- Wouldn't It Be Better for Everyone to Simply Pull Harper's Mandate

Posted: 11:30 AM on January 29, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Tories yank truth-stretching
anti-Ignatieff ads after 24 hours, Daniel Leblanc, Globe and Mail, January 28, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-yank-truth-stretching-anti-ignatieff-ads-after-24-hours/article1886745/

Seems that Harper and the con's have been doing a lot of ad pulling lately.

Another pulled ad: Harper working late in the PM's office. I wonder why they would pull that. Perhaps it was drawing Canadians' attention to the fact that the likes of Harper was running this country.

I don't think the Con's really care of the attack ads are inaccurate, dishonest or deceitful - they are not intended to convey factual information.

That is what the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism is all about - “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible". It need only contain strong emotional and be devoid of rational content.

These attack ads are deigned to arousing the (33%) die-hard core of right wing extremist supporters of Harper, epi-centred in Alberta, because from them flows the money and support and with them as long as the Moderate Majority don't consolidate Harper feels confident of at least remaining in power.

And if the attack ads con a few more people in here and there, who knows, perhaps a majority - in which case: God save Canada!

They are also intended to seep into the Canadian political psyche to create a general feeling of doubt about Ignatieff and the Liberals.

One thing that must be kept in mind is the relative easy and celerity with which they are able to crank this stuff out - just wait for the election we will be seeing this kind of thing on a daily, if not hourly, basis.

The reason the Con's pulled this ad is because, in fact, it back fired on them.

One need only read all the posting to see that "Yes, Yes, Yes"is an extremely powerful slogan - beautify in its elegance, simplicity, flexibility of application and power of the message.

For example:
"The Harper attack ads give rise to the following insightful political question:

So, What's Wrong About Being Passionate About Giving Harper the Boot anyway? - I mean other than it being not 'Right' (ideologically as opposed to morally that is)

- Is Harper and his attack ads dishonest, deceitful and an insult to the Intelligence and Integrity of all Canadians' - Yes, Yes, Yes,

- Is it an embarrassment to have Harper our Prime Minister, not only amongst ourselves but on the International stage as well - Yes, Yes, Yes

- Is Harper PM because of the 33% core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta - Yes, Yes, Yes"

(cicblog.com/comments.htm, 28 Jan.'11)

and it goes on and on and on.

It is an incredible gaff in political propagandizement to have deliberately brought this to the attention of all Canadians and pretty much dared the Liberals to use it.

Now Harper and the Con's are saying that they didn't intend it for TV and hey, anyways, it's true - Yah, 'Right'!

First, you can't take anything a Con says at face value, this is but one more example amongst countless.

Also, it seems to me that if they really wanted to mitigate damage they might admit they stepped over the line apologize both to Ignatieff and the Canadian people for insulting his and our intelligence and integrity and prey that it doesn't go down in political history as one of the most potent campaign slogans ever.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html