If You Want to Do Better, Mr Lingenfelter, Apologize

Lingenfelter pretends to shy away from negative campaigning

During the Saskatchewan leaders' debate last night, many people noted that there was a noticeable lack of some of the staples of political debates. The leaders seemed to entirely decline the talk over each other, and mostly stuck to promoting their own policy ideas to the people of Saskatchewan.

NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter insisted that, for his part, it's been a deliberate campaign tactic.

"I watched the Ontario election and less than 50 per cent of the people came out to vote," Lingenfelter said. "I think part of it was because of all the negativity — negative ads, personal attack ads. Maybe I can change that. I'm going to try."

Good. If Lingenfelter is going to try to be the politician who disavows negative campaigning, he can start by apologizing for the dishonest ad in which the NDP fabricated a quote by Premier Brad Wall.

His party eventually replaced the ad, but they've never apologized for it. They've accused the Saskatchewan Party of being "childish" in objecting to the ad, but they've never apologized.

So now Dwain Lingenfelter knows what he must do: apologize for his party producing a campaign ad that was a blatant lie, and promise to never do it again.

NDP Response to Saskatchewan Party Ad "Childish"?

Prior to the beginning of the 2011 Saskatchewan election, the NDP released an ad that featured a fabricated quote, portrayed as from Saskatchewan Party leader (and Premier) Brad Wall.

When challenged over the blatantly deceitful ad, NDP House Leader Kevin Yates dismissed the Saskatchewan Party's complaints over the ad as "childish".

Now, the Saskatchewan Party is running an ad the NDP insists is untrue.

The ad notes that Nexen, the oil company NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter worked for, moved its head office to Calgary, and insists Lingenfelter did it.

Then-Nexen CEO Charlie Fischer insists that Lingenfelter didn't make the decision to move Nexen's head office to Calgary. But as it turns out, Lingenfelter was still involved.

To move the Nexen head office to Calgary required repeal of the Wascana Act, which stipulated that the head office of the company had to remain located in Saskatchewan. Wascana Energy had formerly been known as SaskOil.

Lingenfelter lobbied Kindersley MLA Bill Boyd to support the repeal of the Wascana Act. (Boyd isn't clear on whether or not ne actually supported the repeal.)

Dwain Lingenfelter's involvement in the reloaction of Nexen's head office, however, is undeniable. The NDP's response to this ad is childish and over the top. After all, unlike the NDP, they didn't lie.

David Suzuki Extinguishes His Own Credibility

When the Ontario Liberal Party secured the endorsement of David Suzuki, they were so excited they went out and made an ad about it.

In it, Suzuki extinguishes what little remained of his own credibility. Gushing over Premier Dalton McGuinty's environmental record, Suzuki declares how excited he was when McGuinty promised to shut down Ontario's coal-fired power plants. He declares the promise to be "a big step" toward fixing Ontario's relationship with the environment.

The problem is that McGuinty made the promise, then promptly set about breaking it. In 2006, he promised to shut down those power plants by 2009. In 2009, he promised to shut them down by 2014 He might not be around to keep that promise in 2014. Even if he is, he probably won't.

Even McGuinty's vaunted green jobs accomplishments are fading, as green energy firms continue laying workers off. Adding to the comedy is McGuinty staging a photo op at a solar panel factory that had shut down production.

In other words, McGuinty's environmental record is not all rainbows and sunshine. It's actually piss-poor at best. All he's offering in the 2011 election is more of the promises he already broke. He'll never keep them.

It only makes sense that the Liberals would work so hard to establish themselves as good environmentalists. But Ontarians aren't stupid, and can spot a broken promise when someone makes it again. In their effort to brand themselves as the party for the environment, they've managed to counter-brand themselves as promise-breakers.

For himself, Suzuki has done worse. In attempting to brand himself the voice of environmentalism in the 2011 election, he's counter-branded himself as an unprincipled hack who offers the Liberal Party's broken promises up as if they were achievements.

He's definitively turned his back on his own credibility. He'll never be taken seriously again.

A Confusing Brand to Embrace

When going into an election, one would expect that there is an incentive for politicians to be on their best behaviour.

The Saskatchewan NDP, however, has not been on their best behaviour. They've been closer to their worst. The party got itself into hot water in July when it released a radio ad featured a heavily-edited quote. The quote was not merely heavily-edited -- the new favourite defense of the far-left when they are caught red-handed behaving poorly -- it was heavily-edited to the point of sheer dishonesty.

A comment made in response to a question about the tactics used by a public service union during a strike was presented as a comment about how Premier Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party feel about helping working families confront higher cost of living.

"I don't really care. We're not going to do it, and they're coming back to work."

When considers the extent of the warping and twisting of context in the presentation of this quote, there's really only one reasonable conclusion: the NDP lied. They made a decision to lie to the people of Saskatchewan, and turned out to be not all that good at it.



In response to the revelation that the NDP took Wall's comments bizarrely out of context and then altered them, the NDP is refusing to budge. They insist that the comments accurately reflect Wall's attitude toward working families.

They have nothing to support those claims, but they make them nonetheless. It's just what they do.

Now the Saskatchewan Party has released an ad highlighting the NDP's blatant attempt to deceive the people of Saskatchewan. The intent of the ad is very clear: they're seeking to brand the NDP as liars.

Bizarrely, the NDP has not only chosen to embrace that brand, they've sought to counter-brand the Saskatchewan party as childish for objecting to the NDP's lies. Naturally, they say nothing at all about their own childishness in lying in the first place.

Polling numbers indicate that the NDP is going to get creamed in the 2011 provincial election. There will be no orange crush. Instead, the orange will be crushed. Considering they have a leader who owes the people of Saskatchewan his resignation for approving this ad in the first place, they deserve much, much worse.

Simple Messages Require Little Flash

While a few "teaser" internet videos have been circulating around -- one emulated by the Harper Conservative Party -- Tim Pawlenty has finally released his first official campaign ad.

Pawlenty's previous releases have been marked by dramatic tones befitting a nation in turmoil. To describe them as "flashy" would likely be considered an understatement.

Entitled "results, not rehtoric", Pawlenty points to what he considers a successful run as Governor of Minnesota, cutting spending, standing up to unions, appointing conservative judges, and passing "proper" health care reform.

Pawlenty is clearly seeking to brand himself as the candidate who will pass the conservative agenda and do it responsibly.

The left's response is actually rather laughable. They seek to counter-brand him as fiscally irresponsible, questioning his deficit-fighting prowess by alluding to a projected deficit after Pawlenty left office. (Someone should get these people a calendar.)

As opposed to his previous outings, which were dramatic and nearly frenetic in their tone, this ad is calm, and exudes the confidence Pawlenty seems to feel as a candidate.

The ad is the tip of the spear on Pawlenty's Iowa campaign, where he'll compete hard with Michele Bachmann for votes. With it's clear, concise and simple messaging, it just may appeal to the sensibilities of Iowa voters.

Dalton McGuinty's Bizarre Message for Ontarians

In the most recent campaign ad released by the Ontario Liberal Party, Premier Dalton McGuinty seems to have a rather bizarre message for Ontarians:

Ontario has become Canada's Detroit. And it happened under the Liberals' watch.

As reported in the National Post, the ad bears a striking resemblence to a recent Chrysler ad, in which the ad insists that Detori will emerge triumphant from the troubles its been experiencing since the 1980s.

Among those troubles is a murder rate that remains perched atop US statistics.

In some of Ontario's neighbourhoods, things have indeed been troubled. The Boxing Day shooting of a teenager, hit in crossfire from a gang shooting in 2005, was a wake-up call for many in Toronto. But Toronto hasn't degenerated into the kind of Mad Max-esque desolation and violence that has seized Detroit.

And considering that Detroit came to be in the sorry state it's in because of utopian left-wing policies turned dystopic, the "progressive saviours of Ontario" message McGuinty wants to sell is rather comical.

Cetainly, the Chrysler ad the McGuinty Liberals are emulating is a worthy model: it's emotionally stirring and inspiring. Their ad is but a pale comparison, but it wouldn't matter much if the ad were a perfect facsimile.

This was a message that was ill-conceived from beginning to end.

Who Is The Party of No?

As the United States draws closer and closer to the 2010 midterm elections on November 2, it seems that the mission of Republican campaign advertising is to turn the buzzwords of the Democrat campaign against them.

The most recent effort is an ad entitled "Party of No". In it, a clip of President Barack Obama attempting to defend his failure to implement his policies by accusing the Republican Party of being relentlessly contrarian.

"If I said the sky was blue," Obama crows, "they'd say no."

The ad then responds with clips of campaign ads by Obama's fellow Democrats, all of them staking claim to opposition to Obama's agenda.

This is, of course, a simple matter of reality: with the Democrats enjoying a majority in each house of Congress, there really is no one other than themselves to blame for the failure of their President's agenda.

Judging from the campaign advertising sampled, it's clear that many of them are quite comfortable with that.

Rarely has a political party given their opponents the opportunity to counter-brand them with the very reputation they've attempted to foist upon them.

The Democrats can say whatever they want: Obama's agenda has failed because Democrats failed to support it. The Republicans have quite wisely chosen to remind American voters of that very inconvenient detail.

Someone is Out to Kick Obama's Ass

One of the Democratic Party's favourite themes since the 2008 election of President Barack Obama has been to accuse the Republican Party of being "extreme".

In an ad entitled "Extreme?", the National Republican Senatorial Committee takes that particular theme for a walk -- and then crams it down the Democrat's throat.

The ad begins with a television screen on which the predominant talking heads of the American left -- Rachel Maddow, Howard Dean, and even Obama himself -- discussing how extreme they want Americans to believe the Republican Party is.

The ad then begins to hit back with some polling numbers that are, to say the least, inconvenient for Democrats:

-57$ of likely voters think the Democrat agenda is "extreme".
-60% favour the repeal of Barack Obama's health care reform legislation.
-56% disapprove of Obama's performance.
-61% favour an immigration law similar to Arizona's in their own state.
-68% oppose the Ground Zero mosque (which Obama supports).
-65% are angry at federal government policies.
-65% of polled Americans believed the United States is on the wrong track.

The ad then cuts to polling comparisons of Democrat stalwarts and the so-called "extreme" candidates running against them -- many of which are either leading their Democrat opponent by double digits, or are in a statistical tie with them.

The then cuts again to Howard Dean, declaring that Republican candidates are "way outside the mainstream of what Americans want", and then hit back:

-Suing Arizona
-Siding against 9/11 families
-$3 trillion tax hike
-$1.5 trillion deficit
-$13 trillion debt
-$2.5 trillion healthcare takeover

"Mr President, that's extreme," the ad concludes. "Don't believe us? You'll find out November 2."

The ad brilliantly turns the Democrats' own rhetorical themes against them, and counter-brands them as the extremists in Washington.

After all, if Obama's administration and his policies were really so moderate, really so within the mainstream of American desires and expectations, the polling numbers wouldn't have turned so clearly against him -- and they wouldn't be worsening.

Simply put, the Republican Party has set out to turn Barack Obama's 2008 electoral triumph into the swiftest kick in the ass in American political history -- and with messaging like this, they just might pull it off.

Are the Democrats Experiencing a Deficit of Hope?

The second ad in the Republican Party's "Deficit of Hope" ad campaign, entitled "Crazy" opens to an animated Air Force Once sitting on the tarmac preparing for departure.

"Attention passengers, fellow Democrats, we're just about ready to depart DC and go on my national fundraising tour to your homestates," an animated Barack Obama, dressed as a flight attendant, announces to the passengers. In his hand he holds an itinerary of his destinations, with revised unemployment rates -- all of them climbing -- on a clipboard.

"That's right, I'm coming to your hometowns," Obama announces.

At which point an emergency exit slide bursts forth from the jet, and the Democrats evacuate the plane.

In a television appearing on the bottom right corner of the screen, a series of newsclips are shown in quick succession. Viriginia Governor Tim Kaine is shown declaring Democrats who are distancing themselves from party leadership to be "crazy", while newsclips describe the growing discomfort Democrat politicians are beginning to show with Obama.

For good measure, it even includes former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean's infamous scream from the 2004 Presidential primaries.

The ad presses a worthy question: are the Democrats themselves beginning to experience a deficit of hope? And for how long?

That the Democratic Party themselves adopted Spencer Ackerman's now-famed weaponized racism tactic indicates that they may have lost faith in their ability -- and that of their President -- to win the political debate by legitimate means.

Now that the race card is famously maxed out, the Democrats have been robbed of what they must have expected to be one of their greatest assets under Barack Obama.

With the political climate in the United States increasingly turning against them, it's becoming clear that the Democrats are experiencing a deficit of hope.

Can Obama Overcome the Deficit of Hope?

Wiith the 2010 midterm elections slowly drawing near, the Republicans have decided to turn up the pressure on what may be the Democrats' greatest weakness: President Barack Obama himself.

The Republicans have targetted Obama with a "Deficit of Hope" campaign, designed to turn his own political stylings against him.

"Deficit of Hope" counter-brands Obama less as the man who plucked the heartstrings of America with The Audacity of Hope and his "yes we can" credo and more as the architect of a continually-climbing government deficit.

The ad features a dark, yet triumphant picture of Barack Obama, reaching for the sky while his name is chanted over and over again. Against this triumphal image, text balloons out to reveal the dispiriting direction the United States has followed under Obama's leadership.

9.5% unemployment.

14.6 million unemployed.

2.5 million jobs lost since the stimulus.

40.8 million on food stamps. (Funding for which the Obama administration may raid to pay for one of Michelle Obama's pet projects.)

At this point, the spot's soundtrack takes a stark turn. The chanting of Obama's name is replaced by the sounds of protest, and citizens objecting to Obama's policies.

$13 trillion national debt.

$43,000 average share of the national debt.

$1.47 trillion record deficit.

The ad then, in rapid succession, makes it clear what its creators believe must be stopped: "Bailouts, takeovers, unemployment, foreclosures, tax hikes, debt."

It concludes with a simple message, contrasted to Timothy Geithner's famous "welcome to the recovery" comment quoted at the beginning of the ad:

"Welcome to the Obama economy."

It concludes with an appeal for funds.

The ad has numerous strengths. It plays to the precise issues that will be on the mind of every American voter come November. It will remind Americans that the euphoria of Obama's victory has since been replaced by the rage of protest.

It also has weaknesses. It doesn't really give voters any reason to trust Republicans -- who have had their share of the role in creating the US' current fiscal mess -- will do any better than the Democrats. Moreover, the ballooning text collapses back in on itself so quickly that the viewer often doesn't have any time to read it.

But in terms of setting the tone for their "Deficit of Hope" campaign, rhe Republicans couldn't have hoped for any better.

Whether the ad helps the Republican Party realize their ballot-box hopes won't be seen until November.

Ben Quayle's Fighting Words

Running for the Republican nomination for the House of Representatives in Arizona's third district, Ben Quayle has produced one of the most straight-forward campaign advertisements in recent history.

There's no dark, forboding music. No clever sloganeering. No computer-generated chariactures of his opponents. Just Quayle staring into the camera, explaining why he thinks Barack Obama is the worst President in the history of United States.

There are plenty of people suggesting that if Obama is not the worst President in US history, he is one of the worst. Many consider Obama to be second only to Jimmy Carter in this particular category.

Yet somehow, when Quayle, the son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, makes these comments, it's somehow controversial:



Aside from its simplicity, there's a very standard "taking on Washington" message at play within the ad, as Quayle promises to go to DC and "knock the hell out of it."

This is typically a tactic adopted by someone trying to run as a beltway outsider -- this will be a difficult feat for the son of a former Vice President to accomplish.

But in alluding to "Drug cartels in Mexico", Quayle makes what seems to be a calculated effort to envoke the border security issue without directly referring to either the border itself, or to the closely-tied topic of immigration.

Likewise, in alluding to "tax cartels in Washington", Quayle appeals to support from the Tea Party movement without making any direct appeal.

Quayle quietly brands himself as a sympathetic ally of the Tea Party movement, and quietly counter-brands Barack Obama as a tax-and-not-secure-the-border Democrat.

The bonus value of Quayle's ad is that it will give his detractors opportunities to indulge, and embarrass, themselves:



It may be wise to point out to Catie Lazarus, TJ Miller, Joel Godard and their puppet friend that avoiding issues like this hasn't helped them, or President Obama, one bit.

With Barack Obama's approval ratings continually plummeting, stating that Obama is a poor President -- and the President who refuses to enforce the law is definitely a poor President -- can't help but attract support from voters growing increasingly fed up with Obama and his cabal; particularly in Arizona.

The Wrong Idea

In a 60 second spot rejected by CBS, the Republican Trust attempts to make its case against Cordoba House, a 13-story Islamic centre that will also feature a mosque.

Arguments against Cordoba House insist that it will become a lightning rod for militant Islamists, will promote militant Islam, and that it will be a celebration of 9/11 -- a symbol of Islam's triumph.

This is precisely the argument presented in this ad.

The problem for the GOP Trust is that this argument relies on an overweening ignorance of the individuals behind Cordoba House, and the beliefs of the organization leading the project.

Even the evidence offered for the alleged radicalism of Cordoba Initiative -- such as its Shari'ah index project -- are not in reality what they are said to be. In fact, the Shari'ah law promoted by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf doesn't appear to be any Shari'ah law that would be recognized by those familiar with the extreme variant of it practiced in so many states today.

“What are the principles that make a state Islamic?" Rauf rhetorically asks. "We can say among them is justice, protection of religion and minorities and elimination of poverty, and so on.”

Protection of minorities isn't a concept one would associate with Shari'ah law-practising countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The opponents of Cordoba House are close to being right about one thing: the construction of the centre would represent a triumph for Islam: a triumph of moderate Islam over the evil and militant political ideology individuals like Osama Bin Laden have transformed it into.

Opposing Cordoba House doesn't aid the fight against this insidious political ideology -- it actually hampers it. By denying organizations such as the Cordoba Initiative public space, they deny them the opportunity to counter the vile message of militant Muslim demagogues who send their poorest and most disenfranchised to wage war for their benefit.

Opponents of Cordoba House may not appreciate the symbolic value of Muslims worshipping peacefully at the feet of the towers their hateful counterparts destroyed. But a great many moderate Muslims will.

To deny them that opportunity out of a xenophobic, intolerant and paranoid mania would be a historical tragedy with little comparison, and that is what would really embolden militant Islam.

On the fifth anniversary of the 7/7 bombings that tore through downtown London, there are few better days than today to realize that obscuring the difference between peaceful, moderate Islam and the aforementioned Islamist political ideology is unacceptably counter-productive.

It's the wrong idea, through and through.

Rick Barber's Giant Ego Trip Continues

Rick Barber, a candidate for the Republican Party's nomination in Alabama's 2nd district (the fightin' second!), has managed to set the bar high for political narcissism with his now-infamous "gather your armies" ad.

He clearly took the well-deserved criticism he received for that ad as encouragement to continue stroking his ego. Little else really explains his most recent ad.

Entitled "slavery", Barber continues his conversation with George Washington. He counters arguments that Washington would have supported Obama's health care bill by pointing out that Washington's taxation record was largely relegated to key and basic government functions -- for example, the retiring of federal debt from the Revolutionary War.

He then turns to a rather scary-looking actor playing Abraham Lincoln. "Hey Abe," he addresses Lincoln, "when someone's forced to work for months to pay taxes so that a total stranger can get a free meal, medical procedure or a bail-out, what's that called?"

After further similar questioning from Barber, and some deliberation, Lincoln responds:

"Slavery."

Barber then goes on to point out that the United States suffered greatly to rid itself of slavery, then accuses the government of enslaving the American people.

As with Barber's previous ad, the result is actually rather comical. This is a man with the temerity to brand himself as the last, best defender of the legacy of the civil war, and counter-brands Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as its betrayers.

What Barber seems to fail to understand is that no one man won the civil war. The American civil war was won by the sacrifices of an entire nation, and is thus the legacy of that war is common property of all the citizens of the United States. Its legacy could never be defended by one man alone, nor is it meant to be.

That Rick Barber could effectively annoint himself the one to defend that legacy is, once again, deeply revelatory of what his run for congress is really about: his own ego.

Rick Barber Should Not Have Approved This Ad

A campaign ad produced by Republican hopeful Rick Barber -- a Tea Party activist running in a run-off election to become the GOP nominee for the Congressional seat for Alabama's Second District -- is an illustration of why it's unwise to allow one's rhetoric to run away with them.

In the ad, Barber sits himself at a table with George Washington and Samuel Adams. What is imagined to be the original copy of the Constitution of the United States sits atop an American flag draped across the table. Washington's hand pats a single-fire flint lock pistol while he listens to Barber plead his case.

He begins by expressing his desire to impeach US President Barack Obama and then cotninuing by railing against progressive income taxes and the IRS. In the end, he compares Obama's health care reform package to the Tea Tax that helped spark the American Revolution. Clearly believing Obama's health care package to be much worse.

In the end, he asks "are you with me?"

At which point a very bad actor playing George Washington utters, in a nearly Adam West-like scattao, instructs him to "gather your armies".

The ad is being pushed around the internet as evidence that a potentially violent strain may be dominant within the Tea Party movement. This narrative conveniently ignores the detail that Barber is a candidate for office -- if anything, he's planning a revolution in which the weapons used will be ballots in elections, not muskets and bayonettes.

If anything, the ad reinforces the extent of the ego trip that Barber is on -- it isn't a pretty sight.

The ad contains two distinct branding messages. One brands him as a friend of small business, and counter-brands Barack Obama as the enemy of small business. The other brands Barber himself as an heir apparent to the founding fathers of the United States -- as someone who would have stood amongst them if he hadn't been born more than 200 years too late.

Rick Barber never should have approved this ad because, frankly, it is embarrassing. Whatever Rick Barber may imagine he could accomplish as a Congressman, he won't measure up to Washington or Adams. It's unlikely that anyone ever will.

David Cameron More John McCain Than Barack Obama

In the British Conservative party's second TV address, David Cameron seems to emulate US Senator John McCain, famed for his "straight talk" on political issues.

In the second address, entitled "What it Takes to Change a Country", Cameron promises precisely that: straight talk on political issues. He also further explains his "big society" vision.

Cameron proposes the "big society" theoretically as an alternative to big government. The goal is clearly to brand the Conservatives as the party that can still deliver on social policy-related goals while cutting Britain's looming deficit.

This will prove to be an especially important message as talk of a coalition government between Labour and the Liberal Democrats becomes more and more prevalent.

While Cameron's message is a strong conservative message, one challenge for his party will be the presentation. While the Liberal Democrat messaging has proven to be eye-poppingly slick, deeply engrained with symbolism, the Tory addresses have, to date, been (unfortunately) characteristically bland.

While those predisposed to be receptive to the Conservative message will likely pay attention to this ad, others may be more likely than not to tune out.

This was the same challenge that confronted John McCain during the 2008 Presidential Election: convincing Americans to stay tuned to his message, favouring it over the more glamourous message of eventual winner Barack Obama.

Obama reportedly once remarked that Cameron is more sizzle than substance. Now the notion that the sizzle may be gone is becoming utterly unignorable.

This has become the challenge for David Cameron during this election: preventing Britons from simply tuning him out. To date, he hasn't been doing himself many favours.

Leaving Broken Promises Behind

In the Liberal Democratic Party's first (rather long) ad of the 2010 General Election, Nick Clegg makes a stark (and predictable) pledge to British voters: no more broken promises.

The ad itself is actually rather brilliant. In the ad, countless sheets of paper -- each one presumably describing an election promise made by either Labour or the Conservative Party (well, in actually, most of them are probably blank sheets of paper) blow about in the wind while Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg outlines his party's platform for the election.

Clegg insists that there have been too many broken promises not only in the past few years, but in the past 30 years.

The wind blows the sheets of paper all around in the background, as Clegg continually appears in the foreground, walking toward the camera, and away from the broken promises of his competitors.

The goal of the ad is very simple: Clegg and the Lib Dems want to counter-brand Labour and the Tories as the parties of broken promises, and brand his own party as the party for a fresh start -- leaving the broken promises of his opponents in the past by keeping its own promises.

The ad portrays British politics as a realm made by his principal opponents, as Clegg walks through streets littered with the broken promises of his opponents. But this may be an unintended message: the Liberal Democrats, after all, have governed Britain before.

The ad is also hampered by the vagueness of its message: merely promising "fairness" for British citizens. One can expect that the Conservative and Labour parties will also be offering fairness.

The Liberal Democrats may find that there is a premium on being a little more succinct.

Political Photoshop Challenges Done Right

Labour Party pulls off brilliant viral campaign

Many Canadians will remember the unimitgated, humiliating disaster that was the Canadian Liberal Party's "Anywhere but Copenhagen" photoshop challenge.

As the 2010 British General election slowly shifts into gear, the Labour Party has released some of the entries into its own photoshop contest, inviting supporters to mock the "We Can't Go On Like This" poster that David Cameron and the Conservative Party have released as their keystone campaign poster.

Unlike the Liberal Party, which embarrassed itself by publishing submissions that mused about conducting violence against Stephen Harper, the Labour Party has pulled this off splendidly -- in a sense.

Among the better of the submissions is this one, attempting to brand Cameron essentially as a Margaret Thatcher clone:

Naturally, the ad doesn't recognize Cameron's efforts to distance his party from Thatcher's conservative doctrines.

Another submission predictably tries to brand Cameron as a monstrous gargoyle, suggesting he'll harm a kitten if Britons don't vote Conservative:

While it's good for a cheap chuckle, this ad is far less effective as a political message. It merely tries to play off character defects that the creator expects viewers will hold.

It's actually remarkable that this submission, which brands Cameron as another coming of Tony Blair, was published at all:

While Tony Blair is unquestionably a liability to the Labour Party in this election, one would expect the Labour Party to publish anything that would implicitly acknowledge that.

While all of these ads will serve a vital function for the Labour Party -- solidifying its base.

However, with both the Tories and Labour having an opportunity to win this election, Labour can't afford to settle for its base, and these ads will likely have very little impact outside of the most dedicated of its faithful.

Yup, They All Needed a Feinting Couch Over This...

Although some petulant cry-babies would likely beg to differ, Hunter at Climbing Out of the Dark got the Tim Tebow Superbowl ad unequivocally right.

The sheer scope of the whining that preceded the Tim Tebow anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl would have had a great many people expecting something truly virulent.

Instead, what was delivered was an entirely benign and civil ad in which Tebow's mother Pam recounted the challenges she faced during her pregnancy.

"I can remember so many times when I almost lost him," she said. "It was so hard. You know, with everything our family's been through, you have to be tough."

At which point Pam is suddenly tackled to the ground by her son, whom she admonishes.

"Timmy! I'm trying to tell our story, here."

At which point Tebow apologizes and hugs his mother.

And that is what the pro-abortion movement has been freaking out over all this time.

One can say whatever they wish about Focus on the Family -- and following Pat Robertson's vile comments regarding the earthquake in Haiti, many of them can be justified.

But the Tebow ad is clearly a stroke of genius on their part. For years, the pro-abortion movement have portrayed the anti-abortion movement as virulent and oppressive. Many of the more authoritarian elements of the pro-abortion movement have attempted to deny the anti-abortion movement any opportunity to voice its views (part of the faux-outrage over the Tebow ad).

Focus on the Family seems to have exploited this meme brilliantly. By producing an ad as civil and benign as the Tebow ad, they have effectively counter-branded these hysteric elements of the pro-abortion movement for precisely what they are: authoritarians who can broach no public opposition whatsoever regarding the topic of abortion.

Thanks Again, Ward!

Ward Churchill practically endorses Tom Lucero for Repbulican nominee

A recent campaign ad from Tom Lucero, who is seeking the Repubican party nomination for Colarado's fourth district, envoked the spectre of the firing of Ward Churchill, the plagiarzing and data-forging "academic" fired from the University of Colorado.

There was a certain petulant brilliance in the ad: taking advantage of a popular public branding of Churchill as a loud-mouthed asshole, and branding Lucero has the kind of guy who will stand up to an asshole.

The branding message of the ad is crystal clear: if Lucero can deal with Churchill, he can deal with anything the Democrats may throw his way in Washington.

More recently, Churchill himself lent Lucero a hand in his effor to brand himself as the ideal Republiican to seek the seat in question.

"I can think of no one who better reflects the principles and integrity of Colorado Republicans than Tom Lucero," Churchill quipped. "Who knows? He might even have what it takes to be the next Dick Cheney."

Churchill couldn't possibly intend to help Lucero win the Republican nomination, but he very well may have. In fact, he may have just helped Lucero win the election in November.

“At this point in the campaign, we are thrilled to have such a ringing endorsement of Republican values from Ward Churchill,” Lucero replied. “Churchill's comments help further the message that our campaign is trying to communicate.”

Whether or not Ward Churchill's denunciation of Tom Lucero helps him win a seat in the House of Represenatives will have to wait until November to be seen. But if Lucero does win, one can look forward to Lucero thanking Churchill in his victory speech.

Running Against an Asshole: It's Crazy Enough to Work

Running in a crowded race for the Republican nomination in Colarado's fourth district, Tom Lucero has taken an interesting approach to the race.

Instead of running against his three opponents, Lucero has chosen to run against Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado Professor he successfully fired after he embarrassed the institution one too many times.

The ad even drops the name of Bill Ayers -- the former Weather Underground terrorist who was catapulted into a position of international prominence by his relationship with Barack Obama.

"Remember Bill Ayers? Ward Churchill's friend?" the narrator asks, as words in red bold font appear over images of newspapers and of Churchill himself. "Little Eichmanns? Stated more 9/11s are necessary? Proclaimed 'I don't answer to Tom Lucero'."

"Took care of that mess in Colorado," Lucero then complains, beaming proudly. He then goes on to discuss what he would like to accomplish in Washington as the 4th district's congressman.

In most cases it's considered poor taste to campaign against someone who isn't running in it.

But there's a certain tactical brilliance to Lucero's tactics, especially in the Republiican primary. The glimmer in his eye and the smile on his face demonstrate an unabashedly no-nonsense attitude toward the Churchill affair, reaching out to the viewer and sharing a "yeah, fuck that guy" moment with them.

Moreover, publicly campaigning against Churchill could give Lucero an opportunity to correct the one looming issue remaining from the Churchill firing -- the wrongful termination lawsuit that Churchill inexplicably won after being fired for academic misconduct (although he was denied reinstatement).

If Lucero can successfully draw the Churchill issue back into the public eye, he can remind the public that Churchill was actually fired for his considerable past of academic misconduct -- stemming from cases of plagiarism and forgery of data -- after Churchill had embarrassed his institution one too many times.

In fact, Churchill's firing wasn't the only bone that the crazed dissident had to pick with Lucero. He also didn't approve of Lucero's demands that the University of Colorado's course offerings be vetted at a time that the University was facing a choice between reining in an out-of-control budget amidst incredible wastefulness or having to continually go to the state for increases of funding to the school -- something that would have necessitated ongoing tax increases.

"The larger framing was articulated by one of the regents, Tom Lucero, at the regents meeting the other night: I want a justification for the existence of whole departments. I want to review the tenure system altogether," Churchilll once whined. "I want every course justified to my satisfaction."

"How could Tom Lucero possibly have assimilated the knowledge to pass scholarly judgment on the individual courses and their content and the scholarship that attends them in all these different areas?" he asked.

"This is transparently clear: Anything that he doesn’t like, whether he knows anything about it or not, is to be gone," Churchill pouted. "He has announced—telegraphed—the fact that he doesn’t like anything having to do with cultural studies, ethnic studies, dissident political studies, gay rights. None of that has anything to do with proper scholarship in his mind, not that he knows a goddamned thing about any of it. And it’s not that he’s a particularly malevolent individual. He’s representative of the whole. That’s the mentality that goes into this. This is a book-burning exercise. It’s a stifling of political discourse."

That's awfully rich coming from an individual who once insisted that speech that he doesn't like -- such as Columbus Day celebrations shouldn't be allowed to happen.

In fact, as it turned out, Tom Lucero's desire to vet the course offerings at the U of C had nothing to do with wanting to "stifle political discourse", but rather had everything to do with bringing the institution's budget under control so that it wouldn't have to periodically force tax increases on the citizens of Colorado.

Certainly, these kinds of concerns mean something to an individual like Ward Churchill, who see universities as little more than a platform from which they can force their political views on their students.

(Contrary to popular views individuals like Churchill are actually a minority among university faculties -- often an outspoken and powerful minority, but a minority nonetheless.)

With the exception of a collection of far-left lunatics who seemed to believe that Ward Churchill should have been allowed to forge data, plagiarize and humiliate his insitution at will, most people seem to understand that Ward Churchill is, frankly, an asshole.

For Tom Lucero, campaigning against that asshole might just be crazy enough to work.

At the very least, it's fun.