Smear tactics backfired

The negative attack-type campaign by Paul Martin’s Liberals, fomenting hatred and fear about Stephen Harper and his Conservatives, kept the Conservatives from a majority but the 124 seats they did achieve should provide stable government for several years.

In the next election, the Liberals will not be able to use the politics of fear with any success since their false predictions about abortion and other social issues will not again be believed.

On Dec. 3, 2005 in the Toronto Star, Martin predicted, “We would see him (Harper) and Bloc Leader (Gilles Duceppe), if they get enough seats, working together to dismantle this country that all of us are so proud of.” In fact, the success of the Conservatives in Quebec — gaining 10 seats — will make it much more difficult for the Bloc to lead Quebecers into separation than ever before.

Martin the mendacious allied with Buzz Hargrove the hysterical, who labelled Harper a separatist. It was Martin who questioned Harper’s patriotism, suggesting Harper was not fit to govern. This was after Martin denounced personal attacks and “drive-by smears,” which he continued to use throughout the campaign.

Martin, who claimed his values were superior to Harper’s, said Harper “would act to change the present law on abortion,” despite knowing that the Conservative party’s policy convention had resolved “A Conservative government would not initiate nor support legislation to regulate abortion.”

It was Martin who said on April 30, 2003, “I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible,” and later attacked Harper as supporting the U.S.-led invasion.

It was Martin who called the GST “a regressive and unfair tax on living” in 1993 and an “incredibly stupid, inept tax” in 1990. After promising to repeal it, his party kept it in place for 12 years and then even opposed the Conservative promise to reduce it by 2% over several years.

Martin practiced the foulest and lowest campaign tactics observed in my 58 years of involvement in politics.

Canadian voters have indicated they want a properly functioning, competitive and healthy democratic system, which requires governments to change after several terms in office to prevent the sort of corruption, arrogance, excessive patronage and feelings of entitlement the Liberal party exhibited before this election. This can only be avoided with change, which encourages parties as well not to ignore solemn promises such as the Liberals’ pledge to abolish the GST in 1993.

With a change in government, perhaps the present handgun hypocrisy and grotesque gun fantasies of the Liberals can also be eliminated and effective gun control and control of the streets for the innocent citizen can be effectively enforced.

I predict the Harper minority government will be in power for at least two years, until some opposition party thinks it can win an election — not likely until the Liberal party revives itself and again believes they are the party that must run Canada.

The Liberal falsehoods, slanders and hateful negative ads by then having clearly proven to be false and viciously improper, the Conservatives will be in a far stronger political position. Then not only the West will be in, but the truth will be in place as well.

Can't the Conservatives call another election after a year or two, after they've shown that all the Liberal predictions of the sky falling in turned out to be just scare tactics, and ask for basically a referendum on their initiatives?

Two years would be sufficient to build confidence and then ask for a mandate, wouldn't it?

Calling an early election without having some apparent urgent need for one can backfire.

Calling an election in the face of opposition obstructionism could work, but opportunism will be picked up by the electorate and it will punish, as the Peterson government in Ontario found out to its dismay in 1990 when it called a general election three years into its mandate.

The electorate surprised everyone (including the winners) when the NDP wound up as the government. The NDP had until then been seen to be a perpetual third party. It was a protest vote run amok.

I recall Peterson's remark half way into the campaign: "The voters are cranky".

Agreed that a minority government is a different case, but if it is seen to be able to keep the confidence of the House the conservatives might be better to continue to do so.

OTOH a novel issue can be a justification for an election. If a government decides on a course of action that had not been in contemplation at the time of the last general election. A government can legitimately seek a mandate for that course of action and if it is truly novel, the electors would respect the election call.

Clive, seeing things from far away creates impressions which should be taken for what they're worth- outside observations from a foreigner:

Prime Minister designate Harper struck me as being a pleasant young man, with an attractive wife and adorable children.

Mr. Martin, on the other hand, came across as old, angry, tired, and sweaty. And somewhat incoherent, at best. The contrast could not have been more profound.

Like it or not, the way most people form impressions is from what they see- it's largely visual. And for that reason, the way a candidate presents himself, and is portrayed, on television, and to a lesser extent in still pictures, can make or break the sale to the voters.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.