Monday, April 15, 2013

Are The New Anti-Trudeau Ads Effective?

How the heck should I know?  You can see 'em here and make up your own mind.  A couple of things; Trudeau was stripping down and wearing the stash for charity.  And the Quebec quote was a paraphrase of his dad.  Interesting too that they are first being launched down East, obviously in context of the upcoming Labrador byelection where the Liberals are way, way up at the moment.  If this doesn't change significantly, they can be spun as failures.  And, as for the "turning the other cheek" stuff, well, presumably Justin won't do his own rhetorical knifings a la the early Stephen Harper.  He will stay positive, and let others draw blood.  That would be my advice, anyway.

PS.  A Trudeau insider responds:





22 comments:

sharonapple88 said...

Attacking the attack ads: Conservatives against cancer research.

You know, I thought this was silly until I saw the following....

Conservative response as per Glen McGregor,

CPC spokes Fred DeLorey: "We believe Justin Trudeau’s eagerness to perform a strip-tease, regardless of the venue or putative cause..." 1/2

Glen McGregor ‏@glen_mcgregor 26m

"says something about his judgement."--CPC spokes Fred DeLorey on JT attack ad that uses footage from liver foundation event 2/2

I know someone dying of liver cancer. You know what.... screw these guys.

JF said...

CPC mock Trudeau raising money for cancer research. #NoClass

sharonapple88 said...

Donate to the Canadian Liver Foundation:

http://www.liver.ca/support-liver-foundation/donate/

JF said...

As an aside I had an old friend from High-School who just died from liver cancer a few weeks ago. So yeah, echo that screw those guys.

sharonapple88 said...

Honestly, someone does something silly for charity... and we're suppose to question their judgement. Seriously, the world would be a better place if more people would go out of their way for charity.

Michael said...

So it is okay stripping for charity? What else is it acceptable to strip for as long as it is for a good cause? Was his mere presence not enough of a boost for this worthy cause, it required the removal of his clothing to motivate some people to donate? Or do we we subscribe to the notion "whatever it takes"?

Yeah, everyone has a cancer story. My mother died of liver cancer, which metatasized into her colon. She was gone in two short weeks after being diagnosed as she was ill for a long time, but wouldn't come to terms with that enough to seek treatment. You know something, she would found have found Trudeau's repeated antics, including this one instance, contemptible. Two sides to that coin if you flip it.

JF said...

Michael, he just took his outer-shirt off to *gasp* reveal a sleevless shirt.

You're entitled to your opinion but I think attacking someone via their efforts to raise money for cancer research to be completely reprehensible.

Michael said...

And the notion that people will only open their wallets wider is for someone to show a little skin, even a "sleeveless shirt" is.........contemptible. Not his presence, or his words, or even his name were enough to get people to pony up more. No no, he is even more superficial than that. You call pointing that out an attack on someone's efforts on behalf of a noble cause, however, if don't think that for one second that grinding whatever grist you say the mill should get will play out with everyone who had or has a stake in it.

sharonapple88 said...

Michael, he just took his outer-shirt off to *gasp* reveal a sleevless shirt.

What, are we stuck in Victorian times? I think I'm having an attack of the vapours. Loosen my corset before I faint.

Seriously, I didn't know politicians had anything underneath their suit jackets.

And the notion that people will only open their wallets wider is for someone to show a little skin, even a "sleeveless shirt" is.........contemptible.

Yeah, people like Laureen Harper, who was there should be ashamed of themselves for encouraging such behaviour.

If anyone really thinks he did this to get people hot and bothered and not for a laugh should really watch the whole thing over again. And I guess avoid the clip of Bob Rae skinny dipping with Rick Mercer.

But besides growing a mustache, getting involved in a boxing match, participating in a wheelchair rally, and splitting his damn pants in a scrum machine for prostate cancer... he does charity talks. So yes, he gets people to give without having to take his damn shirt off.

sharonapple88 said...

Honestly, find the non-charity related things and run with that Conservatives.

There's a picture out there of Trudeau surrendering to the troops from the Empire (Star Wars). You're telling me you can't do anything with that?

double nickel said...

Haha! The cons laid a wet smelly fart, and now the harperbots are trying to pretend it doesn't stink. This is day 1 folks, more Con humiliation to follow. Happy days indeed!

Michael said...

LOL yeah so? Mrs. Harper was there because she supports cancer research; it wasn't predicated on the notion that it justifies Trudeau taking his shirt off when she didn't know beforehand that would happen.

Like I said, his name, his alleged charm, his presence, his support for this important cause was clearly not enough; it required more HIM - at least in his superficial boy-mind.

Scotian said...

*SIGH*

I remember when context used to actually matter to people when they did up negative ads (not just attack ads on character but even *gasp* on policy differences too) and not just cut and paste whatever from wherever regardless of original context/meaning. What I find most offensive about this ad is it's utter vacuousness in nature, I mean really, the CPC had good reason to believe JT was going to win for more than long enough to come up with something better than this, Lord and Lady I could come up with something better than this against JT going after inexperience than this if I spent a few hours at it!!! The fact that they used footage from a charity event s a basis to characterize his competence as a leader not only shows bad judgment but bad taste as well. I mean really, of all the ways you could try to show JT's inexperience and unsuitability (in their eyes, me I don't have a problem with him there, what matters most for a good political leader IMHO is someone with charisma, character, general ideals and ideas, the ability to listen to the public and formulate good policy from it and most important recruit and lead those best qualified in their respective areas to enact such, and on that I see a lot of potential in JT) this was what they thought was the best starting point?!? It is not only horrible, I would also argue it is weak and far too obvious for what it is, and makes the CPC look desperate, especially since they launched it less than24 hours from when JT won the leadership race.

The thing that really surprises me is how ineffective an ad this appears to be for someone like JT. The CPC had a bit of a problem here because unlike both Ignatief and Dion most Canadians already have formed some opinions about JT from his life's moments from the boxing match to his brother's death and his father's funeral, the CPC is working against not a blank slate this time but an image already in the minds of the public. Indeed, how he comported himself with the death's of both his brother and then his father left some very powerful residual imagery in the public awareness of JT, so to be effective against him attack ads need to be more than simply a throw anything at the wall and hope it sticks approach, which is what this feels a lot like to me. Going after his youth and relative inexperience is the obvious approach, but has been shown in many different political contexts in the western world including in Canada that can backfire against you, especially if you are a sitting government of long standing which the Harper regime now is. I think against a true unknown this might have had some potential for impact, but against JT who has already shown a serious, sober, responsible and comported side to Canadians at times of serious emotional consequence for him and for the nation, well against that I see these ads as not only ineffective but potentially seriously backfiring on them.

That they used a charity in this way to do it is only the icing on that particular cake for its potential backfiring, as well as illustrating once again that the Harper CPC knows no limits, no shame, and no respect when it comes to doing what it wants to whomever it wants however it wants, the very definition of overweening hubris, arrogance, and entitlement, far more than any prior government federally that I've ever seen or read about in this nation's history. Not that this surprises me, I did after all see this coming way back when after all...it really sucks having been Cassandra.

wilson said...

What about the other non-profit organizations Trudeau charged a huge FEE for his participation?

His fee for this strip tease was free publicity (leadership race/polls).
Proof... first time Mrs Harper's name was dropped as having been there too.



bigcitylib said...

Wilson. You are back, and still an idiot. Welcome.

double nickel said...

Shorter wilson: blah blah blah.

Brian Busby said...

Really, shouldn't we all just be grateful that Mr Harper has never taken off his sweater vest for charity?

And let's have some sympathy for poor Mrs Harper - Michael informs that she had no idea a male torso might be bared.

Yes, might be bared.

I hear the pun. It was not intended.

double nickel said...

Mr. Busby wins the internet today! Well done sir.

Holly Stick said...

Photos of Justin and Laureen at the event: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/29/what-a-girl-wants-with-justin-trudeau-laureen-harper-and-a-drag-queen/

Michael, every time Trudeau strips his shirt off, he gains votes. I might be tempted myself, but first I want to see Mulcair's action.

deb Scott said...

the attack ads are effective if people dont delve in a little deeper, and find the true context. Good thing media is coming thru clarifying this.
but the attack ads are really effective for making the Cons look stupid and mean, and Im sure we will see many more of them.

Sumo said...

This ad was the biggest mistake since they made fun of Chretien's facial affliction. They made a mess in their pants yesterday and the public turns against them. We need more of their meanness, their incompetenmce,their lies, and their small mindedness. No one with an IQ over 40 will buy their crap this time. I think it is great that they look like the school yard bully that we all despised.

JF said...

@Sumo

As much as I'd like to believe that no one will buy what they're selling I wanted to believe it last time as well and people did buy it. They cannot let it go unanswered... Leave nothing to chance.