New Conservative Ads
So the Conservatives have released a series of new ads with the theme that "Stephane Dion is not a leader". It didn't take long for these ads to become the "hot topic" in the blogging and political news world.
Rather than re-hash the debate between Conservatives and Liberals about the substance of the ads, I want only to comment on one aspect of the issue: the Liberals' response to the ads.
It seems that the universal response - by Ignatieff, Scott Reid, Ralph Goodale etc. - is to state that the ads are evidence that the Harper government is "running scared", or that Harper is "scared of Dion". I feel like I've read a variation of this phrase a dozen times in the last 24 hours.
What is the point of this statement? A response to a political attack ad should either: A) refute the substance of the ad or the statements made therein (defensive play); or, B) counter-attack with some other messaging (offensive play). I don't see how this business about Harper being scared accomplishes either of these things, or really anything at all other than to serve as a token response. Are the Liberals suggesting that taking your political opponent seriously is an undesirable quality in a Prime Minister? Or that Canadians shouldn't vote for someone who does so?
I suppose that in the world of political insiders there might be the perception that you can score a few bonus points for intimidating your opponent. Some Liberals might take comfort in the idea that Harper is genuinely afraid of their leader. But, declaring to the world that you've one-upped the other guy because he's afraid of you is not how you win elections. Furthermore, it doesn't offer one smidgen of a reason for anyone to vote for you.
I'm sure there is plenty the Liberals could have said to either defend against the Conservative ads, or counter-attack against Harper; however, they chose to offer a response that accomplishes nothing more than to make party stalwarts feel better because their opponent might be taking them seriously - something they should have assumed anyway. It is simply bad messaging.
Rather than re-hash the debate between Conservatives and Liberals about the substance of the ads, I want only to comment on one aspect of the issue: the Liberals' response to the ads.
It seems that the universal response - by Ignatieff, Scott Reid, Ralph Goodale etc. - is to state that the ads are evidence that the Harper government is "running scared", or that Harper is "scared of Dion". I feel like I've read a variation of this phrase a dozen times in the last 24 hours.
What is the point of this statement? A response to a political attack ad should either: A) refute the substance of the ad or the statements made therein (defensive play); or, B) counter-attack with some other messaging (offensive play). I don't see how this business about Harper being scared accomplishes either of these things, or really anything at all other than to serve as a token response. Are the Liberals suggesting that taking your political opponent seriously is an undesirable quality in a Prime Minister? Or that Canadians shouldn't vote for someone who does so?
I suppose that in the world of political insiders there might be the perception that you can score a few bonus points for intimidating your opponent. Some Liberals might take comfort in the idea that Harper is genuinely afraid of their leader. But, declaring to the world that you've one-upped the other guy because he's afraid of you is not how you win elections. Furthermore, it doesn't offer one smidgen of a reason for anyone to vote for you.
I'm sure there is plenty the Liberals could have said to either defend against the Conservative ads, or counter-attack against Harper; however, they chose to offer a response that accomplishes nothing more than to make party stalwarts feel better because their opponent might be taking them seriously - something they should have assumed anyway. It is simply bad messaging.
posted by Brad Nicpon at
1/29/2007 04:39:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home