Stephen Harper 1 – Justin Trudeau 0 After Spin from First Conservative Attack Ad by Jamie Gilcig

Stephen Harper 1 – Justin Trudeau 0  After Spin from First Conservative Attack Ad by Jamie Gilcig

harper beltCFN – Well we all knew an attack ad would be coming and it landed quickly.

Ever hear of a “slap pass”?   It’s a hockey term where it looks like you’re taking a shot, but in fact it’s a pass.   While media are crowing about how lame this attack ad is, and it is, and how well Justin Trudeau is looking after it’s first appearance; in reality it’s all over the media.  It’s all over the net; and heck, not only am I even writing about it, but have it for viewing above.

That’s 2 points for Mr. Harper.

The Karl Rove of Canada once was teaching me pearls of poison and he said; “Gilcig, never be caught near the splash.”   And then he muttered something about how hard it was to find a good piece of steak in Ottawa except for Hy’s…

His point being that sometimes if you’re too too too OBVIOUS you don’t have the same impact and are caught.

Was this video as good as Mr. Harper can or will dish?  Nope.   But the carnival music in the background and core message points were there planted like little Monsanto GMO seeds waiting to harvest as indestructible and toxic as can be after adding some Round Up, sunshine, and acid filled rain down the road.

The question now is how does JT respond and will anyone even remember Thomas Mulcair come election time?

What do you think Canada?  You can post your comments below.

Cornwall Free News

33 Responses to "Stephen Harper 1 – Justin Trudeau 0 After Spin from First Conservative Attack Ad by Jamie Gilcig"

  1. James Luciani   April 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM

    Justin will concentrate on what Canadians need,attack adds such as this will backfire, as they did on Chretien…The NDP had there swan song, and most MPP’s will go back to bartending, or school.. thankfully without a pension.
    Our Prime Minister is now over in England saying good bye to amost disliked Prime Minister of all UK time, with Brian, i did not know what was in the package Muldoon…Hang on.. was super Guy at the airport waving and clapping???
    Lets face it folks… Attack ads will not work.. we are fed up of negative politics and fear mongering
    Justin will do just fine….
    Just watch him…..

  2. Diddlyscwatt   April 16, 2013 at 8:52 PM

    Brilliant.

  3. admin   April 17, 2013 at 3:36 AM

    James good ads, attack or not work; even bad ads have some impact. No ads…well.

  4. Richard tremblay   April 17, 2013 at 4:25 AM

    I agree jaimie. The attack ads have been very helpful for the conservatives in the past. THey really worked on dion and ignatieff. The conservatives know that the liberals have no money and cant match them ad for ad, that is not fair. There should be a limit on what parties can spend on ads like that, how is that not considered some sort of a campaign promotion thing I don’t know. I am far from being a conservative but they really made him look like a fool. Justin needs to fight back maybe promote how is a family man, pictures with his kids, what he will do different as PM. Because right now, justin looks less of a leader then stéphane dion.

  5. admin   April 17, 2013 at 4:43 AM

    Actually Richard I’ll disagree with you on a few points. First off Justin could win a majority. He has a lot of the ingredients for winning an election in our day and age. He’s smart, very politically savvy, and plays well on the net and television.

    Where he can and probably will get in trouble is when he speaks as the Liberals really have no solid ground to stand on right now. So yes, a strong, well done, targeted attack ad will have a huge impact on him. Using a sports analogy; you can’t score the goal if you’re playing defense and for Justin Trudeau to have any good fortune he will have to beat Stephen Harper. As many Canadians and backbenchers are disgruntled with Mr. Harper the next election will not be a gimme.

  6. Hailey Hrown   April 17, 2013 at 4:58 AM

    I he made these statements why is defining them public ally an attack ad?

    I really do not trust this guy nor his back room. Justin will be a vote spoiler between the growing NDP and the conservatives.

    If we look back at Trudeau history it is in part of why Canada has not grown to its full potential. But that has to come from a business perspective and one of social values and with an open mind.
    The liberal practice is one of socialism, they give give give but cannot find the funds to cover.

    Then we need to look at ourselves or some of our political beliefs, the NDP or Canada’s socialist party. Why would we vote for a party which most other countries are trying to eliminate?
    The most common was the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

  7. Neutral   April 17, 2013 at 12:52 PM

    Hope the People of Canada realize that THEY paid for this unnecessary Ad #taxpayersmoney #unclassy #threatened

  8. Richard tremblay   April 17, 2013 at 2:11 PM

    nope we didn’t pay, it comes from donations to the party. It doesn’t come from the taxpayer it comes from supporters. Blind supporters from the west.

  9. Eric   April 17, 2013 at 2:21 PM

    Neutral, I believe the ad was paid for by the supporters/contributors of the party, not all taxpayers.

    Richard tremblay, was it the ads or Dion & Iggy themselves? They both proposed carbon taxes. More tax on products means we pay more with the product and tax on the item because of a higher price.

  10. Richard tremblay   April 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM

    Eric, probably a mixture of both. But they were put in an unfair playing field. One party has millions to burn the others are poor or drowning in debt.

  11. peter   April 17, 2013 at 3:45 PM

    trembly,

    so, like trudeau, westerners, you know the provinces ,keeping quebec’s head above water, are blind?

    quebec should be so blind. Oh, yeah, they spend on things like O’ffice de la screw les Anglais.

    Just checking, because trudeau blamed the westerners for all of Canada’s ills, yet Saskatchewan, Alberta are carring the country economically and paying the lion’s share of forced bilingualism, which is both unecessary and unwanted

  12. Neutral   April 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

    Well Richard, does he really have to spend Donation money on a unnecessary and unclass ad? and forgive me if I’m wrong but dont “Supporters & Contributors” and as you say “Blind Supporters” donate out of the pockets that they work hard for in hopes that Mr.Harper use it in a due-diligence way? …. i for one see no benefit in this rather than he feels threatened. and I feel he should be

  13. Highlander   April 17, 2013 at 4:00 PM

    Eric
    April 17, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    “Richard tremblay, was it the ads or Dion & Iggy themselves? They both proposed carbon taxes. More tax on products means we pay more with the product and tax on the item because of a higher price.”

    Oh could you imagine the bureaucratic mess that would create a whole new government department -BIGGER GOVERNMENT once again at the cost of the tax payer.
    Yet the biggest polluters(countries) pay no carbon tax and the consumer pays with the end product being more expensive.

    The Ontario liberals are selling our wind and solar Energy at a cheaper rate then they pay to the producers -a Large net loss to the consumer.
    Don’t get me wrong I am a true environmentalist but i am as well a fiscal conservative and this energy plan is a lose lose situation for both .

    Richard tremblay
    April 17, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    “Eric, probably a mixture of both. But they were put in an unfair playing field. One party has millions to burn the others are poor or drowning in debt.”

    Well I guess the parties follow their true Ideologies -fiscally conservative the other liberal fiscally.

    I know many of you have a very short term memory with Canadian politics and may not remember this:

    When the NDP/Block /Liberals attempted to form government because they disagreed with the budget ?

    Well in reality all three parties were suffering financially and within that budget was a tapered reduction over 4 years of the $1.75 per vote subsidy to zero that the parties receive.

    So in effect it was the average Canadian taxpayer and not the party that payed for the separatist to disrupt and attempt to separate the country.

    THINK OF THIS PEOPLE -We pay a party to disrupt and attempt to separate the country,and the NDP and Liberals wanted to form government with them.

    This will come to haunt them.

  14. Richard tremblay   April 17, 2013 at 6:36 PM

    Howard if you’ll recall stephen harper signed a very similar deal when he was leader of the opposition and paul martin was the pm. You’re talking about two different parties describing provincial parties and federal ones. Furthermore, fiscally conservative ? Where ? Adding 150 billion to the debt ? Wasting 35 billion on planes that we didn’t get ? 50 billion on the canadian action plan that had big conservative checks handed out to conservative ridings. One thing the liberals did that really did them in is change the financial law. Jean chretien was so pissed off and paul martin that he put in the 1.75 per vote and a hefty limit on donations.

  15. Richard tremblay   April 17, 2013 at 6:43 PM

    peter, there are other issues other then language. The trudeau attack ad really help the liver foundation. Ever since the ad I heard their donations tripled. What trudeau should be doing now is go back to that organization and ask them to be their spokesman.

  16. James Luciani   April 17, 2013 at 6:46 PM

    Well sir, i stand corrected.. attacks adds do work!! The National Post has just reported that donations have surged to over $10,000 since the Tory attack adds hit.
    The Liver foundation being the winner…Given time, the liberals will be seeing a large surge in donations, and i’m sure that Justin Trudeau, will use that $$ for more worthwile advertising,, ie the state of the economy.. unemployment insurance changes.. foriegn workers… gee the list is long…..
    Meanwhile low income workers and taxpayers can be happy that Harper and crew enjoyed some nice fish and chips on his 1 day jaunt to England at our expense.
    I expect that super Guy is busy getting ready for another mailing, coming to a mail box near you soon.

  17. peter   April 17, 2013 at 7:16 PM

    trembly,

    He should be their spokesman and get out of politics, since he is woefully unqualified. And, yes ,trembly, language is the premire issue for me. As the majority ( English ) in canada, the Englsih should have complete and total control over the levers of power, as DEMOCRACY DICTATES. It is the very definition of democracy.
    Just like in quebec, right trembly ????

  18. justwrong   April 17, 2013 at 8:33 PM

    If you are a Conservative supporter, you should be ashamed of the smear campaign on Justin Trudeau.We are teaching our children that bullying is wrong and has to be stopped, yet we have a political party that seems to think that bullying is ok.What kind of message are we sending to our children, who see these ads on tv…so wrong…

  19. admin   April 18, 2013 at 5:32 AM

    Question justwrong. Is it the Conservatives that are wrong or society that supports with their votes the party using the attack ad?

  20. Eric   April 18, 2013 at 6:35 AM

    justwrong, hope you are saying the liberal attack ads from 2006 are wrong too.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68toCAiPIjo
    http://stevejanke.com/archives/248593.php

  21. justwrong   April 18, 2013 at 6:35 AM

    Admin there is no question who is wrong here. The Conservatives are using funds that only hard core supporters donate, and not necessarily society as a whole who voted them in.My point is on BULLYING, and any type of BULLYING is wrong..Do you not agree?

  22. admin   April 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM

    Justwrong I don’t classify aggressive behaviour as Bullying. Sorry. Being PM isn’t about being the nicest – it’s about being the best for the job. That’s not an endorsement of Mr. Harper or his government, nor the tactic of attack ads.

  23. justwrong   April 18, 2013 at 9:21 AM

    Bullying is not strictly a behaviour of the young and not all bullying involves fighting. Bullying, in all forms, is an attempt to steal power from someone else thus empowering the bully. There is no single reason why some people attempt to take advantage of others, but those who intimidate and manipulate often use aggressive tactics

  24. Stan Stalk   April 18, 2013 at 9:59 AM

    Who is Thomas Mulcair?

  25. peter   April 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

    @ justwrong

    Do you not understand that politics is a BLOOD SPORT

    To compare this to what high schoolers ( teen agers) do in hallways and school yards, in puberty , is a far cry from PROFESSIONSL politicians in their mid- to late years, where they understand the rules of the game and how it is played.

    “bullying” in schools, is a far different animal. You are comparing apples to oranges.

    The best way to stop any BULLY is to fight fire with fire because for the most part bullies are at their core COWARDS. Every other attempt at stopping bullying ,to my knowledge has FAILED.

    So, treat people they way they treat you, will send a clear message that you won’t take anything from them ,without giving them back a receipt.

  26. PJ Robertson   April 18, 2013 at 8:26 PM

    justwrong is justright!

    Here’s why:

    In my book, abusive behaviour is tantamount to bullying, and vice versa.

    How does one characterize abusive behaviour? How, for example, do we characterize the Harper Conservative party’s calling the late Jack Layton “Taliban Jack”? How do we characterize their calling anyone who did not support the government’s decision to buy F-35 fighter jets “unpatriotic”? How do we view their muzzling of scientists and their own backbench MPs? How do we see their forcing taxpaying Canadian citizens to submit a 10-page form to a government agency, if they wish to protest a plan to lay an oil-bearing pipeline through their backyard, otherwise they must remain silent?

    In every case, I call it abusive behaviour—abusive of democracy and individual human rights. Especially reprehensible in a government, because a government by definition has power over its citizens.

    So the question is: What kind of message does such behaviour send to society in general, above all to the impressionable young?

    Mr. Harper called the bullying of Rheteah Parsons a “crime.” I agree. And my question for Mr. Harper is: Does it ever cross your mind to wonder about the impact your government’s behaviour has on the people it is supposed to serve? Can you bring yourself to see that bullying—what you call a crime—when done by government might send a message that bullying is OK in schools?

    As for the instant attack ads on the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, they are cheap (Mr. Trudeau was performing for a charity, for goodness sake), nasty, and tell us more about the producers than their target.

  27. Highlander   April 19, 2013 at 6:15 AM

    PJ Robertson
    April 18, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    “I call it abusive behaviour—abusive of democracy and individual human rights. Especially reprehensible in a government, because a government by definition has power over its citizens.”

    Yes Harper has allowed abusive democracy and loss of human rights -when is he going to step in Quebec and stop bill 14 as this is a blatant abuse of democracy and human rights of a minority.

    It remains reprehensible that our federal government allows abuses to a minority in Quebec with bill 101 and 14 ,the government would fight this abroad most times through diplomatic measures, but allows this on their own turf.

    “How do we characterize their calling anyone who did not support the government’s decision to buy F-35 fighter jets “unpatriotic”? ”

    How about justintime’s for the medias composure in parliament yelling out load Fu&* you ,but he didn’t say fuddle duddle did he?

    This is the leader you want ?

    Parliament is to remain a respectful institution ,composure is an absolute must, its like trying to control 308 kids who bicker .

    Oh PJ our parliamentary system permits almost dictatorship powers ,in fact Chretien was known in the united states as the friendly dictator as he had absolute control.

    That is also how “official bilingualism” was pushed through government ,this has a direct impact daily on its citizens ,yet we the people never had a say in it.

    WHY NOT HAVE LET THE PEOPLE VOTE ON THIS.You are concerned about Jets I am concerned about human rights and the impact of legislated language on them. The jets do not effect millions of Canadians on their day too day lives.

  28. PJ Robertson   April 19, 2013 at 9:16 AM

    @Highlander

    “Harper has allowed abusive democracy and loss of human rights”

    Agree, though instead of “allowed” I’d say encouraged.

    “You are concerned about Jets ”

    Wrong: my entire post is about abusive behaviour, above all abusing human rights.

    “[JT] yelling out Fu&* you”

    Is using the F word in the heat of the moment, or as an expression of righteous indignation, abusive? If so, by the logic of abusive behaviour = bullying = a crime, we are all criminals.

    “[O]ur parliamentary system permits almost dicatorship powers”

    Perhaps so, but each leader, including Harper, has the option of saying No, this is not right; we must fix this. Instead, Harper capitalizes on the system at every opportunity. Effectively silencing Canadian citizens who want to express concerns about oil pipelines coming through their backyards is just the latest example of his abuse of democracy.

  29. PJ Robertson   April 19, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    Heard today on CBC’s call-in show “Ontario Today” on attack ads: Who would you rather see taking their shirt off—Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau?

  30. stellabystarlight   April 20, 2013 at 4:30 PM

    peter wrote: the Englsih should have complete and total control over the levers of power, as DEMOCRACY DICTATES.

    Unbelievable…but not surprising. That is a challenging statement which seperates and disrupts a peaceful nation.

    Harper has done his time…….time to go. We need an honest, humanistic and transparent PM.

    Attack ads worked for Obama because his opponent could not relate to the little guy nor was Romney able to reach out to them. Obama certianly didn’t win because of his negative ads.

    Harper is facing a much different opponent. Harper and his followers may be in for the surprise of their life. Harper has been sneaky in hiis dealings and has not been forthright with the Canadian people.

  31. Cory Cameron   April 20, 2013 at 7:52 PM

    PJ, you wrote:

    “Heard today on CBC’s call-in show “Ontario Today” on attack ads: Who would you rather see taking their shirt off—Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau?”

    Neither! I would like to see Laurie Doucet take her shirt off!

    😉

  32. Fox   May 4, 2013 at 1:50 AM

    Tremblay, it is amzaing how young people become so dooped an meznerized by a play boy like Justin T. He has nothing to offer Canada, but his charm, The only wayhe might make leadership is with the shirtail of his dadies. Oh yes He looks worse than Dion!
    God forbid we should have a playboy Just run this country! Clueless about economics and management.
    NO MATCH FOR STEPHEN HAPRPER!!!!!!

  33. Fox   May 4, 2013 at 1:54 AM

    “Harper is facing a much different opponent. Harper and his followers may be in for the surprise of their life. Harper has been sneaky in hiis dealings and has not been forthright with the Canadian people.”
    YOU’RE A LIAR! HE IS THE MOST HONEST FORTHRIGHT POLITICIAN CNADA HAS EVER HAD, AS WAS JOHN DIEFENBAKER, YOU {MODERATED}!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.