he is thinking of an “Apres moi le de-luge” for the Conservatives when he leaves office after the next election. Lets face it, the man is an academician, his true home is in the abstract world of a University. Perhaps there he will be able to finish that book on Hockey. Personally I think it would be an interesting read.

    Would others mind observing him over the next while whenever he speaks in public and give some feedback as to whether I am imagining this or not ?

  23. MCBellecourt says:

    I went off-topic on my replies above, and I apologize for that, Warren. I have the bad habit of pouncing on the opportunity of showing how the two Con ridings in Northern BC have been neglected by the Con party because they are **secure** ridings, but back to the topic at hand.

    I have mixed feelings about Michael Ignatieff, and sometimes feel like he is no more than the best of a bad lot, but these attack ads by the Cons are designed to turn people off of politics, and corrupt governments thrive off of apathy.

    The media is just as guilty. And it wouldn’t be a bad idea for Jane Tabor to go back to school to relearn journalistic integrity.

    “Screech”? That was no screech in the speech. Iggy raised his voice in the context of the energy he drew from his audience and the context of the speech he was delivering. In fact, I found the speech rather impressive because of the passion he successfully conveyed in it.

    That tells me he’s finally learning how to get people fired up.

    There are people who often refer to Robert Stanfield as “the best Prime Minister that never was”.

    I somehow get the feeling that we might be repeating that refrain about Ignatieff if he were to lose the next election. We made that mistake once with Stanfield, and I’m not so sure I want to see Canada make that same mistake again.

    So, for now, Michael Grant Ignatieff is “my guy”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*