To Understand Stephen Harper is to Understand Arthur Finklestein

I have written before about Arthur Finklestein, the Republican pollster who worked with Stephen Harper and the National Citizens Coalition.

I was a little shocked when I first learned of this, because Finklestein was pretty high profile. Not a public icon like Karl Rove or to a lesser degree, Frank Luntz. Finklestein was more like Guy Giorno, preferring to operate in the shadows.

He handled the campaigns of controversial figures like Jesse Helms and Alfonse D'Amato, but his client list also included Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

He was no lightweight.

I'm currently reading Loyal to the Corp: Stephen Harper Me and the NCC, by Harper's former VP at the National Citizens Coalition, Gerrry Nicholls. Nicholls reveals the fact that Finklestein was employed by the NCC for 14 years, taking Harper under his (right) wing, and teaching him everything he knew. And he knew plenty.

Not about how to be a good leader, but how to demolish your political opponents.

Finklestein was king of the petty attack ad. The pettier the better, and Stephen Harper was a very good student.

The Legacy of Arthur Finklestein

In Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, he discusses Harper's visceral hatred for "L"iberals, though it's more of a visceral hatred for anything "l"iberal. It's almost an obsession.

In the United States Finklestein is credited with helping to make "liberal" a dirty word throughout the 1980s and 1990s. He did this by associating the word with anything negative.

"That's liberal. That's Jack Reed. That's wrong. Call liberal Jack Reed and tell him his record on welfare is just too liberal for you."

Three times: liberal = "wrong" liberal = Jack Reed "too" liberal. The message is pretty clear.

But this one backfired:

"Paul Wellstone. Embarrassingly liberal. Decades out of touch."

He played it so often that a grassroots organization was formed to counter the ignorance and Wellstone won. Besides, it was 1990, after almost a decade of "out of touch" Reagan, so it failed to resonate.

We can do the same here, and in fact, I think the Conservative attack ads are beginning to wear on everyone. Wellstone's campaign is actually a good example of how to beat the right-wing nonsense. The senator from Minnesota died in a plane crash in 2002, along with his wife and daughter, but a group has been formed in his name:

Wellstone Action trains progressive citizens and potential candidates for public office, on how to "succeed in winning elections, enacting legislation, and passing ballot initiatives". I'm hoping we can mobilize as a progressive force this election, and turn this country around.

We saw how easy it was to recruit 225,000 Canadians, who opposed Stephen Harper's last self-serving prorogation, and more recently, 30 groups got together to oppose the "hush money" paid to Harper's "not so much an ethics czar as a sweeper under of rugs", who buried 50 allegations of fraud and misconduct against his government.

Pundits and pollsters are suggesting that the Conservative attack ads are working, citing recent poll results. But Harris-Decima chairman, Allan Gregg recently warned Canadians not to take too much stock in polls these days, admitting that "telephone surveys have fallen to 15 per cent -- partly because more people use cells, have call screening or just hang up."

The results are only based on a 15% success rate. And on-line polls represent the opinions of those who seeks out those polls, and hardly an accurate reading of the pulse of the nation.

Last month, we were on the brink of a Conservative majority: three separate polls said as much. Those attack ads on Ignatieff were hurting the Liberals. The fact that much of the Conservative surge was on the Prairies, where they already hold most of seats, was downplayed.

... Then there's highly imperfect reporting. Dutiful news stories will include the usual warnings in the final paragraph: this poll is reliable 19 times out of 20, with a margin of error of whatever. But television hosts, pundits, columnists (guilty) often ignore this excitement-killing nuance. One recent poll had the Tories moving from 38.1 per cent to 39.7 per cent and was widely reported as a "rise" in Tory support. But the fine print reports a margin of error of 3.1 per cent: in other words, the "gain" was statistically meaningless.

We just have to try and beat the right-wing at their own games. Not by making silly attack ads, but by reminding people of just how ridiculous they really are.

"Michael Ignaieff didn't come back for you". What is that supposed to mean?

I bought some voice distortion software and created an attack ad as it might appear in 1867, when Conservative John MacDonald (Sir John A.) was running against Liberal George Brown.

MacDonald had scoffed at Brown's prison reform, suggesting that conditions in the prison system were not that bad.

I thought it might go something like this.

I dug up This Old Conservative Attack Ad. Not Much Has Changed

The Conservatives Don't Have to Worry About Michael Ignatieff in the Next Election. They Have to Worry About Us

Polls are indicating that Stephen Harper will at least win another minority in the upcoming, hopefully soon, election. But history has proven time and again that polls taken outside of an election campaign mean less than nothing.

As James Travers said recently:

Some conclusions roll too easily off political tongues. One echoing around the capital this winter is that an election now won’t change much. Possibly true, the assumption is almost certainly false. Campaigns matter and the next will matter more than most.

Beyond tossing red meat to diehard Conservatives, depressing opposition support helps explain the party’s current nasty advertising campaign. Framing Michael Ignatieff as a self-serving dilettante who dissed Canada from a distance is the kind of message that might well disillusion the same voters who stayed home rather than vote for the last Liberal leader Conservatives savaged, Stéphane Dion. Potentially decisive, that strategy to maximize the efficiency of the Conservative vote comes with a risk factor. Harper could inadvertently lower expectations to the point where Ignatieff in person proves to be a comparative surprise.

Ignatieff is accountable for foolish things said abroad. Still, there’s more to becoming prime minister than selective quotes. After all, Canadians forgot or forgave Harper’s divisive musings about Alberta firewalls and an Atlantic Canada culture of defeatism.

The other problem is that we have heard it so much that we've built up an immunity. We're more concerned with Harper selling us to the Americans, and allowing Wall Street to infiltrate our once sound banking industry, than Ignatieff teaching at Harvard for five years.

But there is something else that is being largely ignored. The power of the people.

Prior to Stephen Harper's last self-serving prorogation, he was ahead by 10 points in the polls. But the ease with which Canadians could be rallied in protest, showed an underlying distrust and anger. It is still there, because we got no closure, only talking points.

And what we see in Egypt, Wisconsin, and indeed across the globe, is an underlying discontent with corporate run governments, police brutality (like we saw at the G-20 by Harper's hired goons) and corruption. There is a mass "fighting back" movement that will make it's way here. I can feel it.

Sarah Van Gelder says on Rabble:

The uprising that swept Tunisia, Egypt, and parts of Europe is showing signs of blossoming across the United States. In Wisconsin, public employees and their supporters are drawing the line at Governor Scott Walker's plan to eliminate collective bargaining and unilaterally cut benefits. School teachers, university students, firefighters, and others descended on the capital in the tens of thousands, and even the Superbowl champion Green Bay Packers have weighed in against the bill. Protests against similar anti-union measures are ramping up in Ohio.

And Raquel Brown:

American conservatives often profess admiration for foreign workers' bravery in protesting and undermining authoritarian regimes. Letting workers exercise their rights at home, however, threatens to undermine some of our own regimes (the Republican ones particularly) and shouldn't be permitted. Now that Wisconsin's governor has given the Guard its marching orders, we can discern a new pattern of global repressive solidarity emerging -- from the chastened pharaoh of the Middle East to the cheese-head pharaoh of the Middle West.

There are cracks in the armour

And from the Huffington Post a reminder that we are all Wisconsin workers: That's the way solidarity works: an injury to anyone is an injury to all. For all our sakes, the Wisconsin protests must succeed in their goal: workplace negotiation not subjugation.

- If you want a voice on the job, you're a Wisconsin worker.
-If you want your employer to pay you the benefits you earned, you're a Wisconsin worker.
- If you enjoy your weekends, you're a Wisconsin worker.
- If you value workplace safety, health care benefits, and unemployment insurance, you're a Wisconsin worker.
- If you're an elected official counting on your pension, you're a Wisconsin worker.
- If you're a non-union employee in a right to work state, you're a Wisconsin worker.
- If you're unemployed or underemployed, you're a Wisconsin worker.
-If you want a decent day's pay for an honest day's work, you are a Wisconsin worker.
- If you believe in workplace negotiation not subjugation, you're a Wisconsin worker.
- And even if you're an anti-union media pundits with an American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) union card and protections, you're a Wisconsin worker.

From Libya to China. From Wales to Mississippi. The people are fighting back, and Canada will have her day.

Because we the citizens are now the official opposition.

Harper's Legacy of Attack Ads are Part of His Legacy of Hate

During the 1993 federal election campaign, when Kim Campbell was heading up the now defunct Progressive Conservative Party, a decision was made to launch an attack on Jean Chretien's face (video below). It was subtle, but the message was clear.

Did he look like he could run a country when he had such a "deformity"?

The backlash was immediate. Even many of her own candidates denounced the ads and made a public apology to the Liberal leader. The ads were pulled but the damage was done.

What was interesting, was the public's reaction. As it states in the news clip below, we weren't used to that kind of thing. Attack ads were nothing new, but the attacks were always on policy, never personal. How things have changed.

Stephen Harper has allowed his visceral hatred for anything "L"iberal or "l"iberal, to consume him. You can see it in the House, when he has to respond to a criticism from across the floor. At times he's teary, struggling to keep his composure. It's not normal.

And as we look back at his five years in office, the nature of his attack ads are certainly part of his legacy, and his potential undoing. They have been almost non-stop.

There was a piece on the Sudbury Star community pages, asking the question: Are Conservative Party Attack Ads Backfiring for Stephen Harper?

Are the Conservative Party of Canada’s recently unveiled attack ads backfiring for Stephen Harper? Given what’s been written about the controversy these ads are creating, versus the substance of the actual ads, I think that it may be fair to answer that question in the affirmative.

....And that’s the problem with these ads. Just what the heck are they? Some have suggested that they are clearly election ads. However, there isn’t an election underway that I’m aware of. So, ok, then they’re pre-election ads by the Conservative Party. Sure, ok, but Stephen Harper keeps telling everybody that he doesn’t want an election. Some are suggesting then, that this is Harper’s way of bargaining with the opposition parties from a position of strength: he’s showing them that if they choose to bring the government down, this is the sort of campaign that they’re in for, so hopefully one of the opposition parties will side with government come budget time. Well, that’s an interesting way to seek co-operation amongst political parties, as Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP, noted. It’s seeking co-operation by hitting the opposition leaders over the head with a two-by-four.

And Harper's lack of control was again evident in responding to the new Liberal ads, that attack two key policy errors. Sixteen billion for fighter jets (to attack the Russians) and an additional six billion for corporate tax cuts. He says that the Liberals are attacking "job creators" and the aerospace workers.

He's nuts. I'm sorry but I can't think of any better way of putting that. We all know that corporate tax cuts never, never, never, create jobs. They are only, as Bill Maher and countless others suggest, a transfer of money from those who need it, to those who don't. And Canada's aerospace workers are not guaranteed jobs because their companies can only tender for the maintenance contracts, which will be extensive. But they are up against the U.S. and Mexico, among others in Harper's aggressive trade deals.

Their chance of ever getting a piece of the pie are slim to none.

What is bothering Harper right now is that the other parties are ready for an election. He's headed up his corporate backed movement for too long, knowing that he has a steady money tap. But money isn't everything and personal assaults are getting boring.

You have to give us something, and so far, we have gotten nothing from this government but deficit and debt.

It's time to pull the plug.

Slipping in the Polls the Conservatives Have Decided to Attack

The latest poll shows that the Conservatives have slipped 3 points, while the Liberals have gained two.

Naturally, this has the Harperites in damage control mode, so they are doing the only thing they know how.

They are running attack ads.

Margaret Thatcher once said that she loved it when her opponents ran attack ads, because it proved that they had nothing left.

Touche.

Why Are Defense Department Computers Being Used to Insult Michael Ignatieff?

There is a very strange story that takes government spying to a new level (low).

Defence Department computers in Ottawa have been used to vandalize information on a Wikipedia site critical of the Conservative government's decision to spend billions on a new stealth fighter.

Nine attempts have been made to alter the online encyclopedia's entry on the Joint Strike Fighter, including the removal of information critical of the Harper government's plan to spend at least $16 billion on the fighters. Defence Department computers were also used to insert insults, aimed at Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, into the Wikipedia Joint Strike Fighter page. Ignatieff has questioned the proposed purchase.

This is where our tax dollars are going?

You know I was thinking about that whole "Russian attack" thing, and while it made me angry, I also have realized something else. If this was a genuine threat, the military would have kept it secret until they were sure, so as not to alarm the populace.

Instead our defence minister (?) ran around screaming the "the sky is falling" and then issued a press release attacking Michael Ignatieff for wanting to cancel the planes.

This sounds more like the actions of a government in crisis. And they are handling this crisis the same way they handle every crisis. With childish attacks.

And they didn't stop at Michael Igantieff:

Quotes from news articles outlining opposition to the arms sale by University of B.C. professor Michael Byers, a former NDP candidate, were also removed. Wikipedia traced the alterations to three computers owned by Defence Research and Development Canada's Ottawa offices. The online site has labelled the July 20-21 alterations as vandalism. The attempts to change the web page, made during work hours, stopped when Wikipedia administrators locked down the entry on the JSF ...

Defence computers during working hours. No doubt they will put the blame on some low level employees and they'll be dismissed, hoping the whole thing just goes away. But this is part of a pattern that should be very alarming. This government does not allow dissent from anyone.

Update on Jason Kenney, Molsons and My Joe

When Canada was celebrating the anniversary of our flag, Jason Kenney and the Conservative Party of Canada decided that once again, Canadian pride was not on their agenda.

Just hyper-partisan nonsense, as they distributed beer and T-Shirts, using the Molson Canadian branding, but replacing some of the wording with a 20 year old, off the cuff remark made by the Liberal leader, that included his image holding a bottle of Molson Canadian (photo-shopped in)

This became a segment on Power and Politics, and included a snippet from Kenney himself suggesting that Canadians should know about a remark made two decades ago. And of course, we needed to know on that day.

Now, I suppose we could pull out Jason Kenney's remark when he stated that he was ashamed to be Canadian because we didn't go to Iraq, but that would be silly, right?

I guess the issue bothered me in part because I play this old Joe Canadian video all the time. It represents the way we were four years ago, before this neoconservative gang set out to systematically destroy us.

We are no longer peacekeepers. We now love guns. And Kenney is pushing for assimilation, not multiculturalism. But it also represents what we will be again, as soon as we can get our country back. And we will.

In the meantime, I emailed Molsons to let them know that their branding was being used in a negative way. Many people believed that Molsons was behind this, but I didn't buy it. Why would they help to launch an ad campaign that could turn 2/3 of Canadians off their brand?

They have always promoted a progressive Canada, while respecting our heritage.

So this was my email:

I am emailing to draw your attention to a negative ad campaign currently being conducted by the Conservative Party of Canada. Our maple leaf is an iconic symbol, and one that you have always worked hard to present in a positive way. I watch and share your 'Joe Canadian' video constantly, since it represents the very heart and soul of our country.

Now I know that in politics, things can get messy, but on a day when we are celebrating the anniversary of our flag, and cheering our athletes awash in red and white; one political party has chosen to violate our pride by producing beer labels and cartons, identical to your own branding; that include the image of a political opponent, and a 20 year old comment he made.

This was especially distressing, watching the anguish of a mother, as the flag draped coffin of her son returning from Afghanistan, became her symbol of our national pride.

Is this really how you want your company to be represented?

Well today Molsons sent me an email, and just as I suspected, they were not pleased.

Good afternoon Ms. Dee,

I want to start by thanking you for taking the time to write to us and voice your concerns regarding the use of products on the CBC’s Power and Politics last Monday. I want to assure you that Molson Coors Canada was not aware of this issue until it was brought up to us by a consumer on Tuesday, and that we were not involved in this stunt in any way.

We were never consulted by the Conservative Party of Canada or by the CBC, and we never provided them with our products.

I also want to assure you that Molson Coors is a strictly non partisan company. We recognize the importance of civic duties and support and encourage people who get involved, but we do not support any political party over another.

I do hope that you will remain a faithful Molson drinker.

Again, thank you for your time and concern.

I hope they sue.

Update on Jason Kenney and His Party's Attack on Our Flag

Yesterday I posted on Jason Kenney and the Conservatives new ad campaign. I just watched the discussion on Power and Politics, and I have to admit this may have been their most outrageous attack ad yet.

To take a comment made 20 years ago, and try to use it to suggest that Michael Ignatieff is un-Canadian, is beyond belief. But to take first of all a national symbol, and secondly a national brand; and turn it into something so ridiculous is low even for them.

You can watch the video here. It's about 1/3 of the way in.

Mr. Ignatieff placed a phone call to John Matheson, a former Liberal Member of Parliament who had played a prominent role in adopting the red maple leaf as the Flag of Canada, and Mr. Matheson laughed it off.

Something most adults would do.

Will this latest petty stunt work? I doubt it. As one person on the panel stated; it will only make Ignatieff appear human. But it also makes you wonder if this is now the best they've got.

However, I did contact Molsons from their web page and left this message:

I am emailing to draw your attention to a negative ad campaign currently being conducted by the Conservative Party of Canada. Our maple leaf is an iconic symbol, and one that you have always worked hard to present in a positive way. I watch and share your 'Joe Canadian' video constantly, since it represents the very heart and soul of our country.

Now I know that in politics, things can get messy, but on a day when we are celebrating the anniversary of our flag, and cheering our athletes awash in red and white; one political party has chosen to violate our pride by producing beer labels and cartons, identical to your own branding; that include the image of a political opponent, and a 20 year old comment he made.

This was especially distressing, watching the anguish of a mother, as the flag draped coffin of her son returning from Afghanistan, became her symbol of our national pride.

Is this really how you want your company to be represented?

Gerry Nicholls Slams Harper for Abusing Our Tax Dollars?

I thought I was dreaming when I came across this video. Gerry Nicholls was Harper's VP when he ran the National Citizens Coalition. I guess he's realized that Harper is just in it for himself.

However, they are talking about 34 million dollars for these ads, but it would appear that it could actually be 56 million. This is absolutely wrong. Oh my gawd! I'm agreeing with Gerry Nicholls? Stop the presses!

Liberals add $22-million to partisan spending complaint
Globe and Mail
October 8, 2009
Daniel Leblanc

Ottawa — The Liberals said today they have uncovered even more federal spending on the promotion of the Conservative government's economic action plan, taking the advertising budget into the realm of illegality.

Previous news stories referred to $34-million in media buys to promote Ottawa's recession-fighting budget this year.

But at a news conference Thursday, the Liberals said spending by all departments has reached $56-million, in comparison to only $6.5-million on advertising in preparation of a potential outbreak of the H1N1 flu virus.

“The Conservatives are buying voters with their own money. Not only is that unethical, we believe it's against the law,” said Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay. “This spending spree on taxpayer-paid partisan advertising is unprecedented.

The Harper government is running roughshod over all of the rules established to prevent exactly this kind of abuse.”

In a letter to the Treasury Board, Ms. Hall Findlay said that federal advertising should not be used “for partisan benefit and it is the Treasury Board's job to ensure integrity and accountability with regard to all government-wide advertising.”

The Treasury Board has not yet responded to the letter.

The News of the Day is Not Torture But Desperation

To show just how desperate the Conservative Party or their supporters are to discredit Michael Ignatieff, their latest attempt was pretty weird stuff even for

them.

Someone sure went to a lot of work this time, but again it backfired, because the news of the day is not some revelation that Michael Ignatieff was into torture (which he's not), but the lengths that some people went to try to make it a story for the press gallery.

I know that Mr. Ignatieff is trying to take the high road, but now with the NDP also chiming in, he may have to call in his attorney. These statements are libelous given that he has never supported torture and has always said so emphatically.

I hardly think that Harvard would have asked him to head up their human rights department if it was so.

MacLeans

Kady O'Malley

August 17, 2009

UPDATED: From the ITQ Mailbag: The anti-Ignatieff campaign goes global — or maybe not.

How a shadowy party operative spent at least part of his or her summer vacation

For a moment or two there, it felt like a scene from His Girl Friday. There, amidst the stack of mail that had been piling up in her Hot Room cubby, was a genuine brown envelope. Stamped with a Royal Mail postmark and loaded up with £1 ninepence worth of British stamps, the possibilities seemed endless — at least, before she tore it open.

But the enclosed contents, alas, turned out to be a bit of an anticlimax: a copy of “No More Mister Nice Guy”, New Humanist editor Laurie Taylor’s 2005 article on the “acrimonious battle” between Michael Ignatieff — “once … [an] intellectual leader of the global human rights movement” — and “some of his closest friends” over what Taylor describes as “[his shared] vision of the US government’s vision of the violent and compulsory promotion of democracy … and the use of instruments, for example torture, which are apparently in need of revisionist treatment.”

Stop the presses? Not quite. Not only had ITQ been tipped off in advance to its imminent arrival by another reporter — the same package had been sent to every member of the press gallery — but, as indicated by the above link, the article in question is already available online, so it’s not as though her anonymous correspondent was providing her with previously unpublished — or even particularly hard to find — material.

At the same time, she couldn’t help wondering why whoever was behind the mailing would have expended so much time and effort — not to mention money — to print out and send off several hundred full colour copies of a four year old article — complete with helpful yellow highlighting of key passages — via transatlantic post.

It’s possible — likely, even — that there are at least a few Britons with misgivings about the one-time London dweller turned Canadian political leader. But if that was the case here, you’d expect them to include a name, or at least a contact number, so journalists sufficiently intrigued by the issues that the article raises would be able to call them up for an interview. Instead, though, the only identifying information is the return address that appears on the envelope:

Wood Lane

London

W12 7RJ

United Kingdom

Which, to save you the trouble of googling,

traces back to BBC headquarters, although at the moment, there’s no particular reason that is anything other than a sly reference to Ignatieff’s pre-political career as a television host.

As for who might behind it, although she maintains that

Republicans for Ignatieff is almost certainly the product of one of Ignatieff’s leftwardly-leaning critics, this seems far more likely to be a bit of mischief making from the other side of the political spectrum. In fact, she wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find out that the Conservative Party itself picked up the tab for printing and postage — and maybe even airfare for the lucky operative sent to London in search of a mailbox. What can she say — it just feels like a Tory trick to her, whereas R4I has a different style.

Regardless of the ultimate source, it’s clear that, for at least some of Ignatieff’s adversaries, the question of where he stands on torture is seen as one that has the potential to do considerable damage his credibility with Canadians, but – as yet – has not lived up to its promise, which could be due to a number of reasons: for whatever reason, it just doesn’t seem to have been able to embed itself in the public political consciousness as tightly as the constant undermining of Dion as a leader (which, let’s face it, turned out to have been far more effective than anyone predicted) or, alternatively, that it simply hasn’t yet garnered enough media coverage.

The latter possibility would explain why they would take such a circuitous route to reach the gallery, instead of simply putting out a press release – there’s a much better likelihood that a reporter will follow up on a classic brown envelope tip, even if every one of his or her colleagues received exactly the same one. Unfortunately for the sender, despite the fact that the mailing went out to the entire gallery, not one of the recipients seems to have bothered to cover it until now, probably because — as mentioned above — the article in question, a just-short-of-anodyne postmortem of an academic feud — doesn’t really add much to the discussion.

It’s not that we-the-media have unilaterally declared the debate over, and Ignatieff the victor — it’s more that both sides have made their respective cases, and it’s now up to the public — or at least, those who have followed the issue — to make up their minds for themselves.

From that perspective, then, it was a bit of a failure — a costly one, at that — but that’s why it’s smart to do a test run. At the same time, ITQ is – as she may have mentioned once or twice or a hundred times before – always interested in dissecting new lines of attack, regardless of the target or the source — or, as we seem to be seeing here, a new method of delivering the same old message. That’s why she decided to write about this latest gambit: the best way to ensure you don’t get lost in the smoke and mirrors, after all, is to flick on the lights.

UPDATE: Canadian Press is on the case, and gets a flat denial from the BBC as the possible source:

The British Broadcasting Corp., dismissed the address as a subterfuge, noting all BBC correspondence uses franked envelopes – not the postage stamps found on the anonymous mailout. “The BBC is a non-political organization so does not take a view on Canadian politics, so we would not comment further on this issue,” the BBC said by email.

Globe Politics has also posted pictures of the envelope and the insert(PDF).

UPDATED AGAIN: And we have an official denial from PMO spokesperson Dimitri Soudas:

Dmitri Soudas, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s press secretary, responded to a query to the party with a pointed warning for Ignatieff and his staff.

“I’d suggest that the Liberal party be cautious about making unsubstantiated claims,” Soudas said in an email. “The Conservative party or government did not send these letters about Mr. Ignatieff.”

Time will tell but I mean c'mon. We know that Dimitri Soudas would never tell a lie.

From the comments at the end of the article, this one was very good and sadly too true. So where are the adults?

So imagine staffer at the Little Shop of Tories sitting around trying to figure out how to continue their anti-Ignatieff campaign amidst increasing criticism of their dreadful tactics. So one of them says: "I know, we could send negative stuff from England, and no-one will know who's behind it!!"

At this point, were there adults in the room, the staffers would be told to forget it, go back to their desks and resume scanning media comment boards for anonymous talking point opportunities. But alas, there were no adults present, so the staffers put the plan in motion, and brown envelopes were sent to all media from a London post box.

So the question is why did it fail so miserably to generate any coverage? Well here's the possible reason: what attracts media to a story is newsworthiness PLUS exclusivity. This gambit offered reporters neither. The only interesting thing about this silly tactic is, as Kady points out, that it happened at all.

What could be a huge story here though is if an investigative reporter uncovered who was behind this latest trick. Now that would be an exclusive and certainly newsworthy.

I, Me, Stephen Harper, and Don Martin's Bad Hair Day

Continuing to break through the crap on the Ignatieff Me site, I see their first entry is a very brief column by Don Martin, that may have triggered this initiative.

It was kind of a catty piece, not the usual quality of Mr. Martin, so I even questioned for a moment, it's validity. Was he just having a bad hair day, or maybe an 'I'm losing my hair' day?' Or is he like some journalists, a little envious of Michael Ignatieff's career?

Ignatieff has covered many modern conflicts from the ground, reporting back to major news sources, while Martin is stuck writing opinion pieces for the likes of the National Post. (So, who's being catty now? Meow)

Actually, I usually enjoy reading Don Martin's columns, which though often attacking the left, will still make me smile and grimace at the same time. But he will also go after the Conservatives when they do something he doesn't like, and it was he who first broke the story of the 200 page manual that Stephen Harper and his caucus use to make sure that Parliament doesn't function, hoping to show Canadians that he needs a majority to get things done.

A recent poll suggests that Canadians agree with the majority idea. Just not for Harper and the Conservatives.

But now with the piece that may have started it all. Excerpts from an interview given to the press by Michael Ignatieff concerning the future of the government, that got Don's shorts in a twist. I will interject with an almost identical one between Stephen Harper and Evan Solomon of the CBC, soon after the 2004 election; discussing Harper's attempt to form a coalition with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton.

I, Michael Ignatieff, Am All About Me.
By Don M (I notice he only signed it Don M. I wouldn't have used my full name either. Will their be a senate seat in his future?)
May 26, 2009

There’s something singularly irritating about the Liberal party leader. Whenever he opens his mouth, out comes ‘I’ after ‘I’. If not ‘I’, he’s full of talk about ‘me’ or ‘my’. It’s often harder to find a party-friendly ‘we’ in his statements than a “Wii” electronic game in Future Shop.

Consider the typical statement delivered by Michael Ignatieff on Monday as he held court with reporters, preening and pretending he holds the fate of this parliament in his hands. This conveniently overlooks the minority math that requires both the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois to bring down the Conservative government, but “I, Michael” doesn’t let that enter the equation.

Ignatieff: “The difficulty I'm having is I'm trying to make Parliament work, right? I'm here to get improved EI for Canadians, period. And the difficulty I've got at the moment is every time we put a proposal forward, we get it systematically misdescribed, I will - that's polite language. And so we have a problem but we're still trying to make Parliament work for Canadians and that's my position. It's been my position since January.”

Now Harper in a similar situation:

Evan Solomon: "Parliament opens on Monday, and in a sense you're the most powerful Opposition Leader in a generation and people want to know how you're going to use your power. So the fundamental question is: under what circumstances would you call a vote of non-confidence?"

Stephen Harper: "First of all, I can't forget my first responsibility - which is to be the Leader of the Opposition and that's to provide an alternative government. We've always said we'll support the government when they do things that we can accept, which you know the health accord. I supported the health accord, I called for the government to end the pay increase, they're going to do that, I'll support that, but in general my obligation is to provide an Opposition. It's the government's obligation to look really to the third parties to get the support to govern.

The question asked of both men uses the words 'can you' so a natural response would be 'I'.

Question to Liberal Leader: Can you foresee introducing a confidence motion on this during an Opposition Day?

Ignatieff: “I can certainly foresee it. I use your word. I can foresee it.”

Question: In the near future? (a continuation of the question above)

Ignatieff: “I can foresee it and I can foresee it in the near future. But I repeat the word foresee. Let me say it again so it's perfectly clear: I am trying to make Parliament work for Canadians, number one. Number two, I am trying to get EI improved for all Canadians. That's what I'm trying to do.”

Back to Don Martin: This scrum exchange clocks in at 168 words. There are 16 references to himself and only four references to ‘we’ as in his party. In other words, almost 10 per cent of the word count are devoted to Iggy referring to Iggy. Gosh. No self-absorbed attitude here at all.

It must have been a slow news day because Martin's entire piece makes him sound like a moron, and I know for a fact that he is not. I suppose if Michael Ignatieff had answered the reporter when he asked 'can you?' with 'we', Martin would have called him an idiot because he wasn't asked what they (we) were going to do but what he (I) was going to do.

Shame on you Don. I thought you were above the petty.

I, Me, Stephen Harper. It's All About Me

So the 'Ignatieff Me' site has been up and running for a little while now, with very few new items added. Most of what you find there has been cut and pasted from the Conservative website. Same old, same old.

'He wants to raise your taxes ... out of the country for 34 years .... Just Visiting'.

Like we didn't hear enough of that from the TV ads and the taxpayer funded literature that they have been distributing. (Of course Kingston's own 'also ran', Brian Abrams had to have Mike Wallace and Blake Richards do his dirty work for him. I guess he's hoping to get elected so he can start abusing our tax money all by himself).

I suspect that the Harper supporters love the site, but I doubt it would change any one's mind about how to vote. In fact, if anything, it's juvenile appearance would probably turn you off the Party who feels the need to stoop to this kind of nonsense.

The only thing semi-original is a mock magazine cover and the immediate spoken words of Mr. Ignatieff, about 9 seconds from a C-Span interview, discussing Michael Igantieff's book, 'The Lesser Evil'. We don't get to hear the rest of the interview, but I'm not sure how that means he can't be our Prime Minister. He was teaching at Harvard at the time, so would have felt some kinship.

With the focus on those nine seconds and a handful of words, the message has been distorted. Ignatieff's book dealt with a post 9/11 world, and how America would have to find a balance between knee jerk revenge and justified force.

"We need calm, reasoned advice on how to balance the interests of security and liberty. We have it now in a remarkable book. Michael Ignatieff brings history, philosophy, law, and democratic morality to bear on the problem. That may sound daunting, but Ignatieff is such a forceful writer that it is a fascinating book. . . . Reading him is a bit like having a conversation with an eminently reasonable but convinced and powerfully convincing man."--Anthony Lewis, New York Review of Books

Instead the Conservatives have reduced an important message to some kind of hidden love of America, over his love for Canada. After 9/11 everyone was American for awhile. That was until George Bush made even Americans ashamed of being American.

Ironically, this interview was given about the same time that Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day were writing to American newspapers indicating that they were opposed to Chretien 's decision to keep us out of the Iraq War. And Jason Kenney: '... echoed his Canadian Alliance party's view that Canada should do more to support its Anglosphere allies. "In the last couple of weeks, for the first time I was not proud to be a Canadian."'

Now if this was used in a Conservative style attack ad, we would cut out Kenney's "not proud to be a Canadian." and repeat it over and over and over and over again. Then take the line from Harper and Day's letter: "But we will not be with the Canadian government" and do the same. I guess they forgot that as the Opposition Party they were part of the Canadian Government. So were they waging war on their own?

Michael Ignatieff's Policies are Under His Hat Not His Sweater

During the 2008 election campaign, not wishing to get thrown off his carefully manipulated course; Stephen Harper did not unveil his Party's platform until the final week before going to the polls. This gave us Jack Layton's great line; 'Where's your platform, under your sweater?'

The sweater reference was of course to Harper's attempt at looking like an average Joe, which instead just made him look uncomfortable.

Well, Michael Ignatieff does wear sweaters, though not to impress anyone; and he has also been apprehensive about unveiling his platform, but for very different reasons I suspect.

We know that the Conservative have been launching poisonous ads for months and have even created a website to personally attack Mr. Ignatieff; so if he is hesitant about giving them more fodder, I can understand. We know they're just waiting to pounce, and have their spin machine oiled up and ready to go. (Our own local 'also ran', Brian Abrams; even has elected Conservative MPs, Mike Wallace and Blake Richards, distributing taxpayer funded propaganda.)

We also know that they will cherry pick the document, twisting intentions and fabricating points to fit their profile of the man.

But will this hurt the Liberal leader, if he doesn't answer the media with regards to the direction he will be heading? Time will tell. For now, the fact that Ignatieff has been able to increase the funding for his party substantially; reveals that people have confidence in his message, even if it is being doled in small measures.

His intelligence, education and life experiences have shown us that he is a man of substance, and the flurry of activity around the Conservative war room, indicates that they know it too. The smell of desperation is permeating from the walls. And you thought it was pollution.

Ignatieff paying a price for his silence
Aug 03, 2009
Toronto Star
Carol Goar

According to meteorologist Dave Phillips, Ottawa took the prize for the soggiest July in the country. The nation's capital was chilly, damp and uninviting.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he took advantage of the bad weather to "sit at home and think thoughts." He us (sic) promising Canadians an ambitious policy agenda in the fall.

That would be a nice change. (waiting for an election to lay his cards on the table?)

Since Ignatieff took command in December, it has been hard to figure out what the Liberals stand for, how they would govern the country or whether they have workable alternatives.

Ignatieff may believe – or his strategists may have convinced him – that it is tactically smart to withhold his platform until an election is imminent. (Harper held his platform until the last week of the 2008 election campaign)

But the former Harvard professor is paying a price. His party is stalled in the polls. Voters have doubts about his ability to manage the economy. He is acquiring a reputation as a leader who is more comfortable deliberating than providing a sense of direction.

Liberal MPs are also paying a price. Most have avoided the limelight since Parliament closed, not knowing what they're supposed to say. This makes it look as if they have few ideas or concerns.

It would be interesting to hear what Ignatieff has come up with after spending half the summer wrestling with the nation's challenges.

What, for example, are his guiding principles?

The Liberal leader has issued a steady stream of press releases, accusing the government of neglecting the unemployed, failing to protect Canadian-developed technology, pulling the plug on Canadian isotope production, ignoring the concerns of rural Canadians and dragging its feet on global warming.

But this running commentary is headline-driven. It indicates nothing about Ignatieff's priorities or values. (read his books and you'll know his values)

Is there any Conservative policy he finds so wrong he would be compelled to oppose it, whatever the risk?

The Liberal leader has threatened to vote non-confidence in the government's recession-fighting strategy and its refusal to extend jobless benefits to the millions of Canadians who don't qualify for coverage. But both times he has backed off.

He has said so little about most other issues – national security, fiscal policy, resource development, city building, health care, poverty, aboriginal affairs, the environment or Canada-U.S. relations – that it is hard to tell where he would draw the line.

Does he have a plan to tackle climate change?

Former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, for all his shortcomings, was at least clear on this question. He staked his career on the conviction that a carbon tax was necessary to curb energy consumption.

Ignatieff has jettisoned his predecessor's unpopular policy (which he himself advocated two years ago) but has not offered Canadians a replacement.

Has he determined which Liberal traditions he will uphold and which belong to a bygone era?

The confusion over last month's sale of Nortel Networks' wireless business to Ericsson, a Swedish telecom giant, suggests not.

Industry critic Marc Garneau said he saw no reason for Ottawa to intervene. "If we want to play in the big leagues, we have to play by international rules."

A day later, Ignatieff sent out a different message, demanding that the government review the transaction, given the "unique and strategic nature" of the Canadian technology pioneer's assets. He sounded like an economic nationalist – but one with sluggish reflexes.

Has Ignatieff thought about how to restructure Ontario's battered manufacturing sector, restore civility to Parliament, make democracy matter to disengaged voters or marshal the energy and optimism of young Canadians?

He hasn't said so. He apparently feels no urgency.

With luck, it will be sunny in Ottawa this month. Ignatieff needs to get out of his study. The Liberals need to show some life.

I don't entirely disagree with Ms Goar. We've got to get the message out, even if it means that the Conservatives will almost instantly twist the facts. Canadians are getting tired of their attack ads anyway, so we must now offer an alternative. Talk to me Michael.

Conservative MP Mike Wallace Caught Cheating with Lisa Raitt

I hadn't heard of Mike Wallace until yesterday. I don't mean the American broadcaster, but the Conservative MP for Burlington; so you can imagine my surprise when I received an attack ad in the mail from him. I live in Kingston.

I initially assumed that it came from our local Conservative 'also ran', Brian Abrams, but then of course that would mean he'd have to pay for it himself. By using an elected Member of Parliament, it didn't cost him a dime.

It's the Canadian taxpayer who gets stuck with the bill.

I guess I shouldn't have been that shocked. After learning that Brian Abrams had hired a American Republican pollster to run his next campaign, I actually expected a visit from Karl Rove. I just didn't expect it so soon.

Angry as hell I looked into Mr. Wallace's past and found that this wasn't the first time he'd cheated taxpayers to get free advertising for Conservative candidates. When Lisa Raitt was challenging Garth Turner for his seat, this Burlington MP mailed 29,000 flyers to Turner's constituents. 29,000 campaign style flyers that WE PAID FOR. She won and look how that turned out.

I'm getting so tired of this.

Canada is now running the largest deficit in our history, and we are in last place for climate change initiatives. But what is our government doing? Telling us why we shouldn't vote for the other guy.

Maybe it's time for the people of Burlington to find out what their MP has been up to, because clearly he's got too much time on his hands.

Harper's Poison Pill Had Horrible Side Effects

For a man who is supposed to be so religious, you'd think he might wonder if God is trying to tell him something.

Like maybe his venomous attack ads are not very Christian like.

Rather than responding to Michael Ignatieff's demands that Jim Flaherty be held accountable for gross mismanagement of the economy, he pulled out his best Richard Nixon, and said 'I'd love to fire the Leader of the Opposition, but with the tapes I've got on him...".

Soon after, tapes were discovered of Lisa Raitt calling the Isotope shortage sexy and dissing her fellow MPs; John Baird using profanity agaisnt the City of Toronto and Pierre Poilievre issuing a racist remark.

Now, at the G8 summit of all places, Harper once again went on the attack over an apparent quote by Mr. Ignatieff, only to discover the quote didn't belong to Ignatieff at all, so Harper was left with egg on his face.

Why doesn't he quit while he's ahead? Instead of telling us how long the Liberal leader has been out of the country, he might want to start protecting this country he is so determined to sell off; and instead of raising his creds by bashing his opponents, why not do something that will earn our respect? So far ... nada!

PMO apologizes after Harper slams Ignatieff
By Peter O'Neil,
Europe Correspondent,
Canwest News Service
July 10, 2009

L'AQUILA, Italy — Prime Minister Stephen Harper launched a blistering attack here Friday against Michael Ignatieff, although moments later his office withdrew the allegation and apologized to the Liberal leader.

Harper, whose party has questioned his rival's commitment to Canada because the Liberal leader lived three decades overseas, said Ignatieff should withdraw any suggestion that Canada could be excluded from a new body to replace the G8.

"I think it's an irresponsible suggestion, and Mr. Ignatieff is supposed to be a Canadian."But his spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, quickly met with reporters to say he had misinformed the prime minister on the matter. Soudas said the remark attributed to Ignatieff was actually made by an academic, and he apologized for the error.

Harper, during a lengthy news conference at the conclusion of the three-day G8 summit, also denounced a report in a New Brunswick newspaper earlier this week saying he pocketed the Holy Communion host during the funeral at a Catholic church for former governor general Romeo LeBlanc.

"First of all, as a Christian I have never refused communion when offered to me. That's actually pretty important to me," he said.

"Somebody running an unsubstantiated story that I would stick communion bread in my pocket is really absurd (too bad for Harper we actually that on tape, but at least he didn't lie this time and say he ate it, since realizing to do so would be against Church law) and I think it's a real, frankly, a low point. This is a low moment in journalism, whoever is responsible for this. It's just a terrible story and a ridiculous story and not based on anything as near as I can tell."

He also expressed bemused admiration for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who remains publicly popular despite numerous business and sex scandals.

"Like Prime Minister Berlusconi, I have many weaknesses, but they are not the same."

Boy Harper sure has a great communications guy with him. Lies to get him out of the Communion debacle and goofs to make him look like an idiot.

But of course, once Harper gets riled up, and his mean streatk is tickled, there's no stoppong him, so he jsut tore into everyone.

Harper lambastes budget officer, apologizes to Ignatieff
'Like (Berlusconi), I have many weaknesses, but they are not the same': Harper
By Peter O'Neil,
Europe Correspondent,
Canwest News Service
July 10, 2009

L'AQUILA, Italy — Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Italy on Friday he won't follow the "dumb" advice from Parliament's budget officer by raising taxes to balance Canada's post-recession books.

Harper's attack on Kevin Page was one of two partisan flights of fury during an otherwise statesmanlike closing to the three-day G8 summit here, which focused on climate change, the economic crisis, food security and Iran.

Harper also attacked Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's commitment to Canada's best interests, a move that resulted in an embarrassing about-face when a Tory aide realized Harper's attack was based on false information.

Speaking about Canada's economy, the prime minister tersely dismissed Page's gloomy report this week, which said the government had underestimated the impact of the recession on government finances and the economy.

In addition to predicting higher-than-expected job losses, Page also said the Canadian government is now running a "structural deficit" and, therefore, won't automatically go back to budget surpluses when the economy recovers.

So "significant discretionary actions" will be necessary to get Canada's books back in the black, Page said.

But on Friday, Harper ridiculed the suggestion that the government would need to slash spending or boost taxes to balance its budget when the economy recovers.

"We will not start raising taxes and cutting programs. That's a very dumb policy and, to the extent, frankly, that the parliamentary budget officer suggested it, it's a dumb position," he said. (How articulate. Dumb means you can't speak, and is slang used mostly by kids)

"It will not be the position of our government. We will not be raising the GST or any other tax during or after the recession."

Harper, whose party has questioned in TV ads Ignatieff's commitment to Canada because the Liberal leader lived three decades overseas, accused Ignatieff of publicly suggesting the G8 be replaced by a body that doesn't include Canada.

"I think it's an irresponsible suggestion, and Mr. Ignatieff is supposed to be a Canadian."

But Harper quickly withdrew the remark after learning he had been misinformed by one of his media aides, Dimitri Soudas.

"During my press conference, I attacked Mr. Ignatieff for some things he had allegedly said about Canada and the G8," Harper said. "I learned shortly after the press conference this was not a quotation of Mr. Ignatieff. I regret the error and I apologize to Mr. Ignatieff for this error."

Soudas, who also apologized, said the remark attributed to Ignatieff was actually made by an academic. The apologies did little to blunt Liberal anger.

"This is not simply a mistake by one of Mr. Harper's staffers . . . but, rather, is reflective of the character of this prime minister who made the choice to continue his pattern of slinging mud at his opponents, this time on an international stage," said Bob Rae, the Grits' foreign affairs critic.

He also confirmed the government will review a tourism support program that funded the Toronto gay pride parade, and jokingly expressed admiration for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who remains publicly popular, despite numerous business and sex scandals. (Most Italians would have no problems with sex scandals. Desicrating a Communion wafer though, now that's another matter.)

"Like Prime Minister Berlusconi, I have many weaknesses, but they are not the same."

Tory Caucus Supports Child Trafficking in Shocking Tape

Gotcha didn't I? However, that headline is no more convoluted than the one in the

Karl Rove style pamphlets distributed by the Conservatives in Bloc ridings recently.

After voting against a hurriedly drafted human trafficking bill, presented by Stockwell Day's pet, Joy Smith, because they didn't want to take power away from judges, they have been accused of supporting pedophiles.

However, when you listen to the Lisa Raitt tapes bashing Joy Smith, and the resulting comments made by the Tory caucus, you can see clearly that it was a political move that carried with it a lot of hard feelings.

Kind of like kids saying that their sibling got a bigger piece of cake than them, Smith's colleagues were clearly jealous and saw this as favouritism.

And what did they say about the importance of the bill? Absolutely nothing. So who's supporting child trafficking now?

"Raitt said Smith had made a bad move by introducing a private member's bill to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for human trafficking of children."Speaking of career-limiting moves, I’m in shock that that MP, Joy Smith, brought forward private member’s legislation on human trafficking," Raitt says on the tape.

"She’s on Canada AM. And the reason being is that there’s no way any of us should be introducing anything around justice issues or finance issues right now.

You just can’t touch those two things."It was widely known among Conservatives that bills dealing with justice or finance issues were to be introduced by cabinet only, as justice and the economy are the pillars of this government.

At least one Conservative however suggested Raitt's comments about Smith reflected what a lot of people in the caucus thought then.

The fact that the Conservatives can treat such a sensitive subject in so callous a manner as using it for attack ads, shows they don't care so much about children, as they do about their careers.

Just When You Thought the Conservatives Couldn't Sink Any Lower

Did you think that the Conservatives had hit bottom when they had to cherry pick tapes of Michael Ignatieff from his days as a journalist, to run attack ads? Well guess again.

They have proven that they're capable of anything with their new attacks, this time aimed at the Bloc Québécois.

Because the Bloc, as Harper knew they would, voted against the hurriedly drafted human trafficking bill, presented by Stockwell Day's pet, Joy Smith, they are now being accused of supporting pedophiles.

The opposition of Gilles Duceppe and his caucus, was simply that they don't want to take power away from judges, and know that mandatory minimum sentences will do nothing to prevent the crime.

That doesn't stop Harper though. Once his evil juices start flowing, look out.

Of course this isn't the first time the Reformers have made these kind of allegations. Stockwell Day cost taxpayers almost a million dollars when he wrongfully accused a lawyer and school board trustee of promoting child porn, and Harper tried a similar attack on Paul Martin.

This reminds me of the days of the inquisition, when charges of infanticide were used to justify having someone burned at the stake so they could steal their stuff.

Tory ad suggests Bloc protecting child traffickers rather than children
July 3, 2009
CBC News

Bloc Québécois MPs are outraged over Tory attack ads suggesting the separatist party is soft on pedophiles and child traffickers.

The ads, which were part of pamphlet sent to homes in Bloc ridings, show a shadowy man leading a child from a playground with a banner below declaring in French, "Your Bloc MP voted against the protection of children."

"They try to mention that we want to protect criminals, and it's totally untrue," said Bloc MP Michel Guimond.

"They are crazy. They think they will have support of Quebecers with those type of pamphlets."

The Conservatives argue that they are just pointing out the Bloc was the only party to vote against a law that would impose minimum sentences in child trafficking cases.

"I think we can all draw our conclusions from that when the three political parties in Canada had a position, and the Bloc has a contrary position," Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Canon said Friday in Gatineau.

"Canadians can, and Quebecers can, determine whether or not they're soft on crime."

But Guimond told the Globe and Mail that his party voted against the bill because it prevents judges from exercising their discretion.

“Minimum sentences have no dissuasive effect,” he said.

In the 2004 election, the Tories used a similar tactic, suggesting that then Liberal leader Paul Martin supported pornography because he was not in favour of Conservative proposals to toughen child pornography legislation. Some observers believe that move backfired and instead sparked a backlash against the Tories.

Liberal party strategist Scott Reid said the Conservatives are using the latest ad to identify potential supporters in Quebec.

"This prime minister is trying to put forward the most intense, overt conservative message possible in the province of Quebec because if people respond to that message, then he knows for sure that those are hardcore Conservative voters," Reid said.

Reaction appeared to be mixed among some Quebec voters.

"I have no problem with statements that are really bold, if you're trying to get attention," said one voter.

"Seems like a desperate move, actually," said another.

I agree with the latter comment. However, people from Quebec are smarter than this. If Harper took a minute and actually spoke with them, he would know that. Of course, the fact that we're paying for this propaganda is beyond belief.

CBC Got it Right. Harper Got it Wrong

The Conservatives have been spending $750,000.00 a week to try to annihilate Michael Ignatieff in the same way they did Stephane Dion. It was money well wasted.

As this country is in crisis on so many fronts, for the Canadian public to be assaulted in such a callous manner is both abhorrent and condescending.

How stupid does Stephen Harper think we are?

The entire crux of the ads is his implication that if you achieve greatness while outside Canada you are not a real Canadian.

Apparently he's never been to Canada's Walk of Fame or he would know that most of the names there are of people no longer living in this country, or who spent the bulk of their lives and professional careers outside of Canada. It doesn't make us any less proud of these individuals.

What would the movie industry had been like if Louis B. Mayer from Saint John, New Brunswick or London Ontario born Jack Warner, had decided not to leave? Or Toronto born Mary Pickford who became America's sweetheart? James Cameron, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg? Jim Carrey, Dan Ackroyd, Keanu Reeves, Kim Catrell ... the list is enormous.

If this was going to be his ace up the sleeve, he's apparently not playing with a full deck. This is not who Canadians are.

And then of course, there's his mining of all of Michael Ignatieff's award winning books, Ivy League schools' lectures and Gemini winning documentary. Taking comments out of context and cherry picking viewpoints when Ignatieff WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

Two recent articles gave me hope that these ugly attack ads might discontinue. The first was learning that CBC refused to air them and the second a poll verifying that the Tories were on the wrong track.


CBC refuses to air Tories' anti-Ignatieff ads
By Glen McGregor,
Ottawa Citizen
June 4, 2009

OTTAWA — The Conservative party was unable to get television commercials aimed at Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because the attack ads violated the network's long-standing ban on political advertising.

The Tories approached CBC officials before the launch of the "Michael Ignatieff: just visiting" campaign and were told that an internal policy prevented the network from accepting political ads outside of times of elections.

As are other broadcasters, CBC is required to provide a share of its airtime to political parties during the writ period, but can set its own rules outside it.

"We'll only accept political advertising like that when there is an election campaign on," CBC spokesman Jeff Keay said. "We have generally pretty strict guidelines."

The policy has been in place for many years and was reviewed a few years ago, Keay said.

It is unusual for political parties to advertise before or after an election, but the Tories, flush with cash, effectively used a series of attack ads against former Liberal leader Stephane Dion before the 2008 campaign officially began.

The "just visiting" ads running on other networks attempt to portray Ignatieff as an opportunist who spent most of his adult life outside of Canada. The spots accuse him of having no plan for the economy and highlight a 1994 television interview in which he referred to the United States as "your country just as much as it is mine."

One Conservative source, speaking on background, said the party thought it was odd CBC would turn down its advertising dollars at a time when the network was struggling under financial pressures. CBC has had to reduce staff and programming as advertising revenues have plunged.

No other network refused to carry the Ignatieff ads, the source said. The TV spots have received heavy airplay in recent weeks, and the cost of the campaign is estimated in the millions of dollars.

Parties are free to spend as much as they like on advertising outside of election periods, but a Liberal senator last week introduced a bill to curtail pre-writ ads. Senator Dennis Dawson's bill would amend the Elections Act to require parties to count all advertising toward their cap on election spending.

Canadian small-c conservatives have long fumed over what they consider to be unfair restrictions on political advertising. Stephen Harper, when he led the National Citizens Coalition, went to court to challenge rules limiting third-party political advertising in a case indexed as "Harper versus Canada." (fitting title. Harper vs Canada. Kind of describes how he governs)

More recently, the Tories have battled with Elections Canada in court over the agency's refusal to reimburse candidates for the costs of radio and television ads from the 2006 federal election.

Negative Ads Not Helping Conservatives
Net News Ledger
Northwestern, Ontario
June 6, 2009

Thunder Bay, ON -- Often in politics, political parties re-use the same tactics over and over. The Liberals used the same tactics against the Conservatives until they were defeated in 2006. Now it appears that the attack ads the Conservatives are using against Michael Ignatieff are demonstrating that the Conservatives are going to the same well once too often.

Nik Nanos, of Nanos Research states, "Properly crafted and validated by the political target, negative ads can be a powerful political tool".

Research by Nanos on the impact of the recent Conservative ads attacking Michael Ignatieff indicates that in the short term they have not had a significant impact. A majority of Canadians consider the ads ineffective and believe that they reflect poorly on the Conservatives.

Nanos adds, "Of note, the ads have had a marginally negative impact on the impression of Michael Ignatieff primarily among committed Conservative and NDP voters.

However, the attack ads have had less of an impact in Atlantic Canada and in battleground Quebec. "Factoring the latest ballot numbers and the last six waves of Nanos tracking since the last election, the Conservative attack ads have not arrested the incremental trend which currently favours the Liberals.

The conclusion is that the ads have had no discernible short term impact in favour of the Conservatives. The long term negative impact on Ignatieff remains uncertain and merits further tracking over time. This may well be the first salvo in a narrative the Conservatives are hoping to explore".

Here is the information on the latest Nanos Poll: Methodology: Polling between May 26 and June 1, 2009. (Random Telephone Survey of 1,001 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). A survey of 1,001 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. For 626 respondents aware of the ad, the margin of accuracy is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Effectiveness of Ads Question: Would you say the ads were effective, somewhat effective, somewhat ineffective or ineffective? [Recall Only]
Effective 20%
Somewhat effective 15%
Somewhat ineffective 8%
Ineffective 53%
Unsure 4%

Considering that the Tories' base (mostly from the West) is about 35%, yet only 20% believe the ads were effective should also give Harper pause. The ads won't change their mind about voting Conservative, but do reveal that he may have to change his tactics even for those who claim to like him.

Impact of Ads on Impression of Ignatieff Question: Did the advertisement leave you with a positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or negative impression of Michael Ignatieff? [Recall only]
Positive 14%
Somewhat positive 3%
Neutral 45%
Somewhat negative 12%
Negative 22%
Unsure 4%

Impact of Ads on Impression of Conservative Party Question: Did the advertisement leave you with a positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or negative impression of the Conservatives who paid for the ad? [Recall only]
Positive 7%
Somewhat positive 3%
Neutral 20%
Somewhat negative 12%
Negative 53%
Unsure 6%

The Conservatives have opened the door for Michael Ignatieff to show Canadians what he has accomplished outside of the country. His is still unknown, while Harper is very well known, so it will be difficult to once again try to sell himself to us. I'm not buying.

Will New Senate Bill Finally Put an End to Pre-election Attack Ads?

Stephen Harper was the first Canadian Prime Minister to ever run attack ads outside of an election campaign. He did it with Stephane Dion, managing to turn Canadians away from the Liberals last time around, but it also turned people off politics altogether.

If we really want our country to be a democracy, we need to make the election process more democratic. Many Conservative bloggers claim that it is in their best interest to encourage voters to stay home. But is it in ours?

Now a bill is before senate that may end the practice of such ads, by having their costs included in election campaign advertising limit, if one takes place within three months. I like the idea very much.

Liberal bill aims to end pre-election ad binges
May. 26 2009
The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The Liberals have introduced a bill in the Senate aimed at stopping political parties from going on pre-election advertising binges.

Senator Dennis Dawson's bill - which is aimed at the cash-rich Tories - comes amid renewed election speculation on Parliament Hill.

Currently, parties can spend as much as they like on advertising in the months leading up to an election call.

Such pre-writ advertising is not considered part of a party's election expenses, which are strictly limited once an election campaign is under way.

Dawson's bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to classify all advertising in the three months prior to an election call as an election expense.

Dawson says his bill closes a loophole that has allowed parties with overflowing war chests to circumvent election spending limits.

The Liberal Party can rebound from these ads, but can voters? When will we say enough is enough and just give up? If that's what Harper is hoping for to stay in power, it's just one more reason why he has to go.