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.

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.

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.

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.

Linda Duncan, call your office.

Linda Duncan, call your office because it looks like someone is using Parliamentary resources for partisan purposes which is, as you know, strictly against the rules.

Update: I have removed the 'it looks like" line from the original post. At first I thought that perhaps the use of the @parl.gc.ca email address might have been a simple error on behalf of the campus NDP, but that is not the case and I now have concrete proof that Linda Duncan's MP office is indeed using that account  for the partisan door knocking event(s) outlined below. (see end of post for additional info)

(Please note the contact email address, highlighted by me, in the following email)



Email from the UofA NDP Campus club:

Subject: U of A Campus NDP Meeting and Volunteer Requests.

Hello fellow campus New Democrats!

The U of A Campus NDP is planning to re-coordinate our efforts to get

New Democrats seen and heard on campus. If you're interested in being

involved in the club, including planning strategy and bringing in

speakers from the provincial and federal NDP, come to our upcoming

meeting:

(snip)

Also, it is quite likely we will have a federal election called in the

next month or two. Help your Edmonton NDP candidates get ready! Here

are some ways you can help get rid of Stephen Harper's Conservatives

and put progressive MPs in their places:

Re-elect Linda Duncan in Edmonton-Strathcona

Upcoming door-knocking sessions (open to everyone, regardless of

experience level):

Canvass in Windsor Park, Saturday February 12, 1pm:  Please meet at

home of Mary XXXXXX, one of the coordinators for the Windsor Park

team, XXXXX St

Canvass in Garneau/Strathcona, Sunday February 13, 1pm:  Please meet

at the home of Nancy XXXX, Garneau team coordinator, XXXXX,

XXXXXX.  The building has visitor parking and there

is also parking on Saskatchewan Drive.

Canvass in King Edward Park, Sunday, February 20, 1pm: Please meet at

the home of Melinda XXXXXX, 8XXX XX Avenue.

For more information or to sign up for any of the above sessions,

contact Erica Bullwinkle at DuncaL1@parl.gc.ca. 

(Snip)

Hope to see you soon on the campaign trail with us!

Joel French

U of A Campus NDP

(end)


While I don't know the exact reading of the House Board of Internal Economy's rules on the use of government resources for partisan purposes, I am pretty sure that the organizing of 3 separate and purely partisan door knocking events, using an email account from Duncan's Parliamentary office and on Government of Canada servers, fits into the category of things not allowed.


Time to call your office Linda, because someone there is breaking the rules.


The important info from an email ( on the subject of partisan door knocking) forwarded to me this AM. As with the campus NDP email I have removed all the non relevant personal identifiable information.


Updated: With permission, I have now enclosed the entire email body

Return-Path: (duncal1@parl.gc.ca)

Received: from mailer01.parl.gc.ca ([192.197.82.XXX])

Subject: RE: Sunday Feb 13 Canvass in Garneau/Strathcona

(body of email snipped to protect source, but related specifically to the campus email and partisan door knocking and the reply signed by Erica B, acting in the capacity of constituency assistant in Linda Duncan's Edmonton office)



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

Busted!

Smackdown: Ralph Goodale scores on his own net.

Earlier today Liberal MP Ralph Goodale was beside himself with what he called a "big score" for the Liberals against corporate taxes when he tweeted the following:

@RalphGoodale "Libs land a big score against Cons tax cuts for big corps. CFIB-VP says corp tax cuts are NOT in CFIB's Top-11 priorities."        
(FYI CFIB = Canadian Federation of Independent Business)


One small problem though; Ralph has the position of the CFIB totally wrong as explained by CFIB President Catherine Swift.

"As to any confusion over CFIB's support of continuing the corporate tax cuts, we unequivocally support them! The plan should be continued."

"The reason CFIB's so-called top-11 list did not include corporate tax cuts is that we considered them a done deal, not subject to change."

Sorry Ralph but the CFIB is in favour of the tax cuts and they unequivocally do not support the job killing Liberal tax increases you and your party are proposing to inflict upon Canadian business as we come out of a recession.

Your big score was into your own net Ralph.



Related:  The Liberal plan IS a tax increase.    Liberal tax policy folly.

Watch Iranium online for a limited time

Watch the controversial film Uranium Here or at the Iranium website .





Trailer:

Your Sunday morning chuckle.

"Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he is confident his party can make inroads in Alberta."



And how does he know this?

Because Ignatieff knows what Albertans want.
ht JoshGroberman

 

Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position(s) on asbestos

Michael Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position on asbestos while happily attending a big bucks Liberal fundraiser hosted by a businessman leading the charge to reopen one of Canada’s last-remaining asbestos mines. (ironic no?)

"I think that Canada cannot export a product that is dangerous and cannot be handled safely,” Ignatieff said in Montreal. I’ve said that for a long time.”

Well he did say something like that in the past but on one occasion when questioned on that statement that he had made just days earlier, Ignatieff said something else completely.

"We have had 60 years of experience with this product. What I said in answer to a question is that we have an obligation to international agreements to the countries that we export to, to make them aware of the risks. That is all I said."

Causing Kathleen Ruff, senior adviser on human rights for the Ottawa-based think-tank Rideau Institute, to comment on Ignatieff's denial: "I knew he would be under pressure to retract what he said but that's an out-and-out lie"


Confused? Don't worry, you are not alone. Even Liberal candidates don't know Ignatieff's position.

Bérubé (the Liberal candidate selected for the Richmond-Arthabaska riding) argued that Ignatieff did not use the word asbestos and that he was talking hypothetically when asked the question by the Devoir.
“He did not state his opposition to the asbestos industry specifically, just to things that are toxic.”
“I don’t believe our asbestos is a toxic substance and the question of its safety should be examined by a committee after we are elected to government.”
Long-time Liberal Lucien Richard from Asbestos agreed with Bérubé that his party leader did not target the industry in the Devoir interview and hopes to discuss the matter further with Ignatieff.
“I want to hear him say it to me,” said Richard.
“I don’t believe he said the asbestos industry should be stopped.”
Local Liberal organizer André Beaumier said Ignatieff met with industry officials in early June and argues the industry will not be shut down by a future Liberal government.
“Our studies have shown that the fiber mined here is safe if handled carefully. “
“If Ignatieff said it was a dangerous industry, I don’t think he knew all the facts then. I am sure he will change his mind on this issue.”


and who can really blame them for not knowing Ignatieff's position, it is always hard to hit a moving target.
 

Compounding bad journalism: an example from this weekend.

It is bad enough when examples of poor journalism, not so much simple errors but the blatantly obvious stuff, gets published but when that same bad journalism gets cited or used in the works of others it not only exposes the laziness of our MSM, it also shows us the inside baseball, don't criticize/question those in the bubble mentality, that is prevalent among our so called professional journalists.

On Saturday Susan Delacourt filed a piece in the Toronto Star under the headline: "Tories planning a spring election?"  in which she wrote that a source had told her that a Conservative Party fundraiser had called them up on the phone and let it slip that there would be an election on March 29, 2011; 'letting the cat out of the bag'.  Delacourt went on to write that the CPC had denied the Mar 29 date but basically ignored the denial and continued on with the premise of a March 29th election going so far as to formulate just how a March 29 election date was possible by counting back the days on a calender and checking the House of Commons schedule before 'assuming' that PM Harper would be paying a call on the Governor-General asking for Parliament to be dissolved forcing an election. 

When I initially read that story on Saturday morning I started a blog post where I Fisked the article line by line but soon gave up as it became clear that the entire story was too much of a joke for anyone to take seriously.  It looks like I was wrong and that I have seriously underestimated the ability of some in Canada's main stream media to show even the most basic common sense in their reporting. (more on this later)

First off the entire article was based on hear-say, which should always raise red flags as to the reliability of the information. Hear-say evidence is so unreliable that rarely, if ever, is it allowed to be used a court of law.


Next the story is based on the totally implausible premise that a person working the fund-raising phone bank, who may not even be a party supporter, would themselves have such deep knowledge of the most secret party policy & time-lines and then would divulge that secret information to some random person who they have never met and who told them that they were not even a party supporter.  (Seriously, that does not make sense in any way, shape, or form)

And lastly, the entire theory of a March 29 election is flat out IMPOSSIBLE because Canadian federal elections always take place on a Monday, unless it is a statutory holiday which is not the case.  One might think that those reporting on Parliament might know that, but obviously they don't or this story would never had seen the light of day or had any type of afterlife.



But this blog entry is not about the Delacourt story, it is about how others in the media have decided to compound this bad journalism by using/citing her story with the (impossible) March 29 date in their own work ignoring the obvious problems and the many criticisms from out of the bubble.Delacourt's article was blasted in blogs and comments across the land within hours of its publication and one didn't even have to venture past the comments at the bottom of the page at the Star to realize that the story was bunk and its value questionable. Yet it lived on.


First the Toronto Star: "Reports over the weekend said Prime Minister Stephen Harper is considering a federal election for this spring with a possible date of March 29."  ( Not to be critical but shouldn't that read report, you know without the S?) Not that I am surprised that the Star would use the nonsense from Delacourt as they were the ones that published it in the first place, but considering all of the criticism her original piece garnered wouldn't you think that an editor somewhere might pick up that there might be a problem and that perhaps it would not be the best source to use in another story? Of course that would assume that they bother listening to any criticisms or even care about truth or accuracy.


The next example comes from Jennifer Ditchburn of the Canadian Press, but her use of the 'March 29th' date was not to come in print form as one might expect from the Canadian Press reporter with the Parliament Hill beat. Instead Jennifer would go on national television to tell the entire country about the March 29, 2011 election day theory based solely on Delacourt's article . Listen to what she said below.

She starts out by praising her "fine colleague Susan Delacourt" and then proceeds into the March 29 election date theory laughing with Jane and Craig. While Ditchburn seems to just be reporting what her colleague wrote and may not have known how badly that article had been trashed, although I find it hard to believe that a reporter could read that article and not have concerns or questions, she gets something fundamentally wrong about Delacourt's story. Listen to it again and note that it appears that she is saying that an election will be called March 29th and not held on March 29th. Interesting because if you read the article it is quite clear that it says an election would take place ON March 29th as the very first line reads: "The Conservatives are planning for a March 29 election..."  and later on reads: "“She replied that the election would be on March 29th..."  and still farther into the article reads:   "A March 29 election would have to be called sometime before Feb. 22 for a minimum, 36-day campaign. But since the Commons is not sitting that week in February, it’s assumed the election would be kicked off simply by Harper paying a call on the Governor-General and asking for Parliament to be dissolved."

So what was Ditchburn really trying to say on during her Question Period segment?  I was not so sure at first and thought that maybe I would not be able to use her comments for this blog post as she seemed to be just reporting on what Delacourt had written, as I and others have done, but I subsequently found out later Sunday evening what she did intend to say about the March 29th date and also answered my question about the suitability of using her comments at the same time.

It all came to be when she responded to a Tweet I had made earlier in the evening.

albertaardvark: To @SusanDelacourt @jenditchburn & others pushing the Mar 29 election theory... Elections are always held on a Monday! That is all.

jenditchburn: @Albertaardvark I think the person meant Mar. 29th as the day for dropping the writ.

So there you have it.  Ditchburn was indeed trying to say that the election would be called March 29th and not be held on March 29th; making me wonder, considering how wrong she was about its contents, if she had actually read the Delacourt article that she cited on national television, but leaving no doubt at all that her comments fit into a blog post on bad journalism.

Related: another fine example of journalism from Jeniffer Ditchburn. Guergis had a history in the clubs with the hometown playboy.

 -------------------

As stated earlier, many bloggers had written about the Delacourt article. In time I will try to link to them all below. (let me know in the comments if there are others)

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/who-exactly-is-this-don-burroughs-in-stars-delacourt-story/

 

http://hincheysstore.blogspot.com/2011/01/for-my-200th-post-have-i-got-story-for.html

http://unambig.com/conservatives-to-call-election-says-unknown-person/


http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/01/who-*#*#-is-don-burroughs.html (NSFW)

and of course Blue Like You where you will find plenty of comments on this subject in the comments!

CTVGate: CTV cuts 2 seconds out of Ignatieff's answer

And what a difference 2 seconds can make.

Watch the video.  (Now available on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egy2POCd8tM )

  

What Ignatieff actually said: "”We think that Bill Gates, the secretary of defence, knows full well the problems with the F-35s,..."

What CTV chose to put on the air:  ”..., the secretary of defence, knows full well the problems with the F-35s,..."

A big difference don't you think?

Imagine that, CTV left out a major gaffe by a politician. Perhaps it is their policy not to show slip ups of politicians, or than again maybe not as the very next segment aired dealt with another gaffe from a politician, this time our Minister of National Defence.

One was given its own story, while the other seemed to be edited out and never mentioned.

Why the difference in coverage?


Update: Even in their print stories on this subject, CTV manages to leave out Ignatieff's "Bill Gates" quote :
 Gates "knows full well the problems with the F-35. This thing is late, it's over-budget," Ignatieff told reporters at an event in Montreal. While Peter MacKay's comment gets fully reported on in print by CTV.     (HT to Joanne @  BLY)

Update3: How important are gaffes to CTV? Do they think they are worth covering?:  If you look at the pic from Lisa LaFlamme's twitter account below, you can see that in the week previous she made 6 tweets.

2 of those were about MacKay's gaffe and the CTV coverage of them. 

So yes, it does look like CTV not only believes that gaffes are important and worth covering, they also appear to believe that their coverage of those gaffes was worthy of promotion over the other news of the day.

So again I have to ask; why the difference in coverage between what Peter MacKay said and what Michael Ignatieff said?


Update 2: During the same presser and after the Bill Gates gaffe, Ignatieff had the gall to attack Peter MacKay on his gaffe: "Well, I just think our minister of defence should get a map," 

Too funny.  Michael Ignatieff, he does not attack people (40 second mark), he attacks irony.

HT Wilson in the comments @ Blue Like You.

Dear CPC:

Dear CPC, it might be wise in the future to perhaps bounce some of the stuff coming out of the war room off some friendly supporters before going public. We work for free, are familiar with politics, spin and it's effects, and I can guarantee you that it will save you some grief.

Thanks
Albertaardvark
part of a vast right wing untapped resource.

Call it like it is: The Liberal plan is a tax increase .

For days now we all have been hearing from the media about the Liberal plan to 'rescind', 'defeat', or 'cancel' the conservative corporate tax cuts that are supposedly in the next budget, but there are a couple of problems with that.

#1. The budget contains NO corporate tax cuts. None, zero, nada. There is nothing to oppose or defeat as these cuts have been in place since 2007 and have just been implemented as scheduled starting January 1st 2011. Why the misleading headlines? Your guess is as good as mine.

#2. Since the cuts are ALREADY in place any change to the tax code would not be merely be a cancellation of a proposed cut but rather a tax increase over the current rates.   Companies would pay more than they are paying today, and that is a tax increase!

Think of it this way; if (more likely when) Ignatieff increases the GST would anyone refer to that move as simply canceling a tax cut?  OK, some in the MSM probably would but they don't seem to understand the situation most of the time before they actually report on it, as the coverage of Ignatieff's corporate tax increase clearly shows.

Call it like it is, the Liberal plan is a tax increase.

And if they do manage to somehow get elected I will wager that it won't be the only one we will see either.

GST hike anyone? 

Liberal corporate tax policy folly.

I was thinking that the use of the word folly might be a bit over the top, but looking at the Ignatieff Liberals new found position on corp tax cuts, I can't think of another word that better describes the Liberal Party of Canada and their corporate tax policy than "folly".  See if you don't agree as we look at some history and how the Liberals are trying to spin what could be a major policy plank for them in any upcoming election.

First up it is a complete flip flop and a radical change from what has been a long standing Liberal policy. This graph courtesy of LPC shows that since 2000, when Jean Chretien was PM with Paul Martin as his finance minister, through Martin's term, and right up until Ignatieff decided otherwise, Liberal policy has been to reduce Canada's corporate tax rate.

 Link to graph.
Ignatieff himself ran 2 times with corporate tax cuts included as part of the Liberal platform, the first under Paul Martin in 2006, and again in 2008 under the leadership of Dion, which makes that the position Ignatieff was elected on and promised to implement for the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore as their MP.  Some have tried to spin this abandonment of part of the platform that Ignatieff  was elected on by claiming that the LPC tax cut plan was just a minor part of part of Dion's platform, but history says otherwise as it was those promised corporate tax cuts that Dion cited as the reason why he would not form a coalition government with Jack Layton and the NDP.  In fact Dion called the NDP position "damaging".

Mr. Dion, speaking after an address to a Vancouver-area business crowd today, said he could not work with Mr. Layton in this way because the NDP leader wants to hike taxes on business.

“We cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging for the economy. Period,” the Liberal leader said.  (If Dion cited them as the reason for not joining Jack and Gilles (at that point in time still a silent partner) they WERE indeed a major part of the platform.)



The Liberals themselves can see how this reversal of a sound LPC policy doesn't look good so they have decided to spin the flip flop by claiming to support corporate tax cuts but not while in a deficit position. Not a bad angle to use if you are trying to play both ends and cover the obvious hypocrisy of ones position, but a couple of little details are going to make that spin job difficult if not impossible. First is the fact that when Dion was touting his tax cut plan in the 2008 election we were ALREADY in recession and headed for a deficit, making it tough to say now that they support tax cuts but not in a deficit when the Liberal Party ran on cuts and were fully prepared to implement those cuts while the country was in a deficit; but expect them to try and do just that in the hope that nobody is paying attention. Another thing that makes this a tough sell happened just last night when some guy named  Barrack Obama (who causes both reporters (see bio) and politicians to swoon) openly called for corporate tax cuts in the USA at a time of record US deficits in the neighborhood of 1.3 Trillion dollars a year!
 “But all the rest [of our companies] are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change. So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years – without adding to our deficit.”  (Is Obama wrong?  I await to see how the Liberals twist themselves in knots trying to spin this as I am sure hilarity will ensue.) And in case anyone has forgotten , the Liberals had ample opportunity in the past to vote against these tax increases and for their own reasons chose not to do so; to claim now that you are against tax cuts that you allowed to pass into law is approaching silly.


Next up is a 'little detail' that so far seems to have eluded most of our MSM  in their coverage of the subject.
The Liberal plan on corporate tax cuts is not just rescinding a proposed cut, it is actually a tax increase as  these rates are now in place and are already the law.

 "The Liberals are calling for rates to be restored to the 2010 level of 18.5 per cent, up from the 16.5 per cent rate that came into effect this month." (So much for any Liberal promise not to raise taxes as they have already broken that promise before the writ is even dropped.) I am sure our MSM will soon realize the error of their ways and be more accurate in their reporting of the Liberal corporate tax increase in the future.


Is there really a better word than' folly' to describe this?

Update: Ignatieff is claiming that education creates more jobs than corporate tax breaks will.   True to form Ignatieff ignores the realities of just who provides the jobs and wealth in our country. Hint: It is not government.  Education on its own is not going to create jobs; sure there may be some entrepreneurs in there who may start their own  businesses (which will be hindered by paying Ignatieff's tax increase) but the majority will seek and hopefully find work in the private sector who have been suffering through tough economic times.  The truth is that education on its own will not create more jobs than a tax cut for those that provide the jobs would and it certainly will not protect already existing jobs that may be in danger today due to the poor economy (sorry Jack but all companies that pay taxes are not banks or big oil)    Look at it this way: If every company in Canada closed their doors tomorrow because they could not afford to remain open and put everyone out of work, all that education would have done would be to make our EI recipients smarter.  More from Freedom is my Nationality and Angry in the great white north.

Ignatieff must know this but yet he continues on with the follies.

-----------------

Related:

The NDP, bless their little socialist hearts, put together an overview of the Liberal corporate tax position that can be seen here, and kudos to the NDP for for doing so because not only have they outed Ignatieff on the tax cuts they inadvertently also skewered  themselves in the process by revealing just how willing the NDP is to toss their so called principles in the quest for power.

Remember earlier when I wrote about how Dion ruled out a coalition with the NDP during the last election? Well think back to how that ended up turning out as Dion did end up forming a coalition with Layton and the NDP. What could have possibly changed Dion's mind you ask, well the answer to that is simple.

Jack Layton agreed to keep and fully support Dion's proposed corporate tax cuts (which were larger than the Conservative cuts BTW) just so he could get a cabinet seat. You want to see hypocrisy Mr. Layton, just look into the mirror because that sir is a classic example of hypocrisy of the worst kind.

And where was Micheal Ignatieff during all of this? He of course was fully aware of the deal between Dion and Layton on the corporate tax cuts and must have been in agreement because after all, he did sign on to it.


Links: Ignatieff doesn't get it. Financial Post.

A look at the numbers.

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach will not run for re-election.

During a news conference Tuesday morning, Premier Ed Stelmach told reporters he won't run in the next provincial election.

"I am not prepared to serve another full term as premier," said Stelmach.


And with that, PC's all across the province breathe a sigh of relief.

But will it be enough?

The sheer political genius of Stephen Harper.

With one comment, about personally supporting capital punishment in certain circumstances but who as our PM has no intention of bringing forward as gov't policy*, Stephen Harper has changed the game.

Just watch and see.

 * If anyone out there honestly believes that the PM made his televised comments without knowing the 'fallout', IMHO they are being willfully blind or are sadly under estimating Stephen Harper the politician.

Brilliant line: "He didn't come back for you."

Truth in advertising:








As the great Homer Simpson said:  'It is funny 'cause its true!'

Mr. Ignatieff. Please answer your own question.

On Wednesday Michael Ignatieff again went out on the road in an effort to (re) introduce himself to the Canadian public as if somehow the forth time will be the charm. At a Liberal Party function, which was held in the back of a restaurant located in a small suburban Ottawa mall, Ignatieff lead off his stump speech with what the LPC hope will become the 'ballot question' in the next federal election.

"Are you and your family better off now than five years ago?" .

Aside from the fact that the line was blatantly stolen from Ronald Reagan, which I mentioned yesterday, something else has been bothering me about Ignatieff's campaign query. What would Michael Ignatieff's answer be if he was asked his own question?


Seriously, assuming that he would be honest and give a straight answer, what would Michael Ignatieff's answer be?
(Perhaps someone in our fine Canadian media establishment would be so kind to ask him so we all could find out. Hint Hint)

 

I say the answer has to be a resounding yes. Micheal Ignatieff  is indeed much better off now than he was 5 years ago. (Speaking only on the financial aspect, which considering that we have just been through a nasty recession, I assume was what Ignatieff was referring to with his question) Here is why:

On January 14, 2006, after recently returning to Canada after 27 years away, Michael Ignatieff was busy running in his first election to be the LPC MP for Etobicoke Lakeshore. He won his riding but the Paul Martin lead Liberal Party lost power and Ignatieff made his way onto the Liberal back benches where he would be compensated with a wage of  $147,700. Assuming that he sat on a couple of committees etc, I think we can safely round it up to $160K. (plus travel, office etc)


5 years later in January 2011 Micheal Ignatieff is now the leader of the official opposition with a salary $233,247, a residence (Stornoway), an office budget of $3.2 million, a car allowance of $2,122, and perhaps even some kind of top up or other perks from the Liberal Party itself. Not to mention that the job of leader of the opposition carries with it much more prestige as well as other intangibles that no ordinary MP enjoys.


Sounds to me like Micheal Ignatieff better hope that nobody in the media can take a hint and asks him to honestly answer his own question, because financially speaking he certainly is better off today than he was 5 years ago.

 -----------

Sort of related and good news for all Canadians including Ignatieff, not that he would ever acknowledge it though, as Canada's economy outperforms the G7.

The Liberals are in full campaign mode

Leader out on tour (again!) Check.  (btw how many do-overs does this guy get on 'introducing himself' to Canadians?)

Slogan/ballot question. Check.  ( Although it was blatantly stolen from Ronald Reagan, and shows that the Liberals still have no original ideas, at least give 'em credit for the attempt.)

Scare monger. ("You're going to get four more years of Stephen Harper if you vote for (NDP Leader) Jack Layton or (Bloc Quebecois Leader) Gilles Duceppe, it's that simple,") Check.

Take the low road with a couple of smears. Check.


This sure looks like a campaign to me; about the only thing missing was Ignatieff conceding defeat and pleading to the Canadian public not to give PM Harper a majority, but it is still early and the real campaign has yet to begin.

Keep your powder dry. The real show will begin soon enough.

Election in 2011. Yes or no?

Do you believe that there will be a federal election in 2011?  

Personally I don't believe we will, unless the Liberals "push" Ignatieff into it (possible) and the NDP and Bloc both decide to play along (less likely), but there seem to be many who do think that we will be heading to the polls in 2011.

What do you think and why?