Why I won't gloat

Recall that when the Tory attacks ad first came out, I gave them a negative review; "Instead of focusing on simplistic, nationalistic nonsense," I wrote, "the Tories should explain why a Liberal government will be bad government."

A few weeks after I wrote that the Tories experienced a minor upward blip in the polls, leading many Conservative Partisans to crow that the "truth ads" were working and that I was therefore all wet.

Well a couple of recent polls show the Tories are now losing ground. Does this mean the attack ads are a flop? Does this mean I am justified in saying "Hey, I told you so!"?

As tempting as it would be to do that, I will refrain from any gloating. After all, it takes time for these sort of ads to sink in, meaning it's still too early to pass judgement.

The fact is a good attack ad's purpose isn't necessarily short term gain. Their aim is often to sow seeds of doubt in the voters' mind; make them wary of a candidate's weaknesses.

For instance, the Tories used attack ads to suggest former Liberal leader Stephane Dion was weak and indecisive; hence whenever he displayed weakness or indecisiveness it reinforced the Tory message.

Over time voters came to buy it.

That's what a good attack will do. But I still don't think the Tory anti-Ignatieff ads are good. They are zeroing in on the wrong message , a populist, anti-American slant that just won't stick.

Oh they might work if Ignatieff is a complete idiot and he somehow manages to reinforce the Tory message, IE he starts going around whistling the Star Bangled Banner and eating caviar.

But it's likely he won't do that.

It's more likely he will spend the summer going to barbecues where he will wax eloquently about how much he loves Canada. Then Canadians won't see him as "cosmopolitan".

By the times the leaves fall in the Autumn the Tory ads will be long forgotten.

That's why the Conservative brain-trust better come up with a plan B.

Farewell to Tiger Stadium

Here's a picture that makes me heartsick.

It's all that remains of that once glorious baseball temple better known as Tiger Stadium.

The stadium was undergoing a slow demolition for months, but some groups were fighting hard to save this remaining wedge from the wrecking ball so that it could be turned into a baseball museum.

Unfortunately, however, the heartless bastards at the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation recently voted to tear it down too.

It's just as well, I guess; the Old Girl should probably be put out of her misery.

H/T Paul Tuns

Update: A judge has issued a restraining order on the Tiger Stadium demolition.

Guilt vs Responsibility

This business of Prime Minister Stephen Harper not accepting the resignation of Natural Resource Minister Lisa Raitt for losing "secret" documents brings two things to mind.

First, what is it with Cabinet Ministers and secret documents?! First it's Maxime Bernier forgetting documents and now Raitt (or her unlucky aide.)

Other countries don't need to send spies here, all they need do is invite a Cabinet Minister over for dinner and wait and see which state secrets are left behind.

The other thing about this mini-scandal, is that it suggests to me Harper is softening his management style.

I say that because it just isn't like the Harper I know to let Raitt off the hook the way he did.

Back in his days at the National Citizens Coalition, when I worked with him, he never tolerated it when an NCC staffer tried to excuse failure by blaming it on some factor outside his or her control.

I remember one time in particular Harper was letting into an NCC staffer who screwed up on something (It wasn't me, thank God) and the poor guy tried to defend himself by saying "You can't blame me for this; it wasn't my fault.

To which Stephen replied, "I didn't say it was your fault; I said it was your responsibility."

SQE has new blog

The people over at the Society for Quality Education have an important mandate: make our education system better.

To do this they offer parents and teachers excellent learning tools; they also promote the idea of giving parents more choice when it comes to education.

The reason I am mentioning all this, is that the SQE has a brand spanking new blog.

Check it out.

May the votes be with you

Now here's a positive ad.

Yankee go home

Every time one of those anti-Ignatieff Tory attack ads pops up on TV (which it seems is every five seconds) I cringe.

It’s not just the embarrassingly juvenile look of the ads which bothers me, it’s more what they say about the sad intellectual state of today’s Conservative Party.

Bereft of ideas and vision and principle, the Conservatives, desperate to hang onto power, have chosen to play the most obnoxious card in Canadian politics: anti-Americanism.

“Be warned Canada” the Tory ads imply, “Michael Ignatieff once worked and lived in the evil United States. He’s not really one of us. We even have him on tape saying `It’s your country [the US] just as much as it is mine’.”

Oh the horror!

And Prime Minister Stephen Harper is warning that he has other damaging tapes of Ignatieff.

Perhaps he has a clip of the Liberal leader eating apple pie on the fourth of July.

Appealing to anti-American sentiment, of course, is nothing new. But in the last few decades pandering to ugly the side of Canadian nationalism in this way was usually the preserve of the NDP and Liberals.

Now bashing Americans is non-partisan.

Oh and just in case the anti-Americanism of the Tory TV ads is too subtle somebody dispatched this clown to pound the message home.

But I guess we better get used to this style of politics. With its massive deficits and corporate bailouts, the Conservatives can no longer represent themselves as a pro-free market party.

Maybe they should call themselves the Petty Populist Party.

Attack ad on Reagan flopped

All this talk about the anti-Ignatieff ads, has me thinking about attack ads of the past.

Here's one that went after Ronald Reagan way back in 1980.

It didn't work.

Politics of attack ads

I was kind of surprised when Prime Minister Stephen Harper got up in the House of Commons recently and taunted the Liberals about having "tapes" to use against Michael Ignatieff.

The implication, of course, was that he had lots of clips of Ignatieff saying politically embarrassing things which would form the basis of election attack ads.

What surprises me is not that the Tories have such tapes. That's normal. All political parties scour the media seeking ammo to use against their opponents. Journalists do it too. When I worked at the National Citizens Coalition reporters would call me up to see if I had any video of Harper giving speeches. (We didn't.)

What does surprise me, however, is that Harper would associate himself in anyway with attack ads. It was an unusual move.

After all, since these sort of "negative" ads have a stigma most political leaders don't want to be linked to them. That's why they let the "war room" and the spin doctors handle all that stuff.

Or better yet, they seek Third Party allies to run attack ads on their behalf. The famous "Swift Boat" ads attacking Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004, for instance, were not party ads.

The Republicans enjoyed the benefit of these effective ads without suffering any backlash.

Harper, on the other hand, has now linked himself publically to his party's attack ads -- which ironically might provide a tape for Liberal attack ads.

Election Prediction

Check out my latest posting over at the Women's Post.

I make a fearless prediction -- the next election will be nasty.

Owning GM

According to this Globe and Mail headline "Canadian taxpayers" will soon own shares in General Motors.

I wonder if I can sell mine?

Canadian leadership

What a fine state Parliament is in these days.

We have a Leader of the Opposition who is "just visiting" and a Prime Minister who is "just spending."

Liberals want more gag laws

Well the federal Liberals are once again declaring war on free election speech.

Recall in 2000 it was Prime Minister Jean Chretien who imposed the infamous election gag law on Canadians -- the law which makes it a crime for citizens to spend their own money to express their own views during federal election.

That was bad enough.

Now Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff wants to extend that gag law so that it also covers the period three months prior to the election.

This is sad but not surprising.

Once you buy into the logic that it's OK to squelch free expression you start heading down a slippery slope; you can always justify further restrictions.

First the gag law was only supposed to be in force during elections; now the Liberals also want to gag Canadians before elections.

Before you know it, it will be illegal for citizens to run political ads at any time.

Checking the President

It looks like Americans might want to slow down the Obama Express a bit.

A recent poll from McLaughlin and Associates indicates a majority of Americans say they would vote for a Republican for Congress to be a check and balance on President Obama.

I didn't say it

“Mr. Harper may have left his balls out West when it comes to taking a principled stand against bailing out this industry like he used believe in.”

That's Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation expressing his disappointment over Prime Minister Harper's decision to use taxpayer cash to top up GM pensions.

Attack ads 101

It's funny because it's true.

Obama Man Can

My friend Rondi Adamson posted this on Facebook and I just had to share.

If only the Tories could be this clever when going after Michael Ignatieff.

The Politics of Star Trek

Check out my latest posting at the Women's Post.

I explain how the new Star Trek movie could impact on Canadian politics.

American attitudes on terrorism

Given the recent news about terror arrests in New York and Iran’s missile launch, McLaughlin and Associates have released an interesting poll on American attitudes towards terrorism.

According to its results Americans are still plenty worried.

Here are some highlights:

* Nine in ten voters (91%) say that Iran supplying a nuclear umbrella for terrorists is a serious threat to the United States.

* Seven in ten voters (71%) say the United States will not be safe with a nuclear Iran

* Eight in ten voters (80%) say it is likely that Iran will launch a missile attack on Israel

* Three in four voters (77%) say it is likely that Iran will use the threat of nuclear attack to provide a shield for Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists to attack Israel

* The majority of voters approves of taking several specific actions to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran

Read the whole thing here.

How to make government more honest

Here's my lastest posting over at the Women's Post. I look at the age old tale of corruption and government.

How to run a campaign in one easy video

Before embarking on their campaign attacking Liberal Michael Ignatieff, the Tories should have watched this video.

It teaches you how to really run a campaign.