01.21.2011 03:02 PM

Spot on

I am just back from Sen. Davey’s funeral – also attended by hundreds of political giants, from David Peterson to David Dingwall to John Laschinger to Jerry Grafstein – and I can now finally post the Liberal ads.

I’m biased, because I am always a big fan of my friend Bob Richardson’s stuff.  But here’s why I think they work:

  • They’re factual
  • They aren’t ad hominem
  • They’re visual

Why are those things important?  Because the Reformatory ads contained factual errors (eg. their big false claim about the G7).  Because the Reformatory ads are all about attacking a person, instead of an idea.  And because the Grit spots have creative and compelling visuals, and TV is all about pictures.

The Conservative buy is apparently $2m, but I haven’t seen much evidence of it yet.  But, in the long run, the buy doesn’t matter as much as the content.  I run a firm called Daisy – that much I know.

74 Comments

  1. Sean says:

    finally! well done!

  2. Saul says:

    Text of the Liberal attack ads:

    1. Stephen Harper’s Canada: An untendered deal to spend $16 Billion of your tax dollars on 65 fighter jets. What could he be thinking? Is this your Canada or Harper’s?

    2. Stephen Harper’s Canada: It’s harder than ever to get by and your family’s cost of living keeps climbing, yet Harper is giving your tax dollars to the largest corporations, with a $6 Billion tax cut. Is this your Canada or Harper’s?

    Followup liberal.ca written commentary:
    After five years of Harper, Canadians and their families are worse off. Instead of spending $16 billion on untendered stealth fighters and adding to Harper?s record $56-billion deficit by borrowing $6 billion more to give tax breaks to the largest corporations, Liberals want to address the economic pressures facing Canadian families when it comes to family care, pensions, learning and jobs.
    ……………………………………..

    Only two 15 second ads in each language, with unknown distribution. CBC is playing the ads gratis on their news channel reporting.

    Are these ads really necessary or even effective? They sound like something that would come out of the NDP warroom, but here we see the Liberals campaigning on the left (and most likely governing on the right … still buying jets and extending a corporate tax cut that has been already factored into business plans).

    Notice that the Liberal ad on fighters does not call for scrapping the purchase of fighter jets; it just complains about the “untendered deal”. That is meaningless to Canadians.

    The ad on corporate tax cuts doesn’t mention that the Liberals accepted these tax cuts in the last Budget. How is Harper giving the corporations “your” tax dollars to corporations; surely this is misleading?

    Obviously these ads were quickly thrown together without much thought by Liberal strategists. In fact they even sound somewhat supportive of Stephen Harper with the opening remark of “Stephen Harper’s Canada”. When will they say “Michael Ignatieff’s Canada”?

    These are not convincing, even mild ads. Why waste money when you know you won’t be going into an election … another Coalition maybe … but most certainly not an election.

    • Leon Brule says:

      I’m wondering if the ads may actually work in Harper’s favor.

      • Saul says:

        These two Liberal ads may be intentionally weak and not intended as pre-election ads. They are about issues that don’t really resonate with the average Canadian because they are too complex. Imagine, trashing the Canadian Armed Forces and the corporations that provide most Canadians with jobs. Incroyable!!!

        Do the Liberals want to neuter our military and cripple our corporations with their wild accusations? Somebody in the Liberal warroom have gaffed and their status is snafu.

        • Namesake says:

          Imagine, wanting to get the Canadian forces the planes and other gear THEY need instead of the ones the Pentagon wants us to subsidize, even while they reduce their own order and are about to cancel one whole line of because of how buggy it is;

          and imagine actually getting written guarantees of jobs for billion dollar defense contracts instead of vague possibilities;

          and imagine wanting to hold the line on tax cuts during a recession in order to give more inducement to make those alleged “job creators” invest more back into their business to expand jobs instead of just sitting on their profits and paying out huge bonuses to their executives;

          and imagine not being apologetic about expecting businesses to support the health services and other infrastructure that make their well-educated & healthy work force and their business here possible.

          • Saul says:

            You’re not addressing the reality of these meagre Liberal ads…only two 15 second ads with a mixed message that mentions Stephen Harper twice in each ad. The only thing most viewers will recall of these ads is that PM Harper is looking after Canadian defence and the companies they work for. Nothing more.

            If the Liberals wanted to launch election-ready ads, they would be much more hard hitting than these two feeble efforts. Perhaps these ads reveal that Liberals will not or cannot bring down the government on a non-confidence vote on the Spring Budget….so why bother throwing scarce money into a useless effort.

            I suspect these ads were only intended to show their party workers in the field that the party executive are doing something to challenge the vicious personal attack ads directed at Ignatieff… but surely planes and taxes are not the way to do it.

        • hugger says:

          Do you want to lay out the complexities of the F35 issues? Don’t leave any out because I’m curious which specifically are too complex (presumably for Canadians to understand)

          • Saul says:

            No, I don’t want to get into such specifics, because the Liberal ads are really only intended for Liberal party worker moral, and not as pre-election attack ads.

            If you dissect the Liberal ads, you will find that they spend more time mentioning Harper than the issues.

            “Stephen Harper’s Canada” and rhetorically remarking “..is this your Canada or Harper’s?”, which takes up all of 5 seconds of air time…in a 15 second ad??

            Besides, you should never ask a rhetorical question of Canadians when you don’t know the answer yourself.

            Also, nowhere in the ads do they say that Harper is “wrong”…interesting, eh?

        • Bill Templeman says:

          Saul: How does questioning the purchase of a particular batch of jet fighters result in the “trashing the Canadian Armed Forces”? Every top general has said we need a plan for Canada’s military, we need an updated White Paper. What is the role of the CF? What contingencies should it be preparing for? What are these fighter jets to be used for? And why these particular jets? Do they fit the role and are they the best jets at the best price? Since when does questioning the wisdom of a particular purchase result in neutering our military? The Navy wants better patrol boats. The army wants more helicopters and drones. The air force wants newer jets. Guess what. Not everybody is going to get everything they want. The wars of this century are going to be more on the Afghanistan scale than facing off over the Arctic against the Russians. What assets will be most useful? You make it sound as though the Lib ads advocate arming the troops with bolt-action 303s and making them ride mules into combat. My guess is Canadians want most of all to protect their sons and daughters in uniform by providing them with the best equipment available. How do these particular jets respond to that desire? My second guess is that Canadians also want their sons and daughters in uniform cared for and fully supported when they are injured or maimed. But I digress….

          • hugger says:

            That’s what I figured Saul.

            You wrote “They are about issues that don’t really resonate with the average Canadian because they are too complex. ”

            Choosing not to explain your position leaves the impression that the F35 issue is too complex for you.

        • Overall I think you are wrong.

          The un-untendered jet contract issue may not resonate with Canadians because they want to be fair and are often willing to give benefit of doubt to the military, particularly as “support our troops” has been hammered home for years now. I do support our troops by the way, I’ve friends in the military. But I often don’t support what our politicians ask our troops to do. Back to the jets, the real issue is one of process, the add doesn’t stress untendered and even if it did, many wouldn’t get it. The ad is correct, but most won’t notice. Most… but perhaps some in the moderate side of the NDP might go, “aha”, *I* know what that ad is talking about and *I* care. So who knows, maybe it is speaking to them and if so, it works.

          The Corporate Tax Cut ad works in my opinion. Canada is already competitive on many levels. Harper has been larding out the front door tons of dough for two years calling it stimulus spending, Corporate Tax Cuts are just a continuation but out the back door. When Sally Soccer Mom and Harry Hockey Dad pull their mini vans up to the pumps and see $1.22 a gallon, see muni taxes going up on their residence while rates are dropped on business (yes not federal but still), see cost of living going up in their grocery basket and insurance and other aspects of their daily lives yet, they will draw the dotted line to corporate tax cuts and think “bad thing”, especially when the next quarterly report of big bank profits are announced. Good time to re-run that ad.

          Corporate tax cuts are just another angle of the hollowing out of the federal purse (which will lead to the same at provincial coffers as well, happening already). One day little Jimmy Flaherty or Big Steve is going to hold a very serious press conference and tell the country that we can’t go on living above our means, even though he’s ultimately responsible for over-spending and under-collecting.

          Wait for it, coming soon, the mother of all excuses to slash, slash, slash. So what if he had to put the country 50, 70, 90 billion further in debt just to set the stage right, it’ll be worth it to Big Steve.

          • Namesake says:

            Um, no: there IS NO contract signed on the F-35s, yet, Mr. Saul Sourced, hence no Millions in penalty clauses; the politicians and military should do a new white paper & WRITE the Specifications of Requirement, first; and they should all FOLLOW the military procurement process; to SEE whether it’ll indeed be the F-35 that wins the tender to be done by 2016.

  3. Jan says:

    I know nothing about advertising but Harper surrpounded by a cloud of green dollars might be good ongoing.

  4. james Smith says:

    I agree they are good spots. I’m not in PR but Marshall McLuhan claimed (I think in THE MEDIA IS THE MASSAGE) that Audio was as or more important than the images on TV. Try watching the TeeVee with the sound off. Too often poor (from my PoV) ads have sound that is redundant to the image rather than accentuating the image, they nailed it here

  5. Brian says:

    There’s a better way to attack the fighter buy, and yet, no one is using it.

    It’s disappointing.

    • Jan says:

      What is it?

      • Namesake says:

        show what they’re used for: sneaking up on & bombing ground installations in ‘shock & awe’ campaigns to the strains of Wagner. This is not your father’s Snowbirds-mobile.

        • hugger says:

          According to some sources I have read, in comparison to contemporary offerings from the Russians they suck at just about everything except delivering nuclear bombs to ground targets. Such as say, an underground nuclear facility.

          • Jan says:

            Well suited to the bombing of Iran by any chance?

          • Philip says:

            Exactly that. Why not have an open competition between the Sukhoi T-50, the Lougheed F-22, Eurofighter and the F-35? Use the current CF-18 as a baseline. Figure out the missions you need the aircraft to excel in and put them all through their paces. There is a three year window before any contact on the F-35 has to be signed. Surely the goal is to get the best kit for our men and women in uniform?

          • What are your sources?General Natynczyk is reported in the Globe and Mail as saying these planes are the best deal on the market.
            Are your sources more relaiable and knowledgeable?

          • Philip says:

            Fair question Alberta Tim. Everything below is public knowledge, sourced from Jane’s Defence Review, Jane’s Annual Review, International Air Review, International Defence Technology Review, FAS.org and even Tom Clancy’s book “Fighter Wing”. The FAS web site is open source, however both Jane’s and the IDT sites and publications require a yearly subscription, which sad geek that I am, I pay happily. Slightly dated Jane’s and IDT articles can be found all over the web, I’m sure your Google-fu is equal to mine. Of particular interest to you might be the comparisons between the Lougheed F-22 and the MD F-35.
            As for the CDS’s comments, I am sure he has his reasons for plumping for the F-35. In all fairness it could be the best available today. Surely the Canadian Forces lose nothing by trying out everything on the market?

      • Philip says:

        Could be they are not exactly “stealthy” either. You will notice that the DND has been pretty careful not to defne exactly what they mean by stealthy.
        The F-35 is almost impossible for low power radar on the ground or in the the air to pick up at range. That said, pretty much the only countries that would be employing low power air and land based radar systems will be in the Third World. Think North Korea. Also think pointless because missile and gun systems guided by low power radar are easy pickings for current fighter jets. The 1990 Gulf War will give you an idea of the overmatch. The F-35 won’t be able to hide it’s radar signature for very long against high/very high power radar sweeps from current AWAC style aircraft and multi-band high power land radar. Also keep in mind that no aircraft remains “stealthy” to radar when mounting external fuel tanks bombs and missiles. They are all made of metal and return very distinct radar images. To get around the issue of external stores the F-35 carries a small internal weapons bay and would have to rely on it’s on-board fuel load which would limit its operational range. In summary the F-35 will be very hard to pick up on some types of radar only in it’s air superiority role (fighter vs fighter) but not impossible.

        Radar stealth is only the first half of the picture, the second bit concerns heat signature left by jet exhaust and metal heated by the passage through air at supersonic speeds. Currently two types of missiles exist to use this heat to target and shoot down jets. The first and oldest technology is inf-red (IR) guided missiles and the newest is heat seeking missiles. Both have been around for awhile now and their guidance systems are getting increasingly more efficent. The use of composite materials and coatings on metal parts of the F-35 do do a better job of disguising it’s IR signature than previous military jets but it isn’t alone in this. Every fighter aircraft on the drawing board or just coming into production now employs this technology. The reeal vulnerability of the F-35 and every other jet fighter will be the heat from it’s exhaust. High speeds are not possible without burning more fuel and producing more heat which heat seeking missiles are built to pick up. Designers can mitigate the heat output through ceramics and exhaust design but will never completely get rid of it. This is particularly true in “dog fight” situations when aircraft will be at full power or afterburner the entire time. Heat seeking missiles are usually all close range weapons built to be used in “dog fights”.
        I’ll wrap this up because I am a complete bore when it comes to this sort of thing. Let me just say that the F-35 is a very good air superiority fighter which is kind of stealthy in certian situations. It is not stealthy at all in ground attack missions nor it truth does it need to be. All in all a good replacement for the F-18 but not the Second Coming that the CPC has made ot out to be.

  6. Ted says:

    ‎”Mr. Harper Attacks People, I Attack Problems.”
    — Moncton Times & Transcript interview with Michael Ignatieff:

    • Namesake says:

      Careful, Cath: once you’ve had contact with those dreaded socialists like that even just to launch a joint attack, you won’t be able to wash the pink off. You’ll be kicked out of the tribe!

  7. new says:

    I think main problems of minority so far is lack of trust of canadian people to political party

    of what they are doing is right for such vast vaiety people live there

    as long as politician do not give this trust and heart and confidence back to them
    I hardly believe we can change minority group

  8. Can you list an example of a bad/good attack ad from each Federal Party

  9. Jan says:

    Bad or good in what way? Effectiveness, civility…?

  10. jade says:

    Small point but I would like the ads more if, instead of looking down, Harper’s silhouette had him with his nose in the air. Good comment or dumb?

  11. orval says:

    The ads are not bad, but they are leaving incorrect impressions about what the Liberals intend. The Liberals are not against “fighter jets” – they are for fighter jets, they just want a competition before they pick the fighter jet they want. As it was a Liberal decision to join the 9 nation F35 consortium, likely the end result of the Liberal competition would be: the F 35. Marc Garneau must be worried. The ad has an anti-military feel to it, similar to “soldiers in the streets” attack ads of 2005/6.

    The corporate tax cut repeal is a curious one. It is simple to re-but: why did the Liberals support the tax cuts in 2008 (in fact Dion wanted them to go lower, to 14%) but now they are bad? The message is clear – the pro-business (Manley) Liberals are losing the fight for the soul of the Liberal party. There are 2 ex-NDP provincial premiers in the caucus – obviously the Liberals are turning away from their traditional support of small and medium sized businesses as the engines of prosperity and are turning to a more NDP focused approach. It is as though the Liberals have given up trying to attract Conservative voters.

    And having an ad translated into French is not the same as having a Quebec ad. The most interesting Conservative ad in my view is the “notre region au pouvoir” ad directed against the Bloc. The Liberals have no ads against the Bloc, probably because the Liberals have given up on francophone Quebec outside Montreal and won’t waste their time and money fighting the Bloc.

    It’s good that the Liberals are responding (albeit weakly) to the Conservative ads. It is good for the party’s morale. But the ads are defensive by appealing to the Liberals (crumbling?) support base in Toronto.

    • Saul says:

      The Liberal ads are not truly “attack” ad as much as they are “issue” ads. They try to link Harper to these issues in an adverse manner while depending on Canadians being informed and sensitive to the issues of fighter jets and corporate taxes. The ads were necessary to shore up the morale of Liberal party workers in the field.

      If you look at the Conservative attack ads that were viciously attacking Michael Ignatieff on his speckled past and abandonment of Canada. In effect they were suggesting that Ignatieff was an opportunistic and unpatriotic person. Now that’s rather extreme.

      So why would the Conservatives launch a personal attack on Ignatieff, and do Canadians at large really care?

      I don’t think these ads will resonate to the average uninformed Canadian because they still don’t really know who Ignatieff is or which party he leads! These Conservative ads were totally aimed at the Liberal party workers and to undermine their morale. They are being given a taste of what is in store should there be an election soon, and the futility of following Ignatieff. They abandoned Dion for much less, and now the Conservatives are providing a preview of Ignatieff’s vulnerability … that he’s just not a proven Canadian political leader .. just visiting, so why bother working on the losing Liberal election campaign with a failed leader, and that’s the grim reality.

      • You might feel being absent for 34 years is not a biggie, but my wife who is NON political found out when first round of ADS came out and asked me. That sealed it and disqualified him. She is not political.

        So getting information out about his positions and flip flops is consistent with voter suppression strategies. The NDP have already did their “reality check” response on the corporate cuts.

        Don’t forget those cuts included any business from 1+ employees. That includes mom and pop small businesses. It will be interesting how he tells those struggling small companies for his social program spending trumps their lower tax rate.

        I am impressed with the SPIN by the Liberals and their name calling of people who don’t vote Liberal.

        • Jan says:

          Gee – that’s not the first time I’ve run across – ‘my wifes not political but’ – exact same phrasing. Maybe you posted ir somewhere else.

          • PETE says:

            He is everywhere on the blogosphere with his false opinions and stats

          • Namesake says:

            and from what other have said, I think “he” is a she; and given that h/she’s been glued FT to the keyboard fighting the Big Red Menace for years, now, there’s no way their spouse hasn’t heard them fulminating about all that’s wrong about Dion, Rae, & Iggy, with the latter’s alleged _un_-Canadian-ness no doubt being at the top of the list, given her Blog & Pseudo-Name.

      • Leon Brule says:

        What an interesting perspective. Attack the troops before the battle begins.

    • Namesake says:

      re: “why did the Liberals support the tax cuts in 2008 (in fact Dion wanted them to go lower, to 14%) but [not] now”

      – not so hard to explain at all, for anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to the economy over the last 2 years:

      back in early 2008, everyone thought the gov’t should still be able to run surpluses, so there was some headroom to cut taxes that MIGHT attract more investment to Canada.

      But then the financial meltdown & global recession hit. And soon the gov’t had tens of billions of dollars in deficits annually for the foreseeable future, so we lost all that headroom AND there’s little chance of capturing the hoped-for excess international capital floating around, which mostly got wiped out in the meltdown, too.

      So, in short, it’s clear that we NEED those billions from corporate taxation now, much more than we did then, and it would be irresponsible to decrease such a major revenue stream on a wing & a prayer when we need to pay down all that new debt we racked up.

      • orval says:

        The Manley/Dion approach to the economic crisis would be to continue to cut corporate taxes to ensure that Canada remains an attractive place to invest in the private sector for businesses to remain competitive and to ensure Canadians don’t lose their jobs. Most government revenues come from personal income tax, not corporate taxes. Therefore, by having higher employment levels, and more people paying income tax, any deficits are eliminated quicker. The NDP approach is to overtax businesses so they become uncompetitive and lay off workers, or go elsewhere in the global marketplace for investment. The unemployment rates rise, resulting in increased expenditures on EI and loss of revenue through lower personal income tax returns.

        The Liberals now appear to be taking the NDP approach, which is the opposite of the more-traditional Manley/Dion approach. This is what I mean about the struggle for the soul of the Liberal party. The Liberals appear to have given up retaining or winning back the business Liberals – their natural home is now the Conservatives. Instead, the Liberals seem to want to out-NDP the NDP. The two ads look and sound very much like NDP ads of the past.

        There are no scary ads in French featuring images of “evil” Gilles Duceppe so there appears to be no plan for a Liberal revival in that province (indeed, the Bloc is pro-F 35 because it means jobs, jobs, jobs in Quebec). It is a shame that the once-great party of National Unity and of the epic struggle for federalism in Quebec of PE Trudeau has sunk so low.

        • hugger says:

          Ignatieff laid out the opposition to further corporate tax cuts at this time quite well and in easy to understand terms which most people who actually read them, or heard them can understand. When running surplus budgets one looks at things one way, when running record deficits one looks at things differently. Some like to use calculators, some like Ouija boards and faith.

          Duceppe is doing what he always does, that’s no surprise. He is there to represent Quebec interests and if the rest of Canada will be contributing the lions share toward the cost of the F35’s then that is good for Quebec.

          It is ridiculous for this CPC lot to try to justify the purchase of the F35’s given they don’t even know what they can do, what they will cost and without the proper bidding process which is a basic principle in transactions of this nature. Trumpeting Dion’s approach to is a bit rich too Orval, considering how much effort the CPC put into defining him as “not a leader”.

          It is sad to see what is left of the party of Stanfield resorting to economic quackery.

          • orval says:

            That’s fine to argue that, but the response has to be: if we need the money so badly, why only corporate tax increases? Why not income tax increases? Why not a GST increase? If we can’t afford a corporate tax reduction because of the deficit, then we can’t afford to keep income tax and GST rates low. Ignatieff now has to argue that tax increases are necessary (to deal with the deficit). As we saw with the Green Shift “tax on everything” this is not a popular stance with the voters.

            The problem for the Liberals is they have chosen to run on two issues for which they have the least credibility; against corporate tax cuts which they were in favour of in 2008 and which they voted for in 2009; and against the F-35 fighter replacement for the CF-18s, the fighter they themselves selected. The NDP have more credibility and consistency on these two issues than do the Liberals.

            “Liberals are for tax increases” “Liberals are against having a strong, capable and proud military” “Liberals are against jobs in our aerospace and high tech sectors” These are not very appealing election platforms. The Liberals are practically making the Conservative attack ads for them. The only sense I can make of it is the Liberals want to lose.

          • Namesake says:

            what, so these ARE election ads, now, and their topics are ipso facto what the Parties are “Running On”?

            So the CPC’s are Running On the fact that Ignatieff taught at Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge, and worked as a journalist and pundit in England and overseas before entering politics?

            And on the converse, that Stephen Harper has never had anything but political and quasi-political jobs?

            Hmm, strong platform; that’ll really resonate.

          • hugger says:

            Orval, what corporate tax increases?

            You want personal income tax increases instead? I don’t get the point you are trying to make. The issue is not approving further corporate tax cuts at this time. No? So I don’t follow what you are trying to argue.

            Ignatieff doesn’t have to argue tax increases are necessary, Harper has to explain how his and Flaherty’s economic quackery is going to lead us anywhere other than quantitative easing. Frankly I don’t think they have the acumen to understand that either. And don’t start with the tax on everything, all Harper and his finance guy accomplished instead was adding interest to the extraordinary debt they have accumulated as a result of their extraordinary historic spending.

            The corporate tax issue is easy to understand Orval, a high school economics class would provide sufficient background to comprehend that. On the F35, there was no firm commitment made by a previous Liberal government that I am aware of. A very small amount of Rand D money yes, but no contract. It now appears clear that it is wasteful, extravagant, not properly costed and totally irresponsible. An open bid process would be the only way to prove different so why are the Reformatories going against all prudent economic tradition in favor of no competition? What are they afraid of, the truth?

            The economic benefits to Canada from any properly negotiated deal should easily surpass those we have been made aware of in conjunction with the F35 proposal, so again I don’t see your point.

            About those ads, I think the Liberal version was a very tempered response to the gutter offerings of the CPC. Personally I think that approach is a clear display of what this current excuse for Conservatives really thinks of the Canadian public.

  12. BlueTeam Soldier says:

    These ads are fabulous. They have kinetic energy. There is powerful imagery in the swopping jets and the screeching stretch limo (brilliant!) which holds the viewers’ attention for the kick-line. Very solid stuff, well done, Team Red.

  13. Raymond says:

    Someone didn’t do their homework. The jets that serve as backdrop are actually F-18E SuperHornets…the same jets Iggy is pushing for instead of the F-35. Du’oh!

    • Namesake says:

      What do you expect? That’s cuz the F-35s are such lemons & are so many years behind production there’s only a handful of them around & they’re grounded more often than not… plus of course they’re still top secret, so Lockheed’s hardly going to release footage to a foreign opposition party! Double d’oh!

      • Raymond says:

        It’s CG imagery. One would think that F-35’s would be more appropriate, no?….or can people associated with Iggy’s team even recognize the difference? Given the uproar, I would certainly hope so.

        • Namesake says:

          CG or no, one can only use the images if one owns the copyright to them or has received clearance to use them;

          the LPC knows that’s the appropriate thing to do;

          whereas the CPC has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not.

          Tory attack ads draw copyright questions, 2007:
          http://www.thestar.com/News/article/176062

          Communications breakdowns, 2008
          http://urlm.in/gtis

          CBC, Tories poised to battle over Tory ads, 2011:
          http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/01/19/16953086.html

          • Raymond says:

            Yes, because ‘the team’ has acted so appropriately in the past.
            Good one.

            Perhaps you’d like to post a link showing where your party received permission from Boeing to use images of the SuperHornet (and no, it’s not the same aircraft that we purchased in 1982).

          • Namesake says:

            I dunno, maybe they worked up their own starting with these ones from the ‘WikiCommons’ which,

            “As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FA-18_Hornet_VFA-41.jpg

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Four_Super_Hornets.jpg

            Plus at least they LOOK like what people expect sleek $20B fighter jets to look like, in profile;

            whereas the profile of the actual F35s looks like a toy model that wouldn’t fly — http://urlm.in/gtjl — so people might think the LPC was trying to mock them as such even if they could license the proper images.

          • Raymond says:

            And had it been an image of Sukoi’s PAK-FA, which is virtually identical in planform to the F-35, you’d be calling it a work of art.

            If we were predicating performance on looks and ‘sleek appeal’, then Canada would still be flying the CF-104. When stealth is incorporated into aircraft design, aesthetic appeal is the first thing to go out the window.

            I think the image Canadians will rembember, when faced with this particular ad, is that of a thirty year-old CF-18 losing an engine and rolling into the dirt at Lethbridge last year, the pilot barely escaping with his life. Canada needs new combat aircraft by the end of the decade. The SuperHornet, great as it is, is still a stop-gap aircraft based on a 1970’s design. If we want 30 years’ service out of our next purchase, the choices are narrowed down to one…the F-35 (unless Canada can convince the USA to restart production of the even more expensive F-22 Raptor and sell it to a foreign government).

          • Namesake says:

            Engine problems? Sure you want to go there?

            The F-35s have been plagued with engine problems right from the get-go, such that one of the alternate lines, by Rolls Royce, has been cancelled altogether, and the main one, by Pratt and Whitney, has just “encountered an afterburner ?screech,? in which airflow disruptions cause severe vibrations, preventing the engine from reaching maximum power.”

            So far, it’s a lemon, and a huge white elephant. I want PROVEN technology before we sign any dotted line — particularly for a purchase that’ll end up being in the tens of billions. So should you, and all of us: it’s the responsible thing to do.

            Before you resume your rah-rahing on the F-35, read this recent testimony http://urlm.in/gtmw from a military procurement expert who knows only too well how wasteful the U.S. defense programs have been.

            (It’s summarized in the Sun’s David Akin’s blog at
            http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011/1/22/4732907.html and its author’s bio is at http://www.cdi.org/staff/staffinfo.cfm?StaffID=81

          • hugger says:

            Shiver me timbers Namesake, it looks worse than I thought. I note the cost estimate; $70 billion per x 2 = $140 billion.

            Another Edsel?

            http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/58-edsel-twn.jpg

          • hugger says:

            That’s supposed to be millions. $140 million per. I was all shook up.

          • Namesake says:

            and that est. $140-M each is just for the planes themselves, not including the engine, the ordinance, the pilot training & recruitment, the twice-as-much-as-the-F18s flight time costs, and the bottomless pit parts & maintenace.

          • hugger says:

            I read that too, but I thought I would allow time for the CPC patrol to digest that one aspect. Takes them a while you know.

            Somewhere in a darkened room they will gather around the Ouija board to the sounds of low level chanting, trying to compute the “incoming” data.

            Kidding aside, unlike Orval or whoever wrote this is an issue that won’t resonate with the public. I think the opposite is true. It is really a defining issue for these conservatives (in name and rhetoric only). In these uncertain economic times and considering the recent history of investment banking, stock markets etc., I think this is an issue that Canadians can and will focus on if they are made aware of the pertinent facts.

            I think it’s a politicians dream or nightmare come true, depending on which side of the issue one is on. If I had any input I would hammer the Conservatives with this. A couple or three facts at a time. Rinse and repeat as they do. Keep the messages simple and accurate, quoting sources when necessary.

            Oh yes, and competition is the foundation of the free enterprise system. Isn’t it? I can just imagine a corporation buying $20 to $40 plus billion worth of equipment under these circumstances. Got my millions and billions right this time. Double checked.

  14. Meta says:

    Subliminal messages, what a lark. Give it a rest, I could look at any image and find some kind of message. Me thinks, people stared too long at the clouds in the sky when they were children. Maybe if people would concentrate more on the issues in hand, and stop trying to find some kind of sign, this country would be a better place. Spending billions of dollars is an issue that effects us all, not just the military or corporations. Corporations get enough tax breaks, damn have you ever looked at financial statements, you wouldn’t think any of these companies ever made a profit, but the shareholders and CEO’s still get rich. As for the military, this jet is not suppose to go into production until 2016 with a completion date for delivery by 2022. What the heck is the hurry, they could have tendered this purchase of jets. This deal stinks, and technology changes so fast, that “state of the art” is usually obsolete within six months.

    I pay taxes, I want our government to spend our money frugally and smartly. Just not throw money away like this country was one big open money pit.

Leave a Reply

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


*