OK, so for most of last year, the Conservatives had us chuckling with some witty and irreverent Web ads. Now here's Liberal blogger BC'er In Toronto, scoring one for the red team:
OK, so for most of last year, the Conservatives had us chuckling with some witty and irreverent Web ads. Now here's Liberal blogger BC'er In Toronto, scoring one for the red team:
Distortion – as usual from the Liberals.
During yesterday's QP Ralph Goodale huffed and puffed:
“Mr. Speaker, I have checked the record and earlier today in Question Period the Prime Minister said that we would not bring in a new budget until he 'needs to raise taxes.'”
That's what BCer latched on to by showing the same clip of PM Harper saying “we need to raise taxes.”
Here's what the PM actually said:
“What we are not going to do is, every two or three months, come up with another economic policy, another budget, until we need to raise taxes. Our deficits are affordable, but they will remain short-term.”
It was a complex sentence, so here it is in simpler language for Mr. Goodale and his fans to understand.
What we [Conservatives] are NOT going to do is:
1. come up with another economic policy every 2 or 3 months
2. come up with another budget every 2 or 3 months
Doing the above would result in having to raise taxes. And we [Conservatives] are NOT going to do that.
BCer has left out some salient points, don't you think? And I thought Liberals didn't DO attack ads.
“… an attack ad is an advertisement whose message is meant as an attack against another candidate or political party. Attack ads often form part of negative campaigning or smear campaigns, and in large or well-financed campaigns, may be disseminated via mass media. …” (Wiki)
Shorter Gaby: It's not fair!!
But in all seriousness, yes Gaby, I'm well aware of the context. My partial point in the way I cut this video, and I think Goodale's point as well, is to highlight that the Conservatives are more than happy to ignore context when it suits their purposes, so maybe they'd like a taste of their own medicine.
For example, they continue to go around saying Ignatieff said he wants to raise taxes. Go and check the context on his remarks and you'll see what he was actually saying is very different than what the Conservatives will have you believe. They used many out of context snippets in ads to smear Stephane Dion when he was leader. Megatons of money is one that comes to mind. They used that clip to indicate, surprise, Stephane wanted to raise taxes. Actually, in the full clip he was talking about all the money that would be created by the green economy.
All those times I don't recall the Conservatives being too concerned about context. I guess they can dish it out, but they can't take it. So my point, by using Harper's clip in the same way, was to say two can play at that game, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, you guys can get hit by these tactics too so maybe let's smarten up and stick to the issues.
Which includes, for me, how Harper intends to get us out of this $50 billion deficit, and how Flaherty could possibly have sucked so bad with his projections.
Beg to differ, BCer.
Nowhere did I say “It’s not fair!” That’s your interpretation, and the wrong one at that. What I did suggest is that the Liberals say one thing and do another, i.e. say they don’t DO attack ads.
Re: your “ad.”
I simply quoted Goodale’s words, showing he either:
1. completely misunderstood the PM’s complex sentence
or
2. wilfully distorted it.
You compounded Goodale’s incomprehension and/or distortion by repeating the clip of the PM saying “we need to raise taxes.” That is clearly misrepresentation.
If you’ve ever bothered to read other comments of mine, I’ve clearly stated I’d rather see ads concentrating on policies. But as has been amply shown in past campaigns, attack ads are here to stay, whether I like them or not.
The media bears some responsibility in helping attack ads become, if not acceptable, the norm. During the 2008 election campaign, PM Harper tried to project a different image, to use a different tack, so he donned a sweater vest in some ads. The media and the opposition were merciless in mocking him, calling him “sweater guy.” Even his plane was called Sweater VestAir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmNNzPL5PvY&feature=related
Think back to the 2006 election. This series of Conservative ads were criticized for not having enough of a “professional” look, for being hokey, for the “actors” seeming stiff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR19UNnW20E
The recent “Just visiting” ads have received more attention than they would have garnered on their own because of all the “tut-tutting” op-eds about them.
Let’s have a look at the “Just visiting” ads. What have they done? They have simply pointed out some facts that many people may not know about Ignatieff.
• Has Ignatieff been absent from the country for three decades +? Yes.
• Did he often refer to himself as “American” (not that there’s anything wrong with being American!)? Yes.
• Did he actually say that he would return to Harvard if his political career didn’t pan out? Yes.
• Did he actually say if he were PM he might have to raise taxes? Yes.
All of those facts are quite different from what your video presented as “fact.” The PM did NOT say he intended to raise taxes, no matter how you cut it, slice it, or dice it.
BTW, my name is Gabby (as in yak-a-lot). You perhaps have been watching “Desperate Housewives” – that character’s name is Gaby.
True… you never said 'unfair' but you did suggest that distortion was somehow a Liberal standard?
This from a supporter of the Conservatives? Really?!
Harper-crite and the Leper-con Flaherty continue to make it up as they go along. This is the same group that tried to re-teach civics to all Canadians with their “coalitions aren't democratic” and then taking the ball and going home. Doesn't matter that I'm ok with Dion NOT being PM – the system is a Westminster based parliamentary one… and having the confidence of the house IS democratic. I guess you'd agree with the Harper-crite that a 40% plurality is a divine ruling command? Perhaps the idea that 40% of the electorate determining what happens for the other 60% sits well?
Not with me.
What have the Cons done? They're heading down the same path, talking about civility and then stabbing at their foes. Harper charges that Iggy is in it for himself. …and you, PM SH? You're putting up with the limelight and taking the ball and going home for whom? After clawing his way to the top, the stink of deperation pours from poor Stevie.
…wonder if he'll have a policy this time, or if he'll wait until after the election to truly reveal what desperate means he will employ!
I see you have a difficulty with staying on topic. Revisiting the coalition? Not worth my time in this instance. Maybe at a more convenient time.
My belief the Liberals regularly use distortions is an opinion borne out by numerous examples, one of them being Ralph Goodale's misrepresentation of PM Harper's answer during QP. That was a main feature of the “ad” developed by BCer.
You disagree with my POV? No skin off my back. It's a free country.