the Liberal Party of Canada, with full knowledge of Michael Ignatieff, was planning their attack ad campaign.
"... a senior Liberal official said the party strategy dating back six months ago was to launch these attack ads at this particular phase in the campaign – “whether we were 10 points up or 10 points down,”
Ignatieff, like every other Liberal leader after Chretien, made a promise that the Liberals would not go negative and then he broke that promise, but more importantly Ignatieff was making that promise to Canadians AFTER the attack ad strategy was planned.
What the hell does that say about the character of Michael Ignatieff.
BTW the Liberals have been completely busted on a quote by the PM in their health care scare ad. And by completely busted I mean Kady busted. - "Seriously, LPC, just apologize, edit the ad and move on. There is no earthly defence for allowing a misattribution to stand"
Further update: The geniuses at the Liberal Party have decided to release the link to where they got the quote from, but in doing so show that they KNEW it was a lie. (BTW the LPC used this quote and attributed it to the real author back in 2004, but today claim that they didn't know the truth)
I spoke too soon. The LPC have attempted to scrub the internet of their link to the page that released the link showing that they were lying.
Trying to keep up with the Liberal lies and attempts at cover-up are starting to confuse me.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Who better to lead Canada if the Party Quebecois gains power: A CPC majority or a Coalition backed by the Bloc?
The Bloc loves instability in Ottawa and what could possibly create more instability than a Party Quebecois government in Quebec pushing for another referendum at the same time that Gilles and the Bloc Quebecois held the cards in some sort of coalition government.
Scary.
Monday Update: From the National Post.
Scary.
Monday Update: From the National Post.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Chantal Hébert: Liberals face a walloping in Quebec.
Just a teaser: "Short of a game-changer between now and May 2, Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals will take a beating in Quebec next month." Read the rest here.
While I hope what Chantal wrote accurately reflects the situation in Quebec, I am not counting on it and I am going to work my butt off on the local level to get that majority without having to rely on Quebec. That would be sweet wouldn't it. Also a majority gov't would be much more effective if they had to deal with a PQ gov't at some point in the future, which is something a Bloc backed coalition could never hope to achieve.
We can get it done but it will not be easy as the last couple of weeks are going to be crucial with the desperation of the left/opposition only intensifying as May 2nd approaches. All hands on deck!
While I hope what Chantal wrote accurately reflects the situation in Quebec, I am not counting on it and I am going to work my butt off on the local level to get that majority without having to rely on Quebec. That would be sweet wouldn't it. Also a majority gov't would be much more effective if they had to deal with a PQ gov't at some point in the future, which is something a Bloc backed coalition could never hope to achieve.
We can get it done but it will not be easy as the last couple of weeks are going to be crucial with the desperation of the left/opposition only intensifying as May 2nd approaches. All hands on deck!
Friday, April 15, 2011
Neither rain nor snow......
Out on the campaign trail last evening in Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont with incumbent Mike Lake and a few volunteers as they door knocked their way through a nasty spring snow storm. Although the heavy wet snow made for some tough going at times, it was clear at the doors that the effort was appreciated.
If you live in the Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont area and have even a couple of hours of free time to volunteer give the campaign office a call @ 780-466-0195, and if you live elsewhere please give your local CPC candidates campaign office a call. Election campaigns are won locally and on the ground. Any help that you can offer will be greatly appreciated.
If you live in the Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont area and have even a couple of hours of free time to volunteer give the campaign office a call @ 780-466-0195, and if you live elsewhere please give your local CPC candidates campaign office a call. Election campaigns are won locally and on the ground. Any help that you can offer will be greatly appreciated.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Ignatieff: UN if necessary, but not necessarily the UN. Giving away our sovereignty.
For Michael Ignatieff, for today at least, it is the UN if necessary, but not necessarily the UN.
Does Michael Ignatieff want to give away our sovereignty by letting the UN dictate where and when Canada's armed forces may be used?
As usual it is hard to tell because one day Ignatifeff says one thing and the next day it is something else entirely.
Yesterday Michael Ignatieff said the following in the French language debate: “The Canadian army must never be used outside the country without the authorization of the UN,” but today he seems to be backpedaling somewhat.
He wants us to trust him to be our PM, but honestly how can we when his positions seem to shift around depending on what day it is. Take the following quote as an example: “Well, the UN screwed up in Rwanda, it screwed up in Bosnia — it screws up most of the time,” Ignatieff is quoted as saying in a Maclean’s magazine article in June, 2003. “The United Nations is a messy, wasteful, log-rolling organization.” (must have been a Tuesday) But we are now to forget that he ever spoke those words and let that same messy, wasteful, log rolling organization that screws up most of the time, decide when and where our armed forces be used.
Does anyone really know what this guy honestly believes or where he stands?
Michael Ignatieff: "Politics is theatre. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel."
Does Michael Ignatieff want to give away our sovereignty by letting the UN dictate where and when Canada's armed forces may be used?
As usual it is hard to tell because one day Ignatifeff says one thing and the next day it is something else entirely.
Yesterday Michael Ignatieff said the following in the French language debate: “The Canadian army must never be used outside the country without the authorization of the UN,” but today he seems to be backpedaling somewhat.
He wants us to trust him to be our PM, but honestly how can we when his positions seem to shift around depending on what day it is. Take the following quote as an example: “Well, the UN screwed up in Rwanda, it screwed up in Bosnia — it screws up most of the time,” Ignatieff is quoted as saying in a Maclean’s magazine article in June, 2003. “The United Nations is a messy, wasteful, log-rolling organization.” (must have been a Tuesday) But we are now to forget that he ever spoke those words and let that same messy, wasteful, log rolling organization that screws up most of the time, decide when and where our armed forces be used.
Does anyone really know what this guy honestly believes or where he stands?
Michael Ignatieff: "Politics is theatre. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel."
Collapse in Quebec: Former co-chair of the Quebec wing of Liberal Party of Canada joins the CPC.
Denise Verreault, campaign co-chair for the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada has abandoned the Liberals and announced that she is supporting PM Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. (link, link translated,)
From the Globe and Mail Her decision to support the Conservatives sent a clear message to voters in the region that when it comes to jobs and investments the Conservatives still carry a great deal more weight than Mr. Duceppe’s promise to defend their interests. And that message alone may be enough for the Conservatives to hold-on to the seats they have in Quebec to help them in their quest for a majority government.
A collapse of what is left of Liberal support in Quebec, or just Quebec realizing that it is better on the inside of government than the outside? Either way, in Quebec I am starting to see shades of 1984 and Mulroney.
From the Globe and Mail Her decision to support the Conservatives sent a clear message to voters in the region that when it comes to jobs and investments the Conservatives still carry a great deal more weight than Mr. Duceppe’s promise to defend their interests. And that message alone may be enough for the Conservatives to hold-on to the seats they have in Quebec to help them in their quest for a majority government.
A collapse of what is left of Liberal support in Quebec, or just Quebec realizing that it is better on the inside of government than the outside? Either way, in Quebec I am starting to see shades of 1984 and Mulroney.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Impartial jury, my ass. The real contempt.
If you were charged with an offence and at your trial you noticed that your accuser was the foreman on your jury, which was made up entirely of his relatives and friends, do you believe that you would get a fair trial and that justice would honestly be served in your case?
That could never happen in Canada you say?
Well it did happen, and it happened in the House of Commons. The only real difference is that in the H of C that jury foreman, the same guy who made the accusations in the first place, had the power to whip the jury on the verdict vote?
I am of course writing about the contempt of Parliament charges which brought down the Government. The opposition made the contempt accusations, they formed the jury, and that jury was, in the most unjust and undemocratically way possible, WHIPPED into voting on what was essentially the verdict. Not exactly as fair and as 'democratic' as the opposition is spinning it as the entire process was rigged from the start entire to get a result they wanted.
Parliament didn't speak; Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe were the ones doing the talking as they took away the choice of elected representatives to speak for themselves and their constituents on a something that should always be above petty politics. Just having them think otherwise is more than enough reason not to vote for any of them or their parties, and reason why we need to work for a strong conservative majority.
Time to stop the games. Parliament is to there serve Canadians, and not political parties and the opportunists that run them.
That could never happen in Canada you say?
Well it did happen, and it happened in the House of Commons. The only real difference is that in the H of C that jury foreman, the same guy who made the accusations in the first place, had the power to whip the jury on the verdict vote?
I am of course writing about the contempt of Parliament charges which brought down the Government. The opposition made the contempt accusations, they formed the jury, and that jury was, in the most unjust and undemocratically way possible, WHIPPED into voting on what was essentially the verdict. Not exactly as fair and as 'democratic' as the opposition is spinning it as the entire process was rigged from the start entire to get a result they wanted.
Parliament didn't speak; Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe were the ones doing the talking as they took away the choice of elected representatives to speak for themselves and their constituents on a something that should always be above petty politics. Just having them think otherwise is more than enough reason not to vote for any of them or their parties, and reason why we need to work for a strong conservative majority.
Time to stop the games. Parliament is to there serve Canadians, and not political parties and the opportunists that run them.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Liberals postpone June national party convention
The Liberal Party of Canada, who are trying to convince you that they can form a government, have decided to postpone their June 2011 party convention presumably because it is too hard for them to run an election campaign and a convention at the same time.
Yet the Conservative Party of Canada seem to have no problems with running a government, an election campaign and planning a June 2011 convention at the same time.
Telling isn't it.
Update: Also telling? Steve Janke gives his take on why this might be happening. Here.
Let the speculation begin as to why the Liberals are postponing what may very well be a Liberal leadership convention?
Rumours that Justin Trudeau was too busy in June have yet to be confirmed. =)
Gritchick ( a big h/t for convention story) has informed me that the NDP are holding their national convention in June as well. Ouch, Liberals.
Yet the Conservative Party of Canada seem to have no problems with running a government, an election campaign and planning a June 2011 convention at the same time.
Telling isn't it.
Update: Also telling? Steve Janke gives his take on why this might be happening. Here.
Let the speculation begin as to why the Liberals are postponing what may very well be a Liberal leadership convention?
Rumours that Justin Trudeau was too busy in June have yet to be confirmed. =)
Gritchick ( a big h/t for convention story) has informed me that the NDP are holding their national convention in June as well. Ouch, Liberals.
Saturday, April 09, 2011
If the CPC comes up 1 or 2 seats short of a majority...
Will you be able to say to yourself that you did all that you could have done to help win those seats?
A majority is possible and within reach, but it is going to take every conservative in the country to help make it so. Get out and get active in any way that you can. It all matters.
A majority is possible and within reach, but it is going to take every conservative in the country to help make it so. Get out and get active in any way that you can. It all matters.
A rarity in Canada: Interview with PM Harper on the issues, and not the ratings grabbing gotcha.
Watch the interview of PM Harper on some of the issues that matter to Canadians that was conducted by Jeff Allan for 570 News in southern Ontario earlier today.
Refreshing wasn't it.
Refreshing wasn't it.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
1 year ago the Liberals supported an IPOD tax, today they don't, tomorrow who really knows.
The Liberals position on an IPOD tax is a bit shaky to say the least. They currently claim that they do not support one but...
On April 14, 2010 a vote was held in the House of Commons:
Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mrs. Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert), seconded by Mr. Pomerleau (Drummond), — That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Wednesday, March 17, 2010, be concurred in.
The vote carried: YEAS: 156, NAYS: 137
And what exactly was the "First Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage" that they were voting on?
That the Committee recommends that the government amend Part VIII of the Copyright Act so that the definition of “audio recording medium” extends to devices with internal memory, so that the levy on copying music will apply to digital music recorders as well, thereby entitling music creators to some compensation for the copies made of their work.
It was an IPOD tax, and it was only one year ago.
(A special note to Evan Solomon from CBC's Power and Politics where this issue came up yesterday. Yes, Martha Hall Findlay did vote for it, as did her leader Michael Ignatieff and the entire Liberal caucus) (Related: Having Ignatieff attend a vote in itself is quite a feat)
Present day and almost a full year after that vote the Liberals are now claiming the opposite and that they do not support an IPOD tax. I guess that is to be expected considering their complete reversal on long standing party support for corporate tax cuts , immigration reform (that one cost them an MP), HST, asbestos, Afghanistan and the list goes on (including the coalition but jury is still out on this one) but with such a long history of such flip flops how do we know what their position, on anything, will be tomorrow? How can we trust them not to change their minds yet again?
We can't.
BTW From the Liberal Platform: “Liberals have worked to pass effective copyright legislation, including a private copying compensation fund instead of any new tax on consumers”.
A 'private copying compensation fund'? And how exactly is that going to be funded my flip flopping Liberal friends? They may not call it an IPOD tax but I somehow doubt that we are going to get away without it costing us more in one way or another.
On April 14, 2010 a vote was held in the House of Commons:
Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mrs. Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert), seconded by Mr. Pomerleau (Drummond), — That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Wednesday, March 17, 2010, be concurred in.
The vote carried: YEAS: 156, NAYS: 137
And what exactly was the "First Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage" that they were voting on?
That the Committee recommends that the government amend Part VIII of the Copyright Act so that the definition of “audio recording medium” extends to devices with internal memory, so that the levy on copying music will apply to digital music recorders as well, thereby entitling music creators to some compensation for the copies made of their work.
It was an IPOD tax, and it was only one year ago.
(A special note to Evan Solomon from CBC's Power and Politics where this issue came up yesterday. Yes, Martha Hall Findlay did vote for it, as did her leader Michael Ignatieff and the entire Liberal caucus) (Related: Having Ignatieff attend a vote in itself is quite a feat)
Present day and almost a full year after that vote the Liberals are now claiming the opposite and that they do not support an IPOD tax. I guess that is to be expected considering their complete reversal on long standing party support for corporate tax cuts , immigration reform (that one cost them an MP), HST, asbestos, Afghanistan and the list goes on (including the coalition but jury is still out on this one) but with such a long history of such flip flops how do we know what their position, on anything, will be tomorrow? How can we trust them not to change their minds yet again?
We can't.
BTW From the Liberal Platform: “Liberals have worked to pass effective copyright legislation, including a private copying compensation fund instead of any new tax on consumers”.
A 'private copying compensation fund'? And how exactly is that going to be funded my flip flopping Liberal friends? They may not call it an IPOD tax but I somehow doubt that we are going to get away without it costing us more in one way or another.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
The video Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada do not want you to see.
Because after all of these years they have yet to be able to spin it positively in any way, shape, or form.
It really is all about character.
BTW for those interested here are the numbers for the amount of times that Ignatieff used the words "We", "Us", "Our" and "Ourselves" in the 2minute and 8 second video above.
Updated with more of the same from Ignatieff:
.
It really is all about character.
BTW for those interested here are the numbers for the amount of times that Ignatieff used the words "We", "Us", "Our" and "Ourselves" in the 2minute and 8 second video above.
Updated with more of the same from Ignatieff:
.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Is the Liberal plan for an open competition for jet fighters already rigged?
Is the Liberal plan for an open competition for jet fighters to replace the aging CF-18 rigged before it even begins? I believe that the evidence suggests that it is. Read on.
Some background and much needed clarity:( because some seem to believe that the LPC will NOT be buying jets)
The Liberal plan is indeed to purchase new fighter jets to replace the CF-18. From Liberal.ca:
A future Liberal government will not proceed with the government acquisition process to purchase untendered F-35 stealth fighters, at a cost of $16 billion. Instead, Liberals will hold an open competition to replace Canada’s CF-18s based on clear and publicly disclosed foreign and defence policy requirements.
So in spite of all of the spin heard from the Liberals such as "vets not jets", “we choose families, not fighter jets,” "family care not fighter jets" the reality is that the Liberal Party of Canada intend to buy new jet fighters to replace the Cf-18.
So both the current government and the Liberals are planning to replace the Cf-18; the difference comes in that the Liberals are claiming that they would hold an open competition for the replacements and not necessarily go with the F-35. Michael Ignatieff: "a future Liberal government will cancel the F-35 stealth fighter deal and hold an open competition to replace Canada’s CF-18s."
While an open competition may sound like a good idea the current requirements from the Department of National Defence would disqualify every other possible aircraft in a competition other than F-35 because of its stealth abilities. (Kevin Page PBO report link PDF) "First and foremost, the proposed acquisition must satisfy the DND's Statement of Requirements. The PBO has been provided with and has reviewed the relevant Statement of Requirements. The F-35 is the only strike/fighter jet that can meet the specifications contained in this document as written." Even some Liberals agree that the F-35 is the only fighter for Canada.
But lets put the discussion on the need for a competition aside for a moment and look at what the Liberals claim will be the result of such a competition. They will save us money and they will take that money and apply it to other programs:
“If the government were to hold an open competition, they could guarantee the maximum number of jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry while saving limited government funds that would be better spent easing the economic strain on hard-pressed middle-class families.”
“Liberals would rather save money by opening the contract to competition, freeing up funds to support hundreds of thousands of Canadian families who are caring for sick or aging loved ones with our $1-billion Family Care Plan,” concluded Mr. LeBlanc.
Interesting. Even before the process is held, the Liberals already know that the competition will save money, but what happens if in that competition the F-35 IS chosen as the best plane for our needs? A very likely outcome if we want to purchase the best possible aircraft for our military.
At a MINIMUM it would cost us exactly the same amount as the Conservative replacement plan, but could very likely end up costing us much more due to all of the delays and us jumping into a program late into the game. Either way no money could possibly be saved by having a competition.
So I have to ask. How is it possible for the Liberals to be able to claim that they will save money on a replacement fighter jet program, going so far as to have already delegated those 'savings' to pay for other programs in their platform, before any competition has even taken place and of course not knowing which aircraft will be chosen?
The answer is simple. The competition has already been rigged and the F-35 has lost before the competition has even started.
Related: Here is what one Liberal MP had to say on the F-35. Tell me if you think she sounds the least bit interested in a fair and open competition to find the best plane for our military:
Alexandra Mendes: "Mr. Speaker, I will start by acknowledging that I do not think my hon. colleague is an expert on the matter. I will just say that there are a lot of other planes that our air force could use and should use. We do not need stealth airplanes. Canada is a peaceful country. We certainly do not need those kinds of planes."
Sorry Alexandra but I prefer to let the experts in our military decide what their needs are and not the Liberal Party who are more interested in buying votes with suspect spending schemes than they are in the well being of our military.
What the F-35 brings to the fight.
Some background and much needed clarity:( because some seem to believe that the LPC will NOT be buying jets)
The Liberal plan is indeed to purchase new fighter jets to replace the CF-18. From Liberal.ca:
A future Liberal government will not proceed with the government acquisition process to purchase untendered F-35 stealth fighters, at a cost of $16 billion. Instead, Liberals will hold an open competition to replace Canada’s CF-18s based on clear and publicly disclosed foreign and defence policy requirements.
So in spite of all of the spin heard from the Liberals such as "vets not jets", “we choose families, not fighter jets,” "family care not fighter jets" the reality is that the Liberal Party of Canada intend to buy new jet fighters to replace the Cf-18.
So both the current government and the Liberals are planning to replace the Cf-18; the difference comes in that the Liberals are claiming that they would hold an open competition for the replacements and not necessarily go with the F-35. Michael Ignatieff: "a future Liberal government will cancel the F-35 stealth fighter deal and hold an open competition to replace Canada’s CF-18s."
While an open competition may sound like a good idea the current requirements from the Department of National Defence would disqualify every other possible aircraft in a competition other than F-35 because of its stealth abilities. (Kevin Page PBO report link PDF) "First and foremost, the proposed acquisition must satisfy the DND's Statement of Requirements. The PBO has been provided with and has reviewed the relevant Statement of Requirements. The F-35 is the only strike/fighter jet that can meet the specifications contained in this document as written." Even some Liberals agree that the F-35 is the only fighter for Canada.
But lets put the discussion on the need for a competition aside for a moment and look at what the Liberals claim will be the result of such a competition. They will save us money and they will take that money and apply it to other programs:
“If the government were to hold an open competition, they could guarantee the maximum number of jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry while saving limited government funds that would be better spent easing the economic strain on hard-pressed middle-class families.”
“Liberals would rather save money by opening the contract to competition, freeing up funds to support hundreds of thousands of Canadian families who are caring for sick or aging loved ones with our $1-billion Family Care Plan,” concluded Mr. LeBlanc.
Interesting. Even before the process is held, the Liberals already know that the competition will save money, but what happens if in that competition the F-35 IS chosen as the best plane for our needs? A very likely outcome if we want to purchase the best possible aircraft for our military.
At a MINIMUM it would cost us exactly the same amount as the Conservative replacement plan, but could very likely end up costing us much more due to all of the delays and us jumping into a program late into the game. Either way no money could possibly be saved by having a competition.
So I have to ask. How is it possible for the Liberals to be able to claim that they will save money on a replacement fighter jet program, going so far as to have already delegated those 'savings' to pay for other programs in their platform, before any competition has even taken place and of course not knowing which aircraft will be chosen?
The answer is simple. The competition has already been rigged and the F-35 has lost before the competition has even started.
Related: Here is what one Liberal MP had to say on the F-35. Tell me if you think she sounds the least bit interested in a fair and open competition to find the best plane for our military:
Alexandra Mendes: "Mr. Speaker, I will start by acknowledging that I do not think my hon. colleague is an expert on the matter. I will just say that there are a lot of other planes that our air force could use and should use. We do not need stealth airplanes. Canada is a peaceful country. We certainly do not need those kinds of planes."
Sorry Alexandra but I prefer to let the experts in our military decide what their needs are and not the Liberal Party who are more interested in buying votes with suspect spending schemes than they are in the well being of our military.
What the F-35 brings to the fight.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
When the real Liberal starts to show..... watch your wallets and your rights.
More reasons why Canada needs a CPC majority.
The latest from Michael Ignatieff has him wanting to not only regulate the western oils sands, but YOUR diet as well. (screenshots @ bottom of page) You knew it was just a matter of time before Ignatieff got his true Liberal on in public. It is impossible for any of them to go any serious length of time without telling all Canadians what is 'best' for us and then regulate how we act.
Liberals; you don't know how to run my life better than me and just the fact that you actually think that you do makes the effort that I put into this blog informing Canadians and exposing your spin, just all that much more worth while. If I want to put pepper on my plate, that is up to me and not some over bloated nanny state created bureaucracy, and I don't want the government (of ANY political stripe) in my kitchen regulating and controlling how or what I can eat.
Now as for Ignatieff's comments on the oil sands...
Aside from the fact that Ignatieff is again treading into provincial responsibility as does his childcare and RESP changes, it would seem that the great uniter looks to be doing just the opposite by dividing us into regions and pushing the tired old west vs east shtick. Not that it is unexpected from any Liberal leader desperate to hold what he has for seats in the Toronto area, but having it happen so early in the campaign is a bit of a surprise. Divide and conquer is usually a week 3 trick in the Liberal playbook.
Screenshots of above twitter links:
The latest from Michael Ignatieff has him wanting to not only regulate the western oils sands, but YOUR diet as well. (screenshots @ bottom of page) You knew it was just a matter of time before Ignatieff got his true Liberal on in public. It is impossible for any of them to go any serious length of time without telling all Canadians what is 'best' for us and then regulate how we act.
Liberals; you don't know how to run my life better than me and just the fact that you actually think that you do makes the effort that I put into this blog informing Canadians and exposing your spin, just all that much more worth while. If I want to put pepper on my plate, that is up to me and not some over bloated nanny state created bureaucracy, and I don't want the government (of ANY political stripe) in my kitchen regulating and controlling how or what I can eat.
Now as for Ignatieff's comments on the oil sands...
Aside from the fact that Ignatieff is again treading into provincial responsibility as does his childcare and RESP changes, it would seem that the great uniter looks to be doing just the opposite by dividing us into regions and pushing the tired old west vs east shtick. Not that it is unexpected from any Liberal leader desperate to hold what he has for seats in the Toronto area, but having it happen so early in the campaign is a bit of a surprise. Divide and conquer is usually a week 3 trick in the Liberal playbook.
Screenshots of above twitter links:
Monday, March 28, 2011
Election 2011: Battleground Alberta Edmonton Strathcona
One of the most watched ridings in the country this year is going to be Edmonton Strathcona, the only riding in Alberta that currently is not being held by the Conservatives.
Edmonton Strathcona is currently represented by Linda Duncan of the NDP, who won the riding in the 2008 election over incumbent Rahim Jaffer by less than 500 votes, and the NDP is getting very nervous about losing. So much so they have targeted the riding and have pulled out all of the stops to try and keep it.
And why are the NDP worried? Well it certainly is not because of the Liberal candidate, as there is NONE declared yet ( The LPC had better rectify this one fast or it will only add to the numerous coalition questions coming their way, and make a mockery of their 308 national party strategy) and it certainly can't be because of the Green Party candidate who seems to be asking people not to vote Green.
No, the answer to why Linda Duncan and the NDP are so worried is because of Ryan Hastman.
Ryan Hastman the tireless Conservative candidate (he now has knocked on over 17,000 doors in Edmonton-Strathcona) has been working hard reconnecting with conservatives in the riding who where turned off by the previous candidate, and anyone else who may have a difficult time with their MP rallying against the oil industry which is the life blood of not only the riding but the Province and the country.
Including this nose stretcher with Duncan lying about moose and bears. Oh my! "But it's all too little, too late, argues Alberta NDP MP Linda Duncan. "We pay attention to the tailing ponds because there's physical evidence in the dead ducks. But birds, moose and bears are dying in these ponds every day" ( 100% NDP/Duncan BS)
Do the good people of Edmonton Strathcona need someone in Ottawa who is voting against their best interests? No, Linda Duncan needs to go and Ryan Hastman is the man to make sure that happens.
Ryan and his team have laid the groundwork for retaking the riding but they are going to need the help of conservatives everywhere to make sure that goal is achieved.
It is time to get active and fight back. Give the Hastman campaign office a call and volunteer, even a couple of hours may make the difference, and help make sure that the single yellow spot on the electoral map of Alberta is removed for good.
The difference was less than 500 votes last time so don't be under the impression that your vote or your contribution, no matter how small in time or dollars, cannot make a real difference in Edmonton Strathcona.
Get out and get active!
Campaign Office located at 5611 Gateway Blvd (north)
Office phone: 780-433-0691
Website: http://www.ryanhastman.com/
.
Edmonton Strathcona is currently represented by Linda Duncan of the NDP, who won the riding in the 2008 election over incumbent Rahim Jaffer by less than 500 votes, and the NDP is getting very nervous about losing. So much so they have targeted the riding and have pulled out all of the stops to try and keep it.
No, the answer to why Linda Duncan and the NDP are so worried is because of Ryan Hastman.
Ryan Hastman the tireless Conservative candidate (he now has knocked on over 17,000 doors in Edmonton-Strathcona) has been working hard reconnecting with conservatives in the riding who where turned off by the previous candidate, and anyone else who may have a difficult time with their MP rallying against the oil industry which is the life blood of not only the riding but the Province and the country.
Including this nose stretcher with Duncan lying about moose and bears. Oh my! "But it's all too little, too late, argues Alberta NDP MP Linda Duncan. "We pay attention to the tailing ponds because there's physical evidence in the dead ducks. But birds, moose and bears are dying in these ponds every day" ( 100% NDP/Duncan BS)
Do the good people of Edmonton Strathcona need someone in Ottawa who is voting against their best interests? No, Linda Duncan needs to go and Ryan Hastman is the man to make sure that happens.
Ryan and his team have laid the groundwork for retaking the riding but they are going to need the help of conservatives everywhere to make sure that goal is achieved.
It is time to get active and fight back. Give the Hastman campaign office a call and volunteer, even a couple of hours may make the difference, and help make sure that the single yellow spot on the electoral map of Alberta is removed for good.
The difference was less than 500 votes last time so don't be under the impression that your vote or your contribution, no matter how small in time or dollars, cannot make a real difference in Edmonton Strathcona.
Get out and get active!
Campaign Office located at 5611 Gateway Blvd (north)
Office phone: 780-433-0691
Website: http://www.ryanhastman.com/
.
Liberal John McCallum admits Ignatieff's corporate tax hike will cost jobs.
Yesterday on the Roy Green show on the Corus Radio Network, Liberal MP for Markham—Unionville, John McCallum admitted that the Liberals plan to raise corporate taxes from 16.5% to 18 % would cost Canadians jobs.
That's John McCallum ladies and gentlemen, part of the Liberal Team!
Update: John McCallum apologizes to Peter Donolo for telling the truth about the Liberals plan to raise taxes! The Liberal Party of Canada, where telling the truth requires an apology.
Past posts on McCallum:
That's John McCallum ladies and gentlemen, part of the Liberal Team!
Update: John McCallum apologizes to Peter Donolo for telling the truth about the Liberals plan to raise taxes! The Liberal Party of Canada, where telling the truth requires an apology.
Past posts on McCallum:
Meet your new Liberal Transport critic.
"I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down.."
And you want to be my latex salesman Mr. McCallum
The front runner for Finance Minister under Ignatieff.
John McCallum again on the Roy Green Show. This time talking about Ignatieff signing the 2008 coalition deal. (listen as hilarity ensues)
John McCallum again on the Roy Green Show. This time talking about Ignatieff signing the 2008 coalition deal. (listen as hilarity ensues)
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Deja Vu as a Liberal again leader rules out a coalition.
Some say history repeats itself and it looks like we are seeing that phenomenon in action in campaign 2011.
Sept 23 2008: Liberal Leader Stephane Dion rules out a coalition.
The day previously: "Mr. Dion had been less direct in his answer yesterday when asked about Mr. Layton's comments. Today, aides said, he came to the media scrum prepared with the answer he gave."
March 26, 2011 Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff rules out a coalition (sort of )
The day previously: "After leading a historic vote that pulled the plug on Harper's second minority government, Ignatieff was asked by journalists six times whether he would rule out forming a coalition government. Six times, he refused to answer." Vancouver Sun.
In 2008: Dion was proven to be a liar as he did enter into a coalition arrangement.
In 2011: Michael Ignatieff....
Is there really any basis to trust Ignatieff or the Liberals on this? Well if history does repeat itself, and so far in this case it has, I don't think we can or should.
It is not like Ignatieff has exactly been Mr.Honesty (Audio: Ignatieff lies to High School students) in the past.
Video: Ignatieff caught in another lie.
Sept 23 2008: Liberal Leader Stephane Dion rules out a coalition.
The day previously: "Mr. Dion had been less direct in his answer yesterday when asked about Mr. Layton's comments. Today, aides said, he came to the media scrum prepared with the answer he gave."
March 26, 2011 Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff rules out a coalition (sort of )
The day previously: "After leading a historic vote that pulled the plug on Harper's second minority government, Ignatieff was asked by journalists six times whether he would rule out forming a coalition government. Six times, he refused to answer." Vancouver Sun.
In 2008: Dion was proven to be a liar as he did enter into a coalition arrangement.
In 2011: Michael Ignatieff....
Is there really any basis to trust Ignatieff or the Liberals on this? Well if history does repeat itself, and so far in this case it has, I don't think we can or should.
It is not like Ignatieff has exactly been Mr.Honesty (Audio: Ignatieff lies to High School students) in the past.
Video: Ignatieff caught in another lie.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Edmonton-Sherwood Park: James Ford holds a grudge?
James Ford confirmed Friday he plans to run as an independent in Edmonton-Sherwood Park.
It seems that Ford is still angry that Tim Uppal won the CPC nomination back in 2008, a nomination that Ford himself WAS NOT RUNNING IN, and after 3 years he is still finding it hard to bury the hatchet.
At least that is the 'official' story, but I think the other reasons may be found in some of Ford's remarks:
“He’s not from the riding,” Ford said Friday. “He doesn’t belong.”
But than again I might be totally wrong about the possible reasons for running again. After all Ford did at one time want Uppal to be investigated for winning the nomination fair and square showing that he does not quite understand laws or how nominations work. BTW here is what Jacquie Fenske, the person Uppal defeated in the nomination race in 2008, had to say about Tim's win.
Personally I think the CPC, the people of Edmonton-Sherwood Park and the people of Canada are immensely better off having a proven MP like Tim Uppal in Ottawa than having someone like James Ford there. I hope the voters of Edmonton Sherwood-Park agree
It seems that Ford is still angry that Tim Uppal won the CPC nomination back in 2008, a nomination that Ford himself WAS NOT RUNNING IN, and after 3 years he is still finding it hard to bury the hatchet.
At least that is the 'official' story, but I think the other reasons may be found in some of Ford's remarks:
“He’s not from the riding,” Ford said Friday. “He doesn’t belong.”
But than again I might be totally wrong about the possible reasons for running again. After all Ford did at one time want Uppal to be investigated for winning the nomination fair and square showing that he does not quite understand laws or how nominations work. BTW here is what Jacquie Fenske, the person Uppal defeated in the nomination race in 2008, had to say about Tim's win.
Personally I think the CPC, the people of Edmonton-Sherwood Park and the people of Canada are immensely better off having a proven MP like Tim Uppal in Ottawa than having someone like James Ford there. I hope the voters of Edmonton Sherwood-Park agree
Friday, March 25, 2011
A message to conservatives all across Canada.
Assemble!
Because the big blue machine is about to roll and a majority is in sight, BUT ONLY with your help.
Get out and support your local candidate in any way you can. Elections really are won on the ground and there are numerous ways for everyone to be able to contribute, even if it is for a few hours.
Get a sign. Volunteer to put up signs, drop lit, answer phones, door-knock, etc. There are literally hundreds of ways for you to help out your local CPC candidate get elected and they need your help.
Counter the oppositions smear and lies with the facts on the Harper government record and let everyone know why you are voting conservative and why they must get out and do the same on election day.
Doing nothing is not an option, unless you want a return to a minority government and the daily opposition games that have hampered Ottawa for nearly 6 years, and that does no one any good.
Get active now!
A 300 Million Dollar election just so Ignatieff can finish his book.
What does Michael Ignatieff have to gain by forcing an election now?
That is a question that has been bothering me for some time now as I could not see any logical reason to do so. Politically speaking there is no reason to do so and if the latest polls are to be believed, the Liberals are going to be taking a shellacking, if they do go. Ignatieff will be gone, the party in tatters and other than a chance for the bleeding Liberal Party to rebuild itself after the election ( Hint: Elect the leader and not appoint them this time for starters) I can see no upside to forcing an election.
So if it is not political, what else could explain the reason why Ignaiteff seems to be so set on running his party towards a cliff?
The answer is simple. His next book.
Before people start jumping all over me for this please take a look at Ignatieff's past writings where he went into extreme detail on not only his own life and experiences, but those of his family, both present and past, as well. So much so even members of his own family were upset about his writing such intimate and personal details about the family. ( The Russian Album, Blood and Belonging, Scar Tissue, True Patriot Love)
Nothing is off limits for his writings and if anyone out there honestly believes that Ignatieff does not have plans to write about his years in the political arena I have a bridge to sell you. It is a no-brainer, he will write a book on his political years, it is only a question of when.
And who could really blame him for doing so.
The tale of an 'intellectual' protagonist as he is recruited to return Canada to be our next PM as he faces the trials and tribulations of Canadian politics, including his battles with an 'evil political genius', is guaranteed to become a best seller and keep him popular on the lecture circuit collecting speaking fees for many years to come.
I for one can't wait to read the chapter on Bob Rae, but even with as much as I am looking forward to reading that, it just isn't worth the price of 300 million tax dollars to do so.
That is a question that has been bothering me for some time now as I could not see any logical reason to do so. Politically speaking there is no reason to do so and if the latest polls are to be believed, the Liberals are going to be taking a shellacking, if they do go. Ignatieff will be gone, the party in tatters and other than a chance for the bleeding Liberal Party to rebuild itself after the election ( Hint: Elect the leader and not appoint them this time for starters) I can see no upside to forcing an election.
So if it is not political, what else could explain the reason why Ignaiteff seems to be so set on running his party towards a cliff?
The answer is simple. His next book.
Before people start jumping all over me for this please take a look at Ignatieff's past writings where he went into extreme detail on not only his own life and experiences, but those of his family, both present and past, as well. So much so even members of his own family were upset about his writing such intimate and personal details about the family. ( The Russian Album, Blood and Belonging, Scar Tissue, True Patriot Love)
Nothing is off limits for his writings and if anyone out there honestly believes that Ignatieff does not have plans to write about his years in the political arena I have a bridge to sell you. It is a no-brainer, he will write a book on his political years, it is only a question of when.
And who could really blame him for doing so.
The tale of an 'intellectual' protagonist as he is recruited to return Canada to be our next PM as he faces the trials and tribulations of Canadian politics, including his battles with an 'evil political genius', is guaranteed to become a best seller and keep him popular on the lecture circuit collecting speaking fees for many years to come.
I for one can't wait to read the chapter on Bob Rae, but even with as much as I am looking forward to reading that, it just isn't worth the price of 300 million tax dollars to do so.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Liberal Party campaign 2011 signs out pre writ in Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont
The writ hasn't even dropped yet and Michael Butler,the former NDP candidate and now the current Liberal Candidate for Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont (sort of a one man coalition) , already has election signs up.
It is almost as if he is in a hurry to lose,
and with cheesy slogans like that he and his current party certainly will.
At least wait until the writ is dropped Michael; you are looking a little desperate by jumping the gun.
Your thoughts on the signs and their almost laughable tag lines?
Some background on Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont (courtesy of the best political information web site in Canada, Pundits Guide)
It is almost as if he is in a hurry to lose,
and with cheesy slogans like that he and his current party certainly will.
At least wait until the writ is dropped Michael; you are looking a little desperate by jumping the gun.
Your thoughts on the signs and their almost laughable tag lines?
Some background on Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont (courtesy of the best political information web site in Canada, Pundits Guide)
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Nothing says "we support democracy" more than gagging a nanny.
From the Toronto Star: Ruby Dhalla's family seeks to gag nanny.
"Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla and her family want a judge to force a nanny who claims she was exploited while working at their Mississauga home to accept a $5,000 payment and a gag order not to talk about the deal.."
From the archives: All things Ruby
Its Ruby Tuesday.
Background and timeline on the nanny story
How to keep your MP's loyal.
Ruby on youth crime?
"Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla and her family want a judge to force a nanny who claims she was exploited while working at their Mississauga home to accept a $5,000 payment and a gag order not to talk about the deal.."
From the archives: All things Ruby
Its Ruby Tuesday.
Background and timeline on the nanny story
How to keep your MP's loyal.
Ruby on youth crime?
Monday, March 21, 2011
Scott Feschuk is a funny guy.
In fact he is so funny that his now pulled blog entry at Macleans.ca was trending (on twitter) in Canada. Now that is some bad PR!
(Screenshot )
(Screenshot )
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Susan Delacourt busted editing her blog.
The Toronto Star's Susan Delacourt gets busted for editing her blog by deleting a snarky and totally wrong comment she had written. (Made even more "hilarious" by the fact that her snarky comment was criticizing others for their own lack of research.)
FYI: There is no mention of the edit to be found anywhere on her blog. ( The new standard for the new Star politics section perhaps?)
Tyler Dellow has the scoop here.
Original version:
Edited version:
FYI: There is no mention of the edit to be found anywhere on her blog. ( The new standard for the new Star politics section perhaps?)
Tyler Dellow has the scoop here.
Original version:
Edited version:
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Ignatieff's vote pandering on a Quebec City arena. Who is happy, and who is not.
Recently Michael Ignatieff said the following on the subject of tax dollars going towards the building a new arena in Quebec City:
“If you want Ottawa to participate, you have to vote Liberal”
(Link in French as the English MSM have all but ignored it to this point)
I know what my opinion is of his statement and was going to do a big write up on my thoughts, but considering that I am not exactly a big Liberal supporter and I suspect that most of my audience already have a good idea of what that post would look like, I decided against it. But that got me thinking; how would others view Ignatieff's statement? So here is a short list of some who I think will be happy with it, and some who won't.
Liberal MP Joyce Murray must be absolutely livid considering that she tweeted this"another Liberal MP: "Harper's vote-buying stadium scheme in Quebec to benefit a right-wing media buddy: Quebec voters too smart to fall for it..." a short while back, and as far as I know "Harper" never said anything even remotely close to "if you want Ottawa to participate you have to vote conservative."
Poor Ian Davey is must be banging his head against the wall over this recent comment from his old boss? Because the last time a top Liberal, in this case Bob Rae, had made similar comments, Davey went on national television trying to spin hard for the Libs and ended up insulting a large swath of the Canadian population and hurting the Libs the process.
Liberal MP Keith Martin also can't be too impressed: "175 million for a hockey arena in Quebec City from the Cons! The PM is wasting our money..."
At least one Liberal blogger will not be too happy with Ignatieff's offer of tax dollars going into a glorified NHL arena, and there is a certain Liberal candidate for Edmonton-St Albert, Kevin Taron, who is already having a hard time dealing with questions on what Ignatieff said because of his very vocal opposition against funding the Quebec arena, including comments that all Alberta will be getting is the bill.
I am sure there is plenty more where they came from but being the fair and balanced blogger that I am, lets now look at a few who may happy with what Michael Ignatieff had to say.
Surely the millionaires will rejoice: “No public subsidies for the National Hockey League, no public subsidies for millionaires,”
Ralph Goodale must also be ecstatic as he said recently: "The federal Conservative government should be contributing "well in excess of $100 million" to a new domed stadium in Regina," and "Goodale argued it's certainly reasonable to expect Ottawa to fund in excess of $100 million (more than 25 per cent of the costs) of a new football stadium and entertainment facility. Goodale added he would be willing to take that request to a new federal Liberal cabinet." (From the Leader Post: link to story now dead)
And of course Denis Coderre must also be happy: 'Finally, le Journal reports that Liberal MP Denis Coderre is accusing the Conservatives of playing politics with the issue by dragging out the question of whether it will contribute to the financing of the arena: “This is a well-organized project that merits respect and dignity which means that the announcement should not be timed to win votes. They should announce it now.”
The people of Quebec: (But I am not sure on this one as it may be a toss up.)
While there is certainly a group who would be happy to hear what Ignatieff had to say, there are also a large number of Quebecois, who being very familiar with how the Liberal Party of Canada used to operate in their province with the 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' attitude and with memories of brown paper bags filled with money being passed around in return for favours still in peoples minds, would find Ignaiteff's comment suggesting that if Quebec voters scratch the Liberals back by voting for them that public dollars for the arena will flow to be very disturbing.
Polls seems to back up my view on the way the people of Quebec would lean, but perhaps that may be why Ignatieff promised that he would spend money on a high speed train before he spent any on an arena for Quebec City.
Wait a minute. If Ignatieff said that he would spend money on high speed rail BEFORE spending any on an arena, does that mean that spending on a high speed rail line is already fait accompli? I wonder where Ignatieff plans to get the money for that, and when he plans to tell us about it?
“If you want Ottawa to participate, you have to vote Liberal”
(Link in French as the English MSM have all but ignored it to this point)
I know what my opinion is of his statement and was going to do a big write up on my thoughts, but considering that I am not exactly a big Liberal supporter and I suspect that most of my audience already have a good idea of what that post would look like, I decided against it. But that got me thinking; how would others view Ignatieff's statement? So here is a short list of some who I think will be happy with it, and some who won't.
Liberal MP Joyce Murray must be absolutely livid considering that she tweeted this"another Liberal MP: "Harper's vote-buying stadium scheme in Quebec to benefit a right-wing media buddy: Quebec voters too smart to fall for it..." a short while back, and as far as I know "Harper" never said anything even remotely close to "if you want Ottawa to participate you have to vote conservative."
Poor Ian Davey is must be banging his head against the wall over this recent comment from his old boss? Because the last time a top Liberal, in this case Bob Rae, had made similar comments, Davey went on national television trying to spin hard for the Libs and ended up insulting a large swath of the Canadian population and hurting the Libs the process.
Liberal MP Keith Martin also can't be too impressed: "175 million for a hockey arena in Quebec City from the Cons! The PM is wasting our money..."
At least one Liberal blogger will not be too happy with Ignatieff's offer of tax dollars going into a glorified NHL arena, and there is a certain Liberal candidate for Edmonton-St Albert, Kevin Taron, who is already having a hard time dealing with questions on what Ignatieff said because of his very vocal opposition against funding the Quebec arena, including comments that all Alberta will be getting is the bill.
I am sure there is plenty more where they came from but being the fair and balanced blogger that I am, lets now look at a few who may happy with what Michael Ignatieff had to say.
Surely the millionaires will rejoice: “No public subsidies for the National Hockey League, no public subsidies for millionaires,”
Ralph Goodale must also be ecstatic as he said recently: "The federal Conservative government should be contributing "well in excess of $100 million" to a new domed stadium in Regina," and "Goodale argued it's certainly reasonable to expect Ottawa to fund in excess of $100 million (more than 25 per cent of the costs) of a new football stadium and entertainment facility. Goodale added he would be willing to take that request to a new federal Liberal cabinet." (From the Leader Post: link to story now dead)
And of course Denis Coderre must also be happy: 'Finally, le Journal reports that Liberal MP Denis Coderre is accusing the Conservatives of playing politics with the issue by dragging out the question of whether it will contribute to the financing of the arena: “This is a well-organized project that merits respect and dignity which means that the announcement should not be timed to win votes. They should announce it now.”
The people of Quebec: (But I am not sure on this one as it may be a toss up.)
While there is certainly a group who would be happy to hear what Ignatieff had to say, there are also a large number of Quebecois, who being very familiar with how the Liberal Party of Canada used to operate in their province with the 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' attitude and with memories of brown paper bags filled with money being passed around in return for favours still in peoples minds, would find Ignaiteff's comment suggesting that if Quebec voters scratch the Liberals back by voting for them that public dollars for the arena will flow to be very disturbing.
Polls seems to back up my view on the way the people of Quebec would lean, but perhaps that may be why Ignatieff promised that he would spend money on a high speed train before he spent any on an arena for Quebec City.
Wait a minute. If Ignatieff said that he would spend money on high speed rail BEFORE spending any on an arena, does that mean that spending on a high speed rail line is already fait accompli? I wonder where Ignatieff plans to get the money for that, and when he plans to tell us about it?
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Too western. Not western enough. The MSM can't decide which.
Remember when the media were saying that the conservatives were too western based ( 'Calgary school', Reform roots, Boo!, etc)?
Well now that Stockwell Day and a couple of others have decided that they are not going to run in the next election guess what... The conservatives are too rooted in Ontario.
I have said it before and I will say so again: If the PM found a cure for cancer, the Toronto Star would write an op ed on how he is putting doctors out of work.
Well now that Stockwell Day and a couple of others have decided that they are not going to run in the next election guess what... The conservatives are too rooted in Ontario.
I have said it before and I will say so again: If the PM found a cure for cancer, the Toronto Star would write an op ed on how he is putting doctors out of work.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Constable Armstrong: AKA PM Stephen Harper.
Watch the interview today with PM Harper on CITY TV where he discusses his 'acting debut' as Constable Armstrong on Murdoch Mysteries.( link to show website)
Interview below with clip of PM Harper as Constable Armstrong.
http://video.citytv.com/video/detail/821993137001.000000/pm-stephen-harper/#
Dialogue:
Constable Crabtree: “If the Ottawa hockey club can sign him next year, they will win the Stanley Cup.
Desk Sergeant Armstrong: “Not possible Crabtree. Too much infighting in Ottawa.”
Crabtree: “Armstrong, you clearly don’t know the first thing about hockey. Sometimes I wonder why I even thought ...
Wilfrid Laurier, appearing in the frame: “I am here to speak to Detective Murdoch,
Armstrong: “And you would be?
Crabtree: “For the love of Pete, Armstrong, it is the Prime Minister man.”
Of course this is not his real TV acting debut as he was once on Corner Gas, but on CG he was playing himself and was not portraying someone else.
HT Blue Like You
Joanne thanks host Dina Pugliese for the great job she did on the interview.
Update: And if the PM's acting was not enough to surprise you.
Click on photo for link for the story on why the PM is on the floor with this student.
Interview below with clip of PM Harper as Constable Armstrong.
http://video.citytv.com/video/detail/821993137001.000000/pm-stephen-harper/#
Dialogue:
Constable Crabtree: “If the Ottawa hockey club can sign him next year, they will win the Stanley Cup.
Desk Sergeant Armstrong: “Not possible Crabtree. Too much infighting in Ottawa.”
Crabtree: “Armstrong, you clearly don’t know the first thing about hockey. Sometimes I wonder why I even thought ...
Wilfrid Laurier, appearing in the frame: “I am here to speak to Detective Murdoch,
Armstrong: “And you would be?
Crabtree: “For the love of Pete, Armstrong, it is the Prime Minister man.”
Of course this is not his real TV acting debut as he was once on Corner Gas, but on CG he was playing himself and was not portraying someone else.
HT Blue Like You
Joanne thanks host Dina Pugliese for the great job she did on the interview.
Update: And if the PM's acting was not enough to surprise you.
Click on photo for link for the story on why the PM is on the floor with this student.
8.9 Earthquake hits Japan. 10 m tsunami hits coast.
If you live on the west coast of North America turn on a radio or TV immediately and seek higher ground.
(This page was updated multiple times over a 1 hr period but will no longer be updated. Please turn on a tv or radio for the latest information. 1:45 MST)
NOAA Pacific Tsunami warning center.
Hawaii on Tsunami warning. (Tsunami warning sirens sounded in Honolulu - AP)
A massive surge of water has caused swathes of devastation across Japan, after an 8.9-magnitude earthquake struck off shore, prompting a 10 meter tsunami.
4 million homes in and around Tokyo without power, large fires.
Multiple earthquakes ( 17 + aftershocks?) 6.1 and 5.8 being reported.
Latest @ Newswatch Canada.
So far only a couple of deaths reported but there is going to be many more as the day goes on.
It kind of puts our petty political squabbles into perspective.
Watching CTV News Channel and CBC at this moment and BOTH of them are showing re runs of their nightly news broadcasts. Remind me why I am forced to pay for this crap on my cable bill again. Meanwhile both CNN and Fox have live coverage of this disaster.
(This page was updated multiple times over a 1 hr period but will no longer be updated. Please turn on a tv or radio for the latest information. 1:45 MST)
NOAA Pacific Tsunami warning center.
Hawaii on Tsunami warning. (Tsunami warning sirens sounded in Honolulu - AP)
NOAA:THE ESTIMATED ARRIVAL TIME IN HAWAII OF THE FIRST TSUNAMI WAVE IS 0259 AM HST FRI 11 MAR 2011
West Coast on Tsunami watch!
KODIAK-AK 0351 AKST MAR 11 TOFINO-BC 0658 PST MAR 11 SEWARD-AK 0416 AKST MAR 11 NEAH BAY-WA 0710 PST MAR 11 ELFIN COVE-AK 0418 AKST MAR 11 CHARLESTON-OR 0715 PST MAR 11 YAKUTAT-AK 0425 AKST MAR 11 CRESCENT CITY-CA 0723 PST MAR 11 SITKA-AK 0425 AKST MAR 11 SEASIDE-OR 0724 PST MAR 11 VALDEZ-AK 0435 AKST MAR 11 WESTPORT-WA 0725 PST MAR 11 LANGARA-BC 0535 PST MAR 11 SAN FRANCISCO-CA 0808 PST MAR 11 CORDOVA-AK 0445 AKST MAR 11 SANTA BARBARA-CA 0817 PST MAR 11 HOMER-AK 0508 AKST MAR 11 SAN PEDRO-CA 0832 PST MAR 11 CRAIG-AK 0526 AKST MAR 11 LA JOLLA-CA 0841 PST MAR 11
A massive surge of water has caused swathes of devastation across Japan, after an 8.9-magnitude earthquake struck off shore, prompting a 10 meter tsunami.
4 million homes in and around Tokyo without power, large fires.
Multiple earthquakes ( 17 + aftershocks?) 6.1 and 5.8 being reported.
Latest @ Newswatch Canada.
So far only a couple of deaths reported but there is going to be many more as the day goes on.
It kind of puts our petty political squabbles into perspective.
Watching CTV News Channel and CBC at this moment and BOTH of them are showing re runs of their nightly news broadcasts. Remind me why I am forced to pay for this crap on my cable bill again. Meanwhile both CNN and Fox have live coverage of this disaster.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
PBO smoke and mirrors on F-35 costs. The Opposition pounces on it.
The PBO (Parliamentary Budget Officer) announced today that:
"The total cost of the Conservative government's plan to purchase 65 F-35 fighter jets over 30 years is close to $29.3 billion — billions more than previously estimated, according to Parliament's budget watchdog." (CBC)
and as expected the opposition is all over the 'discrepency'. One small problem though, the PBO estimate is for 30 years, while the estimate from the government was for 20 years.
Government estimate: A spokesman for the minister said national defence experts "stand by their cost projections." Jay Paxton said the government has committed $9 billion to acquire the planes and $250 to $300 million annually over a 20-year period to support the planes.
(page 8 PBO report in PDF)
During the same period, the average weight of jet fighter aircraft has increased by about 0.5% per year. Given this, the cost of fighter aircraft has increased 4% per year in real terms since 1950—doubling roughly every 18 years.
Relying on these historical trends and applicable cost drivers, the PBO was able to forecast a total ownership cost of approximately US$ 29.3 billion for the 65 aircraft over a 30-year period.
So given that inflation and other cost over-runs are likely to occur it is only logical that the cost estimate for 30 years would be at least 1/3 more than the 20 year estimate, no?
Leave it to the opposition and the CBC to leave that little bit of information out.
Update: More shenanigans perhaps.
The PBO is claiming that they took into account the 20 vs 30 yr difference yet uses a total 17.6 billion in its comparisons, (when the estimates for 20yrs have been publicly stated at up to 18 billion) and the PBO looks to be using a lowball 6 billion estimate as the cost of acquisition when it has been stated to be 9 billion dollars. ( all above estimates available on page 6 of PBO report itself)
If the PBO did take into account for the extra 10 yrs why would the number be the same as what the DND is estimating as the cost for 20 years, and why did they choose to use only 6 billion for the acquisition cost?
"The total cost of the Conservative government's plan to purchase 65 F-35 fighter jets over 30 years is close to $29.3 billion — billions more than previously estimated, according to Parliament's budget watchdog." (CBC)
and as expected the opposition is all over the 'discrepency'. One small problem though, the PBO estimate is for 30 years, while the estimate from the government was for 20 years.
Government estimate: A spokesman for the minister said national defence experts "stand by their cost projections." Jay Paxton said the government has committed $9 billion to acquire the planes and $250 to $300 million annually over a 20-year period to support the planes.
(page 8 PBO report in PDF)
During the same period, the average weight of jet fighter aircraft has increased by about 0.5% per year. Given this, the cost of fighter aircraft has increased 4% per year in real terms since 1950—doubling roughly every 18 years.
Relying on these historical trends and applicable cost drivers, the PBO was able to forecast a total ownership cost of approximately US$ 29.3 billion for the 65 aircraft over a 30-year period.
So given that inflation and other cost over-runs are likely to occur it is only logical that the cost estimate for 30 years would be at least 1/3 more than the 20 year estimate, no?
Leave it to the opposition and the CBC to leave that little bit of information out.
Update: More shenanigans perhaps.
The PBO is claiming that they took into account the 20 vs 30 yr difference yet uses a total 17.6 billion in its comparisons, (when the estimates for 20yrs have been publicly stated at up to 18 billion) and the PBO looks to be using a lowball 6 billion estimate as the cost of acquisition when it has been stated to be 9 billion dollars. ( all above estimates available on page 6 of PBO report itself)
If the PBO did take into account for the extra 10 yrs why would the number be the same as what the DND is estimating as the cost for 20 years, and why did they choose to use only 6 billion for the acquisition cost?
Susan Delacourt: Classless on International Women's Day
Toronto Star 'journalist' Susan Delacourt being classless on International Women's Day by telling us all what really goes on in her head in regards to what Minister Rona Ambrose wears.
For the record, Minister Ambrose was wearing a "Walk in her shoes" shirt from the Care Canada campaign of the same name in support of women while Delacourt was busy bashing her, and I am guessing the other woman who sits beside Minister Ambrose, Minister Bev Oda. (< seating plan PDF file)
You picked a great day to be classless to other women Susan, but some might say that you are classless everyday.
For the record, Minister Ambrose was wearing a "Walk in her shoes" shirt from the Care Canada campaign of the same name in support of women while Delacourt was busy bashing her, and I am guessing the other woman who sits beside Minister Ambrose, Minister Bev Oda. (< seating plan PDF file)
You picked a great day to be classless to other women Susan, but some might say that you are classless everyday.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
MSM finally reports on Ignatieff's absentee record
The Canadian MSM finally got around to reporting on how pathetic the Liberal record is for showing up to work and voting in the House of Commons.
Stories at CTV here: "29 MPs missed more than 50 days of the current session of Parliament, all but nine of them Liberals." "Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was absent 135 times, the top absentee MP"
And at the Globe and Mail here: "Seventeen MPs, most of them Liberals, have missed at least one-quarter of the votes in the House of Commons in the past two years. Three Liberal backbenchers – Jim Karygiannis, Keith Martin and Ruby Dhalla – came close to missing half the more than 300 votes Parliament took between November, 2008, and December, 2010."
Nice of them to notice and catch up to what us bloggers have been writing about for quite some time now.
Back in April 2009 here, March 2010 here, here and here, May 2010 here, Oct 2010 here and of course when I put my partisanship aside to congratulate Ignatieff back in Sept 2010 for finally reaching #1. A day I was looking forward to for some time.
BTW for Bob Fife and anyone else out there trying to explain away Ignatieff's absences with lines such as this one: "For the leaders it's very understandable,"..."The leaders have other duties than just showing up in the House for votes."
The Prime Minister at times HAS to be other places and be doing other things; while Michael Ignatieff chooses to be absent and be doing other things.
Big difference.
For the record PM Harper has been absent for74 votes, while Michael Ignaiteff has missed nearly double that at 135.
Stories at CTV here: "29 MPs missed more than 50 days of the current session of Parliament, all but nine of them Liberals." "Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was absent 135 times, the top absentee MP"
And at the Globe and Mail here: "Seventeen MPs, most of them Liberals, have missed at least one-quarter of the votes in the House of Commons in the past two years. Three Liberal backbenchers – Jim Karygiannis, Keith Martin and Ruby Dhalla – came close to missing half the more than 300 votes Parliament took between November, 2008, and December, 2010."
Nice of them to notice and catch up to what us bloggers have been writing about for quite some time now.
Back in April 2009 here, March 2010 here, here and here, May 2010 here, Oct 2010 here and of course when I put my partisanship aside to congratulate Ignatieff back in Sept 2010 for finally reaching #1. A day I was looking forward to for some time.
BTW for Bob Fife and anyone else out there trying to explain away Ignatieff's absences with lines such as this one: "For the leaders it's very understandable,"..."The leaders have other duties than just showing up in the House for votes."
The Prime Minister at times HAS to be other places and be doing other things; while Michael Ignatieff chooses to be absent and be doing other things.
Big difference.
For the record PM Harper has been absent for74 votes, while Michael Ignaiteff has missed nearly double that at 135.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Pat Martin on Power and Politics yesterday.
If you have yet to watch the NDP's Pat Martin, in all of his disgusting glory, on yesterdays Power and Politics here is the link. (Martin starts @ the 5 min mark)
While I could comment on his absolutely disgusting behavior, and it was truly an abhorrent display of what is wrong with politics today, I will leave that to the others who have already done so here (Blue like you) and here (Bc Blue), but rather I would like to comment on something that I am more intimately involved with. The abuse of Parliamentry resources by Linda Duncan's office.
Here is how Pat Martin, and the rest of the NDP it seems, have tried to spin it so far.
Pat Martin: "That was a university college kid sent an email to the constituency association of Linda Duncan where a political activist works."
Nice spin Pat but it doesn't address the following email, sent using Duncan's parl email account, by a staffer on parl time, while in an MP's office and on a parl computer. (BTW the original email Martin refers to was an email was that was sent to everyone on the campus NDP email list and not the constituency association as he stated, but that is just another Martin red herring.)
Forward of the Email sent from Erica Bullwinkle as it appeared in my in box, ( with certain personal info edited using xxxx)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: (XXXX) <(xxxx)>
Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Subject: FW: Sunday Feb 13 Canvass in Garneau/Strathcona
To: albertaardvark@gmail.com
Spin that Pat.
BTW I am not a lawyer but doesn't Martin's comments to Candice Hoeppner on the in and out (6:15) ( "You conspired to defraud the elections act by finding away to cheat on the spending limits" ) cross the line into the slander arena?
While I could comment on his absolutely disgusting behavior, and it was truly an abhorrent display of what is wrong with politics today, I will leave that to the others who have already done so here (Blue like you) and here (Bc Blue), but rather I would like to comment on something that I am more intimately involved with. The abuse of Parliamentry resources by Linda Duncan's office.
Here is how Pat Martin, and the rest of the NDP it seems, have tried to spin it so far.
Pat Martin: "That was a university college kid sent an email to the constituency association of Linda Duncan where a political activist works."
Nice spin Pat but it doesn't address the following email, sent using Duncan's parl email account, by a staffer on parl time, while in an MP's office and on a parl computer. (BTW the original email Martin refers to was an email was that was sent to everyone on the campus NDP email list and not the constituency association as he stated, but that is just another Martin red herring.)
Forward of the Email sent from Erica Bullwinkle as it appeared in my in box, ( with certain personal info edited using xxxx)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: (XXXX) <(xxxx)>
Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Subject: FW: Sunday Feb 13 Canvass in Garneau/Strathcona
To: albertaardvark@gmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: DuncaL1@parl.gc.ca [mailto:DuncaL1@parl.gc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:48 AM
To: (xxxx)
Cc: (email of NDP activist removed)
Subject: RE: Sunday Feb 13 Canvass in Garneau/Strathcona
From: DuncaL1@parl.gc.ca [mailto:DuncaL1@parl.gc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:48 AM
To: (xxxx)
Cc: (email of NDP activist removed)
Subject: RE: Sunday Feb 13 Canvass in Garneau/Strathcona
Hi Ron – Terrific! I will plan for three and if not everyone shows that’s OK. I just like to make sure I have enough routes and kits. See you then, Erica
Erica Bullwinkle
Constituency Assistant
Linda Duncan, M.P.
Edmonton-Strathcona
780-495-8404
Fax: 780-495-8403
www.lindaduncan.ndp.ca
From: XXXX [mailto:XXXX]
Sent: February-09-11 6:36 PM
To: Duncan, Linda - Riding 1
Subject: Sunday Feb 13 Canvass in Garneau/Strathcona
Sent: February-09-11 6:36 PM
To: Duncan, Linda - Riding 1
Subject: Sunday Feb 13 Canvass in Garneau/Strathcona
Hi Erica, I and a couple of friends are interested in signing up for the door knocking event Feb 13th in the Garneau area. I am not sure on the numbers yet, probably 3 of us but not confirmed, do we have to sign up with you first or would it be OK to just show up at Nancy’s place on Sunday?
Thanks
(xxxx)
Spin that Pat.
BTW I am not a lawyer but doesn't Martin's comments to Candice Hoeppner on the in and out (6:15) ( "You conspired to defraud the elections act by finding away to cheat on the spending limits" ) cross the line into the slander arena?
Friday, March 04, 2011
Another Liberal Photo Op/smear failure.
Brant Liberal candidate Lloyd St. Amand joined the long list of failed Liberal Party photo ops the other day when he and Liberal trade critic Willowdale MP Martha Hall-Findlay stopped off outside a supposedly closed factory in an effort to highlight “job losses” allegedly caused by the Conservative business tax reductions.
One small problem: The factory wasn’t closed at all, and the company’s Vice President was not happy to have been used as a prop in this Liberal deception:
“[The Liberals’] attempt at disparaging the Conservatives...was a disaster… Ironically, we had looked into locating our finishing and distribution facility in Michigan. The corporate tax cuts and programs provided by the Conservative government were the deciding factor to expand in Canada.” (John Paul deBoer, Vice President, Brant Screen Craft, Brant News, March 3, 2011)
And that is not all. St. Amand also admitted that federal opposition parties “forced” the government into stimulus spending in the first place ( which is the biggest reason we are in a deficit) and also said that “If they had done something sooner, as other countries did in 2007 and 2008, it’s quite possible that many of the jobs that were lost could have been saved,” As if other countries were actually spending money on stimulus in 2007 while the economy was booming and BEFORE the recession hit; but then again revisionist history seems to be Liberal trait.
Previous Liberal photo op failures:
A man outstanding in his field. (Ignatieff gets it wrong. with video)
The Liberal caucusadoors adores Ignatieff. (Symbolism bites Ignatieff. Also with video)
One small problem: The factory wasn’t closed at all, and the company’s Vice President was not happy to have been used as a prop in this Liberal deception:
“[The Liberals’] attempt at disparaging the Conservatives...was a disaster… Ironically, we had looked into locating our finishing and distribution facility in Michigan. The corporate tax cuts and programs provided by the Conservative government were the deciding factor to expand in Canada.” (John Paul deBoer, Vice President, Brant Screen Craft, Brant News, March 3, 2011)
And that is not all. St. Amand also admitted that federal opposition parties “forced” the government into stimulus spending in the first place ( which is the biggest reason we are in a deficit) and also said that “If they had done something sooner, as other countries did in 2007 and 2008, it’s quite possible that many of the jobs that were lost could have been saved,” As if other countries were actually spending money on stimulus in 2007 while the economy was booming and BEFORE the recession hit; but then again revisionist history seems to be Liberal trait.
Previous Liberal photo op failures:
A man outstanding in his field. (Ignatieff gets it wrong. with video)
The Liberal caucus
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
The Wellington Street Post
A new online daily paper is out today: The Wellington Post.
Check it out. It comes in all flavours: Conservative Edition, Liberal Edition, NDP Edition, and even the Green Edition.
A quick look over reveals it to be something very different from what I was expecting. I will have to wait to see how it unfolds but I think they may be on to something.
The question I have is how many blogs are going to give their content, and essentially their copyright, over?
Check it out. It comes in all flavours: Conservative Edition, Liberal Edition, NDP Edition, and even the Green Edition.
A quick look over reveals it to be something very different from what I was expecting. I will have to wait to see how it unfolds but I think they may be on to something.
The question I have is how many blogs are going to give their content, and essentially their copyright, over?
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Jeffrey Simpson: When the facts don't support you, just make stuff up.
Are there any editors at the Globe and Mail? I have to ask because in Jeffrey Simpson's column today he manages to get away with writing something that is a complete fiction*, and not on some minor obscure fact or even on something that could be considered passable as it may skirt on the edge of truthfulness either. No, Simpson totally gets the Liberal tax policy wrong and to make matters worse he does so while claiming to be correcting the record on the subject!
From his column today:
"Falsely, the Conservatives are insisting that the Liberals want to “raise” taxes, whereas, in fact, the Liberals propose to forgo coming corporate income tax decreases, a quite different approach from raising taxes."
To put it simply: What Simpson wrote is total bullshit.
From Liberal.ca: "The Liberal Party of Canada has put forward a motion today in the House of Commons calling on the Conservative government to reverse $6 billion in tax cuts for Canada’s largest corporations back to 2010 levels in the upcoming Budget."
There are of course numerous other examples available because the (already well known) Liberal tax policy does call for raising the corporate tax rate back to pre Jan 2011 levels (which IS a tax increase) and a simple Google search or even a quick look at numerous articles from Simpson's own paper easily proves. I am not going to waste my time listing them all as there is no need to do so, but I do have to ask;
why didn't Simpson already know the readily available facts and just how does such a blatant error make its way past the editors, who should also know or if they didn't perhaps they could check, and into 'Canada's newspaper of record'?
BTW Jeffrey, adding the words "falsely" and "in fact" to a BS story does nothing to help its credibility, it only hurts the credibility of the writer; and that sir is a fact.
* and by complete fiction I do mean a lie.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Green Party Candidate and EDA President protest at Bev Oda's office....
and the media (in this case owned by theTorStar Corp) leave out the direct ties to the Green Party of the 2 protesters.
Link to story at durhamregion.com with the somewhat cryptic " With files from Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star" found at the bottom of the page. ( BTW Check out the picture; the arrows on their signs point the wrong way, LOL)
What the story left out:
Protester #1: Is Virginia Ervin, the "CEO Durham Federal Green Party Association and former GPC candidate for Durham.
Protester #2: Is Gail Bates, Green Party Candidate for Oshawa.
I guess they didn't think it relevant to reveal political ties when doing a political story. Maybe it is something in the water but there seems to be a lot of that going around lately.
Link to story at durhamregion.com with the somewhat cryptic " With files from Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star" found at the bottom of the page. ( BTW Check out the picture; the arrows on their signs point the wrong way, LOL)
What the story left out:
Protester #1: Is Virginia Ervin, the "CEO Durham Federal Green Party Association and former GPC candidate for Durham.
Protester #2: Is Gail Bates, Green Party Candidate for Oshawa.
I guess they didn't think it relevant to reveal political ties when doing a political story. Maybe it is something in the water but there seems to be a lot of that going around lately.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Is harassment too strong a word?
Breaking: Elections Canada brings administrative charges against CPC. More from Brian Lilley here. National Post here.
Elections Canada loses in court, appeals the decision (but do not yet have a decision) but decide to lay administrative charges anyway. Unbelievable.
No, harassment is not too strong a word. Could you imagine if a crown prosecutor tried to pull something like this off while they were waiting for an appeal verdict on what is in essence the same charge(s). I think they just might find themselves before the appeal judge on this matter shortly to explain themselves.
Updated:
Previously: Conservatives win 'in and out' election financing case. (great link to Stephen Taylor)
Officially Screwed with some classic cinema on the subject.
Another case. This time Elections Canada went to court to prevent the Conservatives from returning money to the treasury.
Elections Canada loses in court, appeals the decision (but do not yet have a decision) but decide to lay administrative charges anyway. Unbelievable.
No, harassment is not too strong a word. Could you imagine if a crown prosecutor tried to pull something like this off while they were waiting for an appeal verdict on what is in essence the same charge(s). I think they just might find themselves before the appeal judge on this matter shortly to explain themselves.
Updated:
Previously: Conservatives win 'in and out' election financing case. (great link to Stephen Taylor)
Officially Screwed with some classic cinema on the subject.
Another case. This time Elections Canada went to court to prevent the Conservatives from returning money to the treasury.
Anymore questions as to why Ted Morton walked away?
Whether it is a 3.4 billion dollar deficit or a 6.1 billion dollar deficit, the Alberta Progressive Conservatives have made a colossal mess of the finances in what was the only debt free province in the country.
Time for someone new at the helm.
And I don't mean just a new leader either.
Time for someone new at the helm.
And I don't mean just a new leader either.
But I thought the Liberals were against money for prisons...
Somebody in the OLO really needs to get a memo out on current Liberal policy.
Liberal MP Scott Simms argues in favour of spending money on Newfoundland prison.
Related: The Iceman on support for prisons.
Liberal MP Scott Simms argues in favour of spending money on Newfoundland prison.
Related: The Iceman on support for prisons.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Michael Ignatieff: Polls don't matter. Liberal.ca: Yes they do.
Make up your mind already Liberals.
Yesterday: Michael Ignatieff: "Polls don't matter." said on his 'working families' tour while talking to seniors (not working families), before talking to rich Liberal donors (also not working families) and high school kids. Yup, again not working families, but at least he didn't overtly lie to the high-school kids this time.
Today: Liberal.ca: A poll released late last week shows two-thirds of Canadians fear that Prime Minister Harper will compromise....citing a poll to help make their case. BTW Liberals, if these negotiations are supposed to be so secret, how come you know so much about them?
And speaking of polls that Ignatieff will not believe in:
Yesterday: Michael Ignatieff: "Polls don't matter." said on his 'working families' tour while talking to seniors (not working families), before talking to rich Liberal donors (also not working families) and high school kids. Yup, again not working families, but at least he didn't overtly lie to the high-school kids this time.
Today: Liberal.ca: A poll released late last week shows two-thirds of Canadians fear that Prime Minister Harper will compromise....citing a poll to help make their case. BTW Liberals, if these negotiations are supposed to be so secret, how come you know so much about them?
And speaking of polls that Ignatieff will not believe in:
'Superstar’ status in global economic poll strengthens Harper’s hand.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Make of this what you will.
A visitor from earlier today who arrived at my blog in search of Linda Duncan.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Frank Graves: Your intellectual superior.
Pollster Frank Graves, through his Twitter account, tries to show those that commented on an article posted at The Pundits Guide that he is their intellectual superior.*
From the Twitter account of pollster Frank Graves as he replies to a question on the above mentioned article.
I am not a pollster but I am largely completley (sic) sure that 'largely completley' is really nothing at all and cannot be represented as a percentage or a number. But as I stated, I am not a pollster so I am relatively unfamiliar with the 'science' that is polling so I could be wrong.
Link to the Pundits Guide post mentioned above. (BTW a great article and discussion. Well worth the read as are most posts at the PG!)
* Normally I wouldn't call anyone out on spelling/grammar issues, as I myself have a nasty habit of messing up the English language on a regular basis, but the irony of someone calling others illiterate after they themselves made spelling errors and used a word having the exact opposite meaning of what they had intended to use was just too much to resist. Well that and the fact that I think Frank Graves is an ass.
From the Twitter account of pollster Frank Graves as he replies to a question on the above mentioned article.
I am not a pollster but I am largely completley (sic) sure that 'largely completley' is really nothing at all and cannot be represented as a percentage or a number. But as I stated, I am not a pollster so I am relatively unfamiliar with the 'science' that is polling so I could be wrong.
Link to the Pundits Guide post mentioned above. (BTW a great article and discussion. Well worth the read as are most posts at the PG!)
* Normally I wouldn't call anyone out on spelling/grammar issues, as I myself have a nasty habit of messing up the English language on a regular basis, but the irony of someone calling others illiterate after they themselves made spelling errors and used a word having the exact opposite meaning of what they had intended to use was just too much to resist. Well that and the fact that I think Frank Graves is an ass.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Heather Mallick : yes someone pays her.
If there was any lingering doubt about the Toronto Stars leanings, may I present Heather Mallick's latest in all of its smeartastic, fear mongering glory.
Canadian democracy Soviet style.
Related: Background on the baseless allegations her article is based on, also from the Star; some coincidence that eh! BTW Toronto Star, repeating baseless allegations over and over again does not make them any more true.
A treasure of the left.
Canadian democracy Soviet style.
Related: Background on the baseless allegations her article is based on, also from the Star; some coincidence that eh! BTW Toronto Star, repeating baseless allegations over and over again does not make them any more true.
A treasure of the left.
Monday, February 14, 2011
CTV News gets caught again.
CTV News has once again been caught selectively cherry picking comments. The second time in little over 3 weeks.
The first happened late last month when CTV was caught selectively editing out the first half of a sentence where Michael Ignatieff had commented on US Secretary of Defense 'Gates', and second occurred yesterday when CTV was caught doing something similar. Only this time it was done to the comments of PM Harper but unlike the Ignatieff example, it wasn't done to make the PM look better.
In fact I would say it was a deliberate attempt at the opposite.
Brian Lilley has the details here.
The highlights:
CRAIG OLIVER: Raw street power for 18 days. Despite police intervention,
assault from Mubarak thugs, the cut-off of internet and cell phone
service, and a non-violent army standing by, the peaceful protestors
would not back down. Twice Mubarak went on television promising reforms.
But you the surging crowd would not believe him and continued to demand
his resignation. The president finally fled the city on Friday. The army
announced it would lead a national council and move the country toward
democracy. US President Barack Obama eloquently praised the outcome.
BARACK OBAMA: The people of Egyptian have spoken, their
voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same.
OLIVER: And here is what Prime Minister Stephen Harper had to say. ( NOTE: Craig compares what Obama said AFTER Mubarak left to what the PM said BEFORE Mubarak left.)
STEPHEN HARPER: I think the old expression is
they’re not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one.
Here is what PM Harper actually said: (and remember this was BEFORE Mubarak stepped down)
Well, first of all, you know, let me just be clear, as I’ve been clear every time I’ve answered this question, that the future of Egypt is for Egyptians to decide. What I think we all want to see and what I think is clear most of the people of Egypt want to see is a transition to a democratic Egypt. We want to see free and fair elections. We want to see the rule of law and stability. We want to see respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities, including the rights of religious minorities, and we want to see a government that will continue to respect peace treaties and seek peace in the Middle East. As I say, we are all seeing what’s happening. A transition is taking place in Egypt. That transition, in my judgment, there is no going back. I think the old expression, “They’re not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one.” Our, you know, our strong recommendations to those in power would be to lead change: get in front of it, be a part of it, and make a bright future happen for the people of Egypt.
A textbook example of misleading news don't you think?
Video: Updated with PM Harper's entire remarks. Thanks Gabby!
BC Blue's thoughts.
Blue Like You.
The first happened late last month when CTV was caught selectively editing out the first half of a sentence where Michael Ignatieff had commented on US Secretary of Defense 'Gates', and second occurred yesterday when CTV was caught doing something similar. Only this time it was done to the comments of PM Harper but unlike the Ignatieff example, it wasn't done to make the PM look better.
In fact I would say it was a deliberate attempt at the opposite.
Brian Lilley has the details here.
The highlights:
CRAIG OLIVER: Raw street power for 18 days. Despite police intervention,
assault from Mubarak thugs, the cut-off of internet and cell phone
service, and a non-violent army standing by, the peaceful protestors
would not back down. Twice Mubarak went on television promising reforms.
But you the surging crowd would not believe him and continued to demand
his resignation. The president finally fled the city on Friday. The army
announced it would lead a national council and move the country toward
democracy. US President Barack Obama eloquently praised the outcome.
BARACK OBAMA: The people of Egyptian have spoken, their
voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same.
OLIVER: And here is what Prime Minister Stephen Harper had to say. ( NOTE: Craig compares what Obama said AFTER Mubarak left to what the PM said BEFORE Mubarak left.)
STEPHEN HARPER: I think the old expression is
they’re not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one.
Here is what PM Harper actually said: (and remember this was BEFORE Mubarak stepped down)
Well, first of all, you know, let me just be clear, as I’ve been clear every time I’ve answered this question, that the future of Egypt is for Egyptians to decide. What I think we all want to see and what I think is clear most of the people of Egypt want to see is a transition to a democratic Egypt. We want to see free and fair elections. We want to see the rule of law and stability. We want to see respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities, including the rights of religious minorities, and we want to see a government that will continue to respect peace treaties and seek peace in the Middle East. As I say, we are all seeing what’s happening. A transition is taking place in Egypt. That transition, in my judgment, there is no going back. I think the old expression, “They’re not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one.” Our, you know, our strong recommendations to those in power would be to lead change: get in front of it, be a part of it, and make a bright future happen for the people of Egypt.
A textbook example of misleading news don't you think?
Video: Updated with PM Harper's entire remarks. Thanks Gabby!
BC Blue's thoughts.
Blue Like You.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Feeling paranoid? Have a baseless accusation to make? Contact the Toronto Star.
Because they will be happy to publish a story on it for you.
Check out this article written by Susan Delacourt/ Bruce Campion-Smith.
Highlights: ( alternate section title: find the speculation. Because there are few facts other than the on the record denial from the conservatives, but why let facts get in the way of speculation)
OTTAWA—Two University of Ottawa professors, vocal critics of the federal Conservative government, say they have become targets of a new political intimidation tactic, aimed at using their private, personal information against them.
...but Mendes and Attaran are convinced that it’s part of an academic witch hunt by the governing party — part of a wider campaign to silence university voices that may be critical of the Conservatives.
“I started thinking, my God, this is a McCarthy-like attempt to politically intimidate both of us,” Mendes said
Neither Attaran or Mendes know the name or names of the requesters, but they have suspicions about the motive.
“It seems like an intimidation tactic,” said Attaran
“The information makes me think it’s somebody who is essentially trying to amass a file on critics of the government,” he said in an interview. “I have a feeling it’s political.”
“It certainly set off some alarm bells,” Attaran said. “Somebody wants their sticky fingers on me. I just don’t know who it is.
Mendes: “If I knew who the person was and the person was politically connected, I’d be furious.”
“They (U of O) seem to agree that it’s meant to clamp down on academic freedom in some way,’ he said.
Heather MacIvor, a professor at the University of Windsor and a longtime researcher and commentator on the Conservative party, said she believes that there is a concerted effort to put a “chill” on academic critics of the Harper government,
“This government has a hostility toward people who think for a living or people who write for a living,” MacIvor said
MacIvor said she’s been told that Conservative operatives refer to her as “Liberal hack”
Here’s the thing. I don’t make that public. I don’t talk about the fact that I worked for the Liberals,” MacIvor said. “I can tell you that my employment record for Parliament Hill is (only) in the National Archives. It takes a lot of work to find it. Somebody found it.”
Nor did spokeswoman Andrée Dumulon want to speculate on why U of O has been receiving a disproportionate share of access requests in recent years. “We don’t know anything about the motives behind the requests,” Dumulon said.
I found one more in another story, this time in the Ottawa Citizen: "It does have a distinct political whiff to it," Attaran said.
An entire article based purely on speculation, feelings, and unconfirmed suspicions (unconfirmed suspicions seem to trump confirmed denials) published in the Toronto Star under a Susan Delacourt/Bruce Campion-Smith byline.
Not that I am surprised though, because with Delacourt we are talking about a 'journalist' who wrote another article based on the TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE notion of a Tuesday (Federal elections are held on Mondays) March 29th election.
You know what they say: If it is published in the Toronto Star, it is probably bullshit. ( If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.)
Related: Who is Amir Attaran?
Liberal supporter? Follow the money.
Other opinions:
BCBlue gives his thoughts here.
Blue Like You.
The National Post. ( I love the title: Possibly the lamest front-page “exclusive” in the history of Canadian journalism)
A Few Figs.
New Ekos poll out: CPC 37.3 LPC 24.8 NDP 14.2 GPC 10.7 BQ 9.9
Seems like the Liberals plan to steal the NDP platform has fallen flat.
Check out this article written by Susan Delacourt/ Bruce Campion-Smith.
Highlights: ( alternate section title: find the speculation. Because there are few facts other than the on the record denial from the conservatives, but why let facts get in the way of speculation)
OTTAWA—Two University of Ottawa professors, vocal critics of the federal Conservative government, say they have become targets of a new political intimidation tactic, aimed at using their private, personal information against them.
...but Mendes and Attaran are convinced that it’s part of an academic witch hunt by the governing party — part of a wider campaign to silence university voices that may be critical of the Conservatives.
“I started thinking, my God, this is a McCarthy-like attempt to politically intimidate both of us,” Mendes said
Neither Attaran or Mendes know the name or names of the requesters, but they have suspicions about the motive.
“It seems like an intimidation tactic,” said Attaran
“The information makes me think it’s somebody who is essentially trying to amass a file on critics of the government,” he said in an interview. “I have a feeling it’s political.”
“It certainly set off some alarm bells,” Attaran said. “Somebody wants their sticky fingers on me. I just don’t know who it is.
Mendes: “If I knew who the person was and the person was politically connected, I’d be furious.”
“They (U of O) seem to agree that it’s meant to clamp down on academic freedom in some way,’ he said.
Heather MacIvor, a professor at the University of Windsor and a longtime researcher and commentator on the Conservative party, said she believes that there is a concerted effort to put a “chill” on academic critics of the Harper government,
“This government has a hostility toward people who think for a living or people who write for a living,” MacIvor said
MacIvor said she’s been told that Conservative operatives refer to her as “Liberal hack”
Here’s the thing. I don’t make that public. I don’t talk about the fact that I worked for the Liberals,” MacIvor said. “I can tell you that my employment record for Parliament Hill is (only) in the National Archives. It takes a lot of work to find it. Somebody found it.”
Nor did spokeswoman Andrée Dumulon want to speculate on why U of O has been receiving a disproportionate share of access requests in recent years. “We don’t know anything about the motives behind the requests,” Dumulon said.
I found one more in another story, this time in the Ottawa Citizen: "It does have a distinct political whiff to it," Attaran said.
------
An entire article based purely on speculation, feelings, and unconfirmed suspicions (unconfirmed suspicions seem to trump confirmed denials) published in the Toronto Star under a Susan Delacourt/Bruce Campion-Smith byline.
Not that I am surprised though, because with Delacourt we are talking about a 'journalist' who wrote another article based on the TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE notion of a Tuesday (Federal elections are held on Mondays) March 29th election.
You know what they say: If it is published in the Toronto Star, it is probably bullshit. ( If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.)
Related: Who is Amir Attaran?
Liberal supporter? Follow the money.
Other opinions:
BCBlue gives his thoughts here.
Blue Like You.
The National Post. ( I love the title: Possibly the lamest front-page “exclusive” in the history of Canadian journalism)
A Few Figs.
New Ekos poll out: CPC 37.3 LPC 24.8 NDP 14.2 GPC 10.7 BQ 9.9
Seems like the Liberals plan to steal the NDP platform has fallen flat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
