08.24.2019 09:51 AM

Want to see an effective political ad?

This is an effective political ad.

Share it.


  1. the real Sean says:

    Excellent! Very smart politics, simple message. Not exactly true (b.c. technically they resigned first) but frames / arranges the truth in a way that Joe and Jane Frontporch will remember / communicate.

    • Mark D says:

      Understand where you are coming from, but super technically…. They resigned from cabinet, but Trudeau fired them from caucus.

  2. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Last time I checked, the change metric number in various polls was between 56 and 65%. IMHO, that’s the main dynamic already at play. This type of billboard is Liberal pile-on, meaning it will spur disappointed and disillusioned Liberal supporters to just stay home on E-Day. Meanwhile, change agents will likely vote in record numbers. Trudeau is done for.

    • Douglas W says:

      Mr. O’Dowd, Trudeau is done? Hardly. Liberal strategy: smear Scheer. Latest salvo: 2005 HOC video of Scheer, condemning same-sex marriage. Powerful footage. Tonnes of media play. What’s worse: the CPC’s efforts to counter punch. Dismal. Lack the smarts to effectively respond. Terrible war room. October 21st is going to be a long night for them. Grim, for the Opposition, and for the country.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        (Please call me Ron.) Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t The Toronto Star condemn the Liberals’ use of a decade old + speech??? That’s saying something.

        Martin’s war room tried that one on for size in 2006 with Soldiers In Our Streets and it got them precisely zip. Harper got in anyway. So will Scheer. A desperate war room is never a winning one. Warren can speak to this far better than I can.

        • Douglas W says:

          Ron, is the Liberal war room desperate, or simply picking off the low-hanging fruit: Conservative vulnerability? Who has the best response team? I’m going with the Liberals. They’re slick, and they know how to defend their brand.

          • Fred from BC says:

            “They’re slick, and they know how to defend their brand.”

            Then they should have replaced Trudeau when they still had the chance…

          • Fred,

            You need balls to do that. That’s why Harper rode the CPC right into the ground in 2015 and Justin will do the same in October.

            Political caucuses are the biological equivalent of the amoeba. Everyone fucking knows that if Harper was still in power, (or the NDP/Greens) and they were in the same boat as the Liberals, they would behave exactly as Trudeau has and gladly jettison their principles at the door just to stay in power. End of story.

      • the real Sean says:

        not sure if Douglas W is being sarcastic or not… the exposure of the Scheer video obviously demonstrates the grasping, hopeless incompetence of the LPC war room.

        Since that speech SSM has been well established in Canada. Three successive Tory governments did nothing to change this. They even had gay cabinet ministers. Since the time the speech was made, Scheer has been Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, Speaker of the House of Commons and Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Not once has the issue come up…. except as a product of a desperate PMO which knows it has only about two months left to fire off their pathetic baloney.

        • Douglas W says:

          There are some very sharp operators in the LPC war room, and they continue to jab where the Conservatives are the most vulnerable. As for the CPC: the best response (to the 2005 Scheer video, HOC) came not from the Conservatives, but from Paul Wells during a Power & Politics panel segment, much to the visible chagrin, of host Vassy Kapelos. To liberally paraphrase Wells: “Liberals should be talking about the Opioid crisis; gun violence; the threat posed by gangs; our relations with China; our relations with the U.S. Not a 2005 video.” Why can’t the Conservative war room come up with a rapid response like that? Well, the answer is simple: they don’t have the chops.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            I will concede what you suggest is possible but this manoeuvre somewhat lacks bang for the punch given its rather dated nature. They know they should hit back effectively. Maybe they underestimate its effect and maybe not. But I will agree with you that a rapid response is crucial on future attacks that are based in the here and now. An offensive war room only needs to solidly hit it out of the park once — when you’re playing defense, you’ve got to get it right re: attacks 100% of the time. We’ll see soon enough if the Liberals’ drip, drip, drip, strategy gets solid traction.

          • Fred from BC says:

            “Why can’t the Conservative war room come up with a rapid response like that? ”

            Because it’s bad form to tell the other side what they *should* be talking about…and anyway, your opinion about that being the “best response” is still only your opinion. The Conservatives countered with a reminder that Andrew Scheer has already promised, on more than one occasion, to leave the gay marriage issue alone (likewise for abortion); it doesn’t get much simpler than that.

            Never forget that when Stephen Harper allowed his MPs a free vote on the subject (oh, the HORROR!) twelve or so of them voted *in favor* of gay marriage…and that number has only gone up since then. Andrew Scheer couldn’t change the law now even if he wanted to, and he knows it. And so do you.

        • Vancouverois says:

          Also, as the CPC and various commentators rightly pointed out, the Liberals themselves opposed same-sex marriage for a long time. Goodale himself voted against it.

          As a result, any attempt to smear the CPC with this issue comes across as hypocritical at best.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            Not really. Legions of Liberals like Chrétien, Martin, etc., were against it. Point is, they evolved and changed their view. How many Conservatives have done the same? Can’t think of one, off hand. (Obama and Clinton were also against but they also evolved.) Even a nobody like yours truly also evolved, before Martin did. And I was a CPC member then.

          • Fred from BC says:

            “Not really. Legions of Liberals like Chrétien, Martin, etc., were against it. Point is, they evolved and changed their view. ”

            And you believe them because they say so, right? Would you believe any Conservatives if they claimed to have ‘evolved’? Or just accuse them of hiding their real views?

            My own opinion hasn’t changed at all: I remain in favor of the ‘civil unions’ pioneered by the European nations. Exact same thing, different name.

          • Fred,

            I know enough about that party to take them at their word as I would a rep of any other party. Conservatives are for the most part just as honorable and decent as any other party member. So absolutely, I would take anyone at their word and not just on this issue either.

          • Fred from BC says:

            You’re a class act, Ron. I keep hoping some of you will rub off on me…:)

    • J.H. says:

      Liberal War Room made fools of themselves, as did Toronto Star & Robyn Urback at CBC. Lib researchers didn’t do their homework & check Goodale & LPC MPs history from the same period. Have a look at the comments online. CPC winning that battle. If this is the best Libs high command can do for Justin than the LPC is in big trouble.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        See my response to Vancouverois above.

      • Fred from BC says:

        ” Have a look at the comments online. CPC winning that battle. ”

        I know…I went through hundreds of those comments, and they are overwhelmingly against the Liberals. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this reflected in the next opinion polls.

  3. Campbell says:

    I’m not so sure – what is a “strong” woman? Is there popular consensus on this? What about being a “strong woman” means that one should be insulated from being fired?

    This ad doesn’t strike me as effective at persuading anyone who is undecided, because its message isn’t universally understood in the same way by people.

    • Peter says:

      I agree. This ad will be liked those who are already convinced his sexism was behind it all, but not necessarily by those who see possible other reasons (non-discriminatory arrogance?), even if they don’t like him. There can be something off-putting about the way modern activists grab these individual incidents and force them to fit seamlessly into their general narratives. The unstated sub-text–that he wouldn’t have done this to a man–is pure conjecture. Something similar is going on in the States with ever-shriller cries by the Dems that Trump is a racist. I don’t think they are working particularly well.

  4. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    In my book, strong women equates with strong men and strong people generally. A strong person is recognized for their evident talent and actual demonstrable competence in their chosen job. Like all humans, they are worthy of respect.

    If a boss doesn’t like their professional decision, he or she has a choice: allow them to do their job or immediately seek their resignation. Bullying someone is never an option — regardless of sex or any other characteristic.

    They thought JWR and JP could be intimidated and bulldozed BECAUSE they were women. At the very least, that mindset is both wrong and sexist. 2019 demands far better from a PMO, than we got from Trudeau’s.

  5. Nick M. says:

    Can you include Eva Nassif, a soon to be former Liberal MP in that billboard?

    What I am reading is that she just got the axe from Trudeau.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      To be fair, if I have the correct read, she was dropped because she did not reach mandatory financing goals set for every incumbent MP. That’s not Trudeau’s problem. It’s her’s. She should have been far more proactive, like most of her fellow MPs and party candidates. In short, you snooze, you lose.

      • J.H. says:


        ‘Margiotta assured that Nassif and the association had met those requirements, adding it even had more money in its coffers than the party required.’

        Word is the backroom boys in Montreal wanted another candidate, but she refused to step down. Trudeau then wouldn’t sign her nomination papers.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Thanks, J.H. I stand corrected.

          Justin has a talent for being dense. And it gets worse with each passing day. And they wonder why I’m voting CPC…and I do that with absolutely no pleasure, as J.H. can attest to.

      • Douglas W says:

        Nick M. is right: she got the axe from Justin. Her riding association stood by her. Justin is going to parachute a pal/”star candidate” into the riding. Let’s see who it is?

        • Fred from BC says:

          “Nick M. is right: she got the axe from Justin. Her riding association stood by her. Justin is going to parachute a pal/”star candidate” into the riding. Let’s see who it is?”

          Wow. Whoever it is will probably be destroyed because of this, and rightly so. All it takes is for Liberal voters to stay home on election day.

          • Fred,

            This is where the PMO shows its amateurish mentality. They actually think that good Liberals will be breaking down polling place doors in their stampede to support/rescue Trudeau. (Right.) In short, they are royally full of shit.

            Sure, they’ll be a trickle to a creek of Liberals crossing over to the CPC but most will elect to stay home, sitting this one out. In other words, Justin is the new Hillary and he’s about to painfully discover precisely what that feels like.

          • Fred from BC says:

            “In other words, Justin is the new Hillary and he’s about to painfully discover precisely what that feels like.”

            I wouldn’t bet against you on that one, Ronald.

Leave a Reply

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