23

NDP herald Ontario tour with Harper attack ads

Double-barrelled online offensive targets Harper’s Conservatives


 
Thomas Mulcair, Stephen Harper, Elizabeth May, Stephen Trudeau.  NO Credit.

Thomas Mulcair, Stephen Harper, Elizabeth May, Stephen Trudeau. NO Credit.

OTTAWA — The federal NDP is going on a pre-election offensive aimed at demonstrating it’s the party best positioned to defeat Stephen Harper’s Conservatives in the looming Oct. 19 election.

It’s starting this week with the electoral equivalent of an aerial bombardment — two new, pugnacious online ads detailing what New Democrats dub the record of corruption and mismanagement under Harper.

The paid ads are being targeted through social media at voters in ridings in Ontario and across the West that the NDP believes it can wrest away from the Conservatives.

And the party intends to follow up with a ground assault next week, sending Leader Tom Mulcair on an eight-day tour of some of the most fertile of those ridings in the crucial battleground of Ontario.

The tour is expected to include ridings in the Greater Toronto Area, southwestern Ontario and the northern Ontario riding of Kenora, where former provincial NDP leader Howard Hampton is taking on Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford.

The double-barrelled offensive is aimed at building on the party’s breakthrough success in the 2011 election by targeting some of the 106 ridings where the NDP finished second to the Tories. And it’s designed to leave voters fed up with the Harper regime in no doubt about which opposition party, buoyed by momentum in the polls, is taking the fight directly to the Conservatives.

The online ads, one in English, the other in French, are the most negative produced by the NDP since Mulcair became leader and come just two weeks after Mulcair vowed to eschew personal attacks.

While he deemed “robust debate” comparing policies and track records to be within bounds, Mulcair said earlier this month: “The personal stuff — that’s just not my cup of tea. I don’t go down that street.”

Some of the targets in the latest ads might beg to differ.

To a soundtrack of ominous music, the ads show the faces of a series of Conservatives who’ve been charged, convicted or investigated for various offences, including chief fundraiser Irving Gerstein, former Harper adviser Bruce Carson, disgraced senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau, former cabinet minister Peter Penashue, former Conservative candidate Saulie Zajdel and Conservative campaign worker Michael Sona, the only person convicted for orchestrating misleading robocalls during the last election.

Each of the mug shots is stamped with the alleged crime perpetrated by the individual: illegal lobbying (Carson), breach of trust (Brazeau), misleading voters (Sona and Gerstein), bribery (Zajdel), misuse of funds for housing (Duffy) and so on.

The ads wrap up with devastating video footage of Harper’s former principal secretary and chief firefighter on ethical issues, Dean Del Mastro, shuffling in leg irons and handcuffs into a police vehicle after being sentenced last month for cheating on his campaign expenses in the 2008 election.

“Have you had enough? It’s time for change in Ottawa,” the English ad concludes.

 


 

NDP herald Ontario tour with Harper attack ads

    • You’ll note it’s the NDP who launched the suit due to hyper-partisan bias on the Board’s part. A body controlled by the CPC accusing the NDP of misuse of funds is hard to take seriously, given their own habits.

      • I believe the Liberals on the board also agreed that the NDP was guilty of misusing funds.

      • In his letter, Pratte says that in light of recent development he is requesting a scheduling of a case conference to establish a timetable for the “next steps.” He wants the NDP to file its evidence in response to the board’s motion to quash the case, any cross-examination planned, as well as the scheduling of the hearing for the motion to close the case. He also wants all the NDP applications joined together and dealt with at once.

      • Keith,

        the NDP know full well they were caught red-handed. That’s why they offered a settlement deal to make amends. they thought the price was too high…so they took it to court and began the cycle of denial.

        If they were not guilty, they wouldn’t have made a deal in the first place.

  1. Hey,……if a politician breaks the rules…they have to pay the consequences. No matter what party they belong to.

    Reap meet sow…

    Of course, every single NDP MP is already on the hook for illegal use of public funds…so maybe the Conservatives can borrow the format and use it. Of course, it will be a much longer ad.

    • Still waiting on Gazebo Tony to cough up the $50M he absconded with.

      • that moeny was well tracked, and we know where it went. Yes, it was blatant “gravy” disguised as something else….and it was a waste.

        What it wasn’t though……is illegal. Politicians have been doing the same thing for years, but when it’s a Liberal Government doing it…..it’s called “investments” by the Canadian media. When Conservatives do it…it’s called “waste”

        No one absconded with anything. We know where the money went.

        If you want to talk of “Absconding”……..please recall a little Governemnt program called “sponsorship”

        I’m sure a lot of retired / former Libera MP’s are still living on high from that little episode of Quebec politics.

        • Uh, no.
          ‘Absconded’ doesn’t mean we don’t know where it went.

          • Tresus,

            Absconded refers to describe the “method” of acquisition. (sneaky, dishonest, not-entitled to..etc..etc…use your imagination.)

            As for the sponsorship program…we don’t know exactly WHERE the money went…but we have a pretty good idea of WHO took/stole it. Hint: It was a bunch of folks with connections (or donors to) the Liberal party. Since we have not recovered the stolen funds….it is pretty clear that the LIBERALS ABSCONDED it.

            tony however, did not ABSCOND any funds….as they bills are all available to see. It was a waste of money, but it wasn’t stolen, or illegal.

            Hope this helps.

          • “Absconded refers to describe the “method” of acquisition. (sneaky, dishonest, not-entitled to..etc..etc…use your imagination.)”

            Exactly.
            Well done.

            “did not ABSCOND any funds….as they bills are all available to see.”

            Uh, no.
            ‘Absconded’ doesn’t mean we don’t know where it went.

          • Tresus,

            I think you are so confused, you are now arguing with yourself.

            do you really believe you are making a coherent response? You are embarrassing yourself again.

          • It’s not hard – the first quote I used describes the correct usage of absconded. The second does not.

            Here, let me use absconded in sentence for you:

            Tony Clement absconded with public money when he took 10s of millions of dollars parliament had been told was for “border infrastructure” and spent it on Gazebos and pork in his riding that had nothing to do with what parliament had approved it for.

          • Tresus,

            All you have managed to do was show us that you cannot read properly; and that you don’t really know what absconded means.

            Get thee to a thesaurus

          • Sure, that could be fun.
            So, in addition to,

            Tony Clement absconded with public money when he took 10s of millions of dollars parliament had been told was for “border infrastructure” and spent it on Gazebos and pork in his riding that had nothing to do with what parliament had approved it for.

            we could do,

            Tony Clement heisted public money when he took 10s of millions of dollars parliament had been told was for “border infrastructure” and spent it on Gazebos and pork in his riding that had nothing to do with what parliament had approved it for.

            or

            Tony Clement hustled public money when he took 10s of millions of dollars parliament had been told was for “border infrastructure” and spent it on Gazebos and pork in his riding that had nothing to do with what parliament had approved it for.

            Tony Clement filched public money when he took 10s of millions of dollars parliament had been told was for “border infrastructure” and spent it on Gazebos and pork in his riding that had nothing to do with what parliament had approved it for.

            etc., etc.,

          • Tresus, all you have shown is that you don’t really know how to use the following words in proper context:

            Absconded
            heist
            hustled
            filched

            Come back after you know how to actually use and understand what these “grown up” words mean and how they are to be used in a proper sentence.

          • When you take money parliament has designated for relieving border congestion and spend it on gazebos and other treats to get yourself reelected, you’re ‘stealing’. And all of those words are synonymous.
            This isn’t difficult.

    • Pretty hard to use the ‘look at Conservatives convicted or facing criminal charges’ format when NDPers in that category add up to 0.

  2. Dear Macleans’ writers and editors. An attack ad is a PERSONAL and NON-FACTUAL attack like the Tories do all the time – subjective ideas are used. This is NOT an attack ad this uses objective facts there is nothing subjective or personal here – this is exactly what a political ad should be. Wrongly calling it an attack ad (either through ignorance or willful smearing of the NDP) is dangerous for a supposedly non-biased journalistic enterprise because it diminishes people paying attention to the facts. We want people to pay attention the facts. In fact you should be doing an article on the facts brought up in this ad you should have a front page story on the criminal anti-democratic moves during Harper’s time as PM. At the very least your writers and editors need to LEARN to distinguish between a FACT AD and an ATTACK AD. Not being able to tell the difference actually undermines democracy and you wouldn’t want to do it would you?

    • Well no.
      An “attack ad” is an ad which attacks your opponent.

Sign in to comment.