Maclean's agrees, Guelph campaign is nasty
So it looks like it's not just me... Maclean's blogger Aaron Wherry says that if the current Guelph campaign is any indication, the next national campaign looks to be a nasty one.
Which is a real shame, because I know I was looking forward to a substantive, issues driven campaign. Unfortunately, with the Guelph Liberals and their supporters "going negative" right out of the gate, any chance of that has been pretty much vanished.
The Maclean's post links back here to my blog, and for those of you visiting from that link, please review the following posts from the last few days, "Guelph Liberal supporters on the attack", "Guelph Liberal supporters continue the negative attacks", and today's post, "Guelph Liberals continue a negative campaign".
I came across the Maclean's link via the Guelph Mercury's "GuelphVotes" by-election blog, who have also picked up on the negative vibes. Mercury reporter Magda had this to say about the Maclean's posting: "I've got to say I'm not really sure what he means... perhaps he's suggesting the campaign is a dirty one?"
I think that's what he's getting at... because all evidence points to just that, that the Guelph campaign is already looking pretty dirty, thanks to all the mudslinging from Valeriote, Brison, and their supporters.
Beyond all this, one significant question remains... will Liberal candidate Frank Valeriote apologize for this disgusting negative tone the campaign has taken, and will he distance himself from his supporters who continue to engage in these tactics?
UPDATE:Bumped cause one of the aggregators I'm on pushed this to the bottom of the list.
posted by Christian Conservative @ 10:41 a.m.
9 Comments:
At Fri Aug 01, 12:26:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Were you born yesterday?
HSve you seen the vile attack ads that Harper has launched against Dion? HAve you seen the infantile attacks on Conservative.ca against the Liberals and Dion?
Harper is the master of punching belwo the belt (remember when Harper accused Paul Martin of being in favour of child porn?)
You're delusional.
At Fri Aug 01, 01:43:00 a.m. EDT,
Mark Bailey said…
Not sure if you noticed before you posted, but the Maclean's blog links to your site too. The author is not accusing a single party, as much as you would like us to believe that.
You should be flattered, but you should also be more careful before making assumptions.
Mark
At Fri Aug 01, 08:05:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
There is nothing wrong with negative attacks. Whether we like them or not, they get more milage than positively presenting your own options. There's negative attacks and then there's cheap shots. Attacking another candidate's party policies is fair. Attacking the muzzling of Conservative MPs by the PMO's office is fair game. It is a cheap shot if one attacks how another candidate looks.
There are other rules of campaigning. One is for the governing party to only attack the leading opposition party. The other is for all the other parties to only attack the governing party. Everyone else is inconsequential.
At Fri Aug 01, 08:22:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
You're included..........
Confess - you love it when you can berate someone. Your past blogs show that.
At Fri Aug 01, 08:36:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
I disagree with your take on that Anonymous... if you look a little more closely at my past posts, I try very hard to stick to issues and the positions people take on them. I'm not a fan of personal attacks, and try very hard NOT to engage in them.
And "me", there's plenty wrong with negative attacks when they get personal, like the Guelph Liberal attacks have been. If they're going to go after Kovach, they ought to stick to issues, not juvinille mudslinging and insults.
At Fri Aug 01, 09:03:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
As an NDP supporter I would have to agree that the CPoC and blogging tories are the worst offenders when it comes to juvenile personal attacks. I don't consider you one of the offender BTW.
I don't support Dion's carbon tax idea because I don't think it will reduce emissions (no cap on CO2 emissions) and I don't think it will benefit low income and working Canadians (higher prices that the 'shift' in taxes won't make up). And finally, I think it will take longer to implement (re-write of tax code and complete makeover of bureaucracy - see gun registry for good idea completely screwed up by libs).
All that said, oily the spokespot is not the way to seriously debate this issue. Tom King and Jack Layton are offering a substantive debate on the issue. There is a real environmental option being offered by the NDP (www.ndp.ca/betterplan) and a separate and effective program to address poverty (more affordable housing, more public transit, better child care programs, etc. - www.ndp.ca).
Let's all hope that these by-elections and the general election (when the Dion Liberals decide to stop propping up the Harper government) will be about issues and NOT negative campaigning.
At Fri Aug 01, 09:33:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
You can bet that CBC would have trotted out Nelson Wiseman and all the other Liberal meat puppets to condemn negative Conservative ads.
It is just more double standard.
Liberals have no platform. They have no unity. They have an internal war that makes inter-party fighting appear benign.
The political media are sugar coating it.
At Fri Aug 01, 11:49:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
When all you have to run on is a scheme to pick the taxpayers pockets, the only alternative is to resort to the same tactics that you have used for two years in the House of Commons...smear, innuendo,and deceit.
At Fri Aug 01, 12:15:00 p.m. EDT,
Bert said…
smear, innuendo,and deceit
powell lucas, where did you get a copy of the Liberal Redbook ?.
Post a Comment
<< Home