…the Conservatives would never run negative ads. Heck, we’d just surrender to a few more decades of Liberal rule.

On Macleans Capital Read blog, journalist Aaron Wherry breathlessly tells us what our betters think of the latest round of Conservative ads. Wherry headlines the article “Schoolyard tripe! Poisonous! Demeaning! Anti-American!” and proceeds to list criticism from non-partisan voices such as Jim Travers, Angelo Persichilli, the Edmonton Journal, the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star! Who are these voices of reason? Reading them makes it so clear that to armchair political analysts, the Conservatives have made a disastrous misstep in running negative advertising, because nobody likes negative ads, and of course, such ads don’t work.

Thousands of dollars worth of focus groups studying the reactions of average, everyday Canadians would seem to indicate otherwise. The decisions that go into these sorts of adverts are not made on a whim. Political calculations are much more involved than started from one’s prejudices against conservatism and then spewing under-informed analysis in 750 paid words or less. There is a method to the Machiavellian madness. From the gender of the narrating voice, to its tone, to the imagery of the ads and the theme, it would seem that the Conservatives have concluded through some expensive research that Canadians seem to have a problem with Michael Ignatieff’s seeming self-serving interest in returning to Canada. “The ads will backfire”, “Canadians are turned off by negative ads”, “This isn’t the United States (oops)” are the sounds coming from the Parliamentary Press Gallery and other members of the media elite in this country. They claim to tell us what we think when it’s clear that they’re out of touch with the effect that those ads will have on us as Canadians.

The other elites — those that reside in the Liberal Party — tell us who should raise our kids, what kind of cars we should drive and whose feelings we should not offend, are of course the producers of these ads:

This may only be the first government that Mr. Wherry’s has covered, but some perspective please. The difference between these two ads and the latest round of Conservative advertising? The Grit ads were baldfaced lies; how’s your healthcare, your “scrapped Kyoto accord”, your right to choose and who was it that was prepared to work with the Bloc Quebecois? Where are the soldiers with guns in our streets?. In contrast, the Conservative ads are true. Michael Ignatieff was out of the country for 34 years, has mused that taxes will go up and the video wherein he says “you have to decide what kind of America you want, right? You have to decide. It’s your country just as much as it is mine” is undoctored. These are Michael Ignatieff’s own words. In fact, they’re so true that the only line of defense is to attack the process.

Funny that the Liberals are silent on this and it is the media who comes to their defense.

I received this internal memo from a source close to the Hudak campaign,

MEMO TO: TIM HUDAK TEAM

FROM: CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS

RE: MEMBERSHIP CUT-OFF

Tim Hudak today congratulated his team for signing up more new members than expected in the Ontario PC Party leadership race.

“We had our internal benchmarks, and you outperformed expectations,” Hudak told volunteers. “You signed up 14,000 new members, and made us the first and only campaign to build grassroots, on-the-ground organizations in each and every riding.”

Though final numbers are still being counted, a clear pattern is emerging: while other campaigns found support among a small group of corporations and high-rollers, donors to the Tim Hudak campaign are from a broader group of grassroots members and small, individual donors.

With over $200,000 now raised we’re on par or above all the other candidates.

We’re all going to continue to work hard and convince the entire party membership that Tim is the right person to be our leader, and the right person to be the Premier of Ontario.

and this internal memo from within the Christine Elliott campaign,

MEMO – CONFIDENTIAL

To: Campaign Team
From: Andrew Boddington
Date: May 16, 2009
RE: Membership Sales

Team,

With membership cut-off now behind us, I wanted to touch base and let you know how well we have done.

The Party is reporting the total membership now stands at 40,000 people, which is roughly 32,000 more members than when we started this race. This is great news for our Party as we look to defeat McGuinty in 2011.

Thanks to your hard work and tireless effort we have managed to turn this election into a very tight race. With all campaigns having now submitted their memberships, the Party’s Executive Director Christine Hogarth called it a “real horse race” in the news this weekend, and for good reason – we are literally neck-and-neck with the other campaigns.

We will gladly let the others talk about numbers, but remember the other campaigns will always exaggerate their support. We’re not playing that game. What I can tell you is that our final membership push – literally the last few days worth of work – really paid off. Our team submitted approximately 1/3 of the memberships that were dropped off on the evening of the deadline. This result points to two very important facts: 1) Christine has the momentum going into the persuasion phase; and 2) we have the hardest working campaign team in this race.

In the coming days you may hear membership figures cited by the other campaigns – I received a leaked memo from another campaign team, for instance, that told its volunteers they signed up “14,000 new members”. This is an example of how campaigns often cite inflated numbers out of desperation. Disregard these numbers for what they really are: exaggerated figures intended to boost the spirits of volunteers who expected a coronation, and now find themselves in a horse race.

We had a remarkable first phase of the campaign comprised of fantastic events, and great media coverage. Few people could have guessed we would be able to achieve this much, having only started this race in April. We have succeeded in erasing the lead of a supposed “front runner” and Party officials confirm this race is wide-open. This is amazing work, and I thank all of you for making it possible. You can proudly spread the word about Christine’s momentum to other party members.

Great work everyone.

Thanks again,
Andrew

Andrew G. Boddington
Christine Elliott Campaign

Meanwhile, a source from the Frank Klees campaign boasts that their membership numbers have surpassed 10,000.

Membership sales for voting eligability for the Ontario PC leadership race closed last night and there have been reports and boasts from various campaigns as to their numbers. A source close to the party called me tonight and passed on the following information.

Before the leadership race began, party membership stood at 8,500 members. Through the PC Party website and through late submissions from riding associations who have re-sync’d their numbers with the central party office, that number has risen to 15,000. These new memberships are not attributed to any campaign.

The surprise news is that Frank Klees sold the most memberships compared to the other candidates, according to my source. Klees has reportedly sold about 9,000 new memberships for the party. Upon further analysis, this may not be so surprising as Klees sold more memberships in the 2004 contest as than anyone did in this one; Klees has the benefit of old lists of supporters that he could call upon. Thus, the quality of the memberships is a bit suspect and it is unknown as to whether he’ll be able to get these members out to vote. Klees’ membership numbers are concentrated in York and Peel regions.

Christine Elliott apparently is in second place with about 8,000 new memberships sold. Elliott’s membership base is fairly spread out but has high concentration in Toronto, 905, Windsor and some in SW Ontario. Elliott’s campaign is reportedly dead in the Niagara region.

Tim Hudak, of course, is very strong in the Niagara region. Further, his numbers show strength in Hamilton and fairly strong in Peel region. Hudak comes in at just under 7,000, according to my source.

Randy Hillier rounds out the pack with about 3,100 memberships sold. No surprise, Hillier is strong in eastern Ontario but is quite weak in the other regions.

Do these numbers give us any insight as to who might win this? In my opinion, not too much. 6,500 memberships were sold through the party website and I know some campaigns, such as the Hudak campaign have aggressively sold online and via the party site. On the other hand, I’ve heard that the Elliott campaign has polled well among the already established 8,500 members.

I think that we can make a few conclusions:
- there are no hard conclusions except to say this may be anyone’s race except for Hillier
- Klees may surprise, but only if his numbers are firm. He may also take a chunk of the established membership base.
- Hudak’s sales underwhelm, but barely. CP ran a story last night detailing weak fundraising totals (behind 10:1 vs. Elliott). But in the end, members voting will win this. If the party’s 6,500 non-attributed members break Hudak, he may still be strong. Yet, despite this we cannot and should not conclude that Hudak is the perceived front-runner even though he’s worn this title up until now.
- Elliott is within striking distance. If her numbers are indeed spread out as they are, she may be able to deliver under the party’s 100 point per riding system.
- Hudak and Elliott will do their best to appeal to Hillier support. Elliott’s flat tax proposal and Hudak’s HRC triangulation are obvious overtures to Hillier’s base. We will likely see more though I think it will be Elliott that sides against the bears. Hudak, however, has opportunity elsewhere in Hillier’s platform.
- Klees’ strategy will centre around raising money to deliver votes, and running on experience. If Klees projects as Premier, he may become this province’s next head of government. Those that have written Klees off early will be taking another look given these numbers.

Good week for Conservatives, don’t you think? I hear that Brian Mulroney did pretty well too!

Q: Why is Michael Ignatieff still in Canada?

A: Because Ruby Dhalla’s holding his passport.

*rimshot*

Play her off, keyboard cat…

Yesterday in the National Post, Don Martin wrote a column condemning the Conservative’s “definition” ads on Michael Ignatieff trying to find scandal where there is none.

The Conservative Web site attacking the new Liberal leader is www.Ignatieff. me. Here endeth the federal party’s free publicity.

The .me Internet domain name is registered to the tiny European country of Montenegro, incidentally governed by a coalition, and its Web administrator is based in Arizona. It is, I’m told by experienced Web surfers, often used to showcase pornography.

Columnists and (more unfortunately) reporters often use terms such as “critics say”, “experts agree”, “some suggest” in place of “in my opinion”, “I think”, and “according to me”. Perhaps “I’m told by experienced Web surfers” could be “the Liberal party told me that” but “questions surround” Don’s true source on top level domains and pornography.

I decided that I’d get to the bottom of this. I decided to check Google for the number of sites that came up when one searches for the term “porn”. If Mr. Martin is correct, we’ll see the Montenegro top level domain (TLD) populated with teh porn results. However, I wanted to take a look to be sure.

There are 251 top level domains that I checked (including the 180 or so countries recognized at the UN), the semi-autonomous regions and the other TLDs including .com, .org, .net.

Don’t worry, I didn’t do these searches one at a time, one browser-based Google search after another; I wrote a script that used the Google AJAX API to get the results and crunch them.

For a quick tutorial on google searches, a search for

site:.fr fromage

will return all sites with the keyword “fromage” in the French top level domain.

Using the Google AJAX API, I decided to check every country code for the number of results with the keyword “porn”.

http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/services/search/web?v=1.0&q=site:.me%20porn
where “%20″ is the URL encoded character for a space

I wrote a PHP script that checks each TLD for “porn” and then parses the results to extract the number of search results from the output of the Google AJAX API call.

Here are the results (you’ll want to click each graph to enlarge them)

If you click on the image to enlarge it, you’ll see that the most populated TLD for the word “porn” (as indexed by Google) is .com. In fact, Montenegro ranks at 61 for propensity of porn. In fact, if you’d be more likely to find porn on the (.cx) domain for… yes, Christmas Island. If we want to measure the proportion of porn sites in a TLD, .me is 15th behind the “porn-showcasing” countries of the Bahamas, Norfolk Island, Azerbaijan, Grenada, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Western Samoa, Bhutan, Congo, Togo, Tokelau, Georgia, Seychelles Islands, and the Virgin Islands. Just over 1% of .com domain names contain the keyword “porn”. Montenegro clocks in at just half a percent more. So, I think we can put Don Martin’s irresponsible words to rest. In terms of “showcased porn”, you’re much more likely to see it on German, Polish and Russian servers. Further, the term “showcase” is deceiving as well since most domains are open to registration to all local residents (if not all global residents) and there is generally no stipulation that states that a registrant must feature pornography.

But where did Don Martin’s assumption come from? Given the Liberal Party’s embarrassment and lack of foresight in launching a campaign at onprobation.ca when onprobation.com turned out to be a hardcore pornographic website, perhaps the Liberals were floating some bogus talking points over to Martin to get them published as fact.

Now that we’ve resolved the Montenegro issue, and now that we have a great program that sorts TLDs by search terms, let’s make sure that we’re still #1 for what matters (even though all Canadian team have been eliminated).

Take that, Sweden.

If you’re interested in the PHP program, here’s the source code.

I had the opportunity to chat with Ontario PC leadership candidate Christine Elliott about the fiscal policy that’s earned her a few headlines over the past two weeks. Specifically, I asked about EI and her flat tax proposal. If the other candidates want to chat about specific policies they’ve outlined recently now that membership sales have cut off, please send me an email and we’ll set something up.

Related: Tim Hudak interview, Christine Elliott interview (different one), Frank Klees interview, Randy Hillier interview

Jane Taber wrote last weekend,

For all those Canadians who think Michael Ignatieff, the newly-installed Liberal Leader, is an intellectual snob, read on: He enjoys keeping up on all the celebrity news and gossip in tabloid magazines, including Star Magazine and HELLO! Canada. As a result, he says he knows all about the ravages of cellulite, the dimply-skin problem that affects mostly women. Indeed, his knowledge of that issue is as rich as it is of the carbon cap and trade system. However, he is just enough of a snob that he refuses to be seen buying the magazines; his wife, Zsuszanna Zsohar, does that.

Dr. Ignatieff will be spending a lot of time on this mag. It’s Ignatieff.me!

UDPATE: Here are some of the videos from the site

Within the last few minutes, the Conservative Party of Canada finally rolled out an ad defining a message track about Michael Ignatieff. Take a look:

The main message from the Tories here is that Michael Ignatieff has been out of the country and is only back in the country for his own ambition. The “Just Visiting” line is a good one because it will ring true to many Canadians and their perceived sense of commitment to country. In fact, Michael Ignatieff has already tried to pre-emptively blunt this form of attack by writing a book titled True Patriot Love wherein he outlines his mother’s family’s commitment to this country.

Narrator: Why is Michael Ignatieff back in Canada after being away for 34 years? Does he have a plan for the economy? No, instead he’s running attack ads hiding the fact that he hasn’t offered any economic ideas… just attack ads. With no long term plan for the economy, he’s not in it for Canada… just in it for himself. It’s the only reason he’s back. Michael Ignatieff: Just Visiting.

It’s interesting to note that the Conservative Party has framed “Grit Girl” Youtube vidoes as Liberal attack ads. Most observers note that the professionally produced though anonymously released ads are most likely being churned out by the Liberal Research Bureau or by Liberal HQ. Usually the videos first see wide distribution on the blog of Ignatieff’s war room captain Warren Kinsella.

The image is strong and cynical. It show an image of the Liberal leader simply drifting by and transitory. The Conservatives are also accusing the Liberals of running attack ads. The ad touches upon the #1 issue in the economy successfully underscores Igntieff’s main negative. Some observers will remember that Ignatieff once mused that if he didn’t ascend to the Prime Minister’s Office that Harvard would likely take him back.

on the status of women.

From “Ruby TV”, posted May 5, 2008

In this clip from a year ago, Ms. Dhalla speaks about:
- the rights of women from her riding
- how it is the Conservative government that has failed women in her riding
- about how Stephen Harper has “broken his promise” to “women who advocate on the behalf of other women” like Ms. Dhalla (or “Miss Ruby” as she’s known to the help at home)
- about how Stephen Harper has failed women that “actually speak up”
- We learn that the wage gap is “still alive and well”.

h/t: Jim Richards

Ruby Dhalla (via her lawyer) states that it was her brother, Neil Dhalla, that owns the three chiropractor clinics which the nannies were allegedly made to clean and Dhalla’s lawyer says it was Neil Dhalla who allegedly took the passports from the nannies.

Who is Neil Dhalla?

In this 2005 election ad from the Liberal party, Ruby Dhalla’s brother states that “the Canadian economy has remained strong and [he thinks] it’s because of the Liberal vision…”

UPDATE: Looks like Kate was watching the presser at the same time and was thinking the same thing. After all, we worked on these posts together back in 2005. <sarcasm>Of course, this just indicates that this is all part of a larger nefarious Conservative conspiracy!</sarcasm>