The PCAA: The biggest, baddest politcal machine in Alberta

In spite of what Redford and the PC's may want all of us to believe, it is wise for everyone to remember that the Alberta Progressive Conservatives are hardly the underdog or are somehow disadvantaged in this election. They are easily the largest, best funded, most organized and best connected political machine that this province has ever seen. Their resources dwarf any other party and probably all of them combined, and considering that they are also the current government, that advantage is multiplied even further as they are able to use the resources of the government for their own purposes, even though they should not be doing so.

We had the $100,000+ pre-election "cabinet tour" in back in January, the weekend retreat to Jasper in February where the PC caucus met up with the unelected PCAA candidates, commercials on the budget long before it was passed, and the ability to summon the media at will for a photo op or announcement of any kind and they took full advantage of all of it and all our our our dime.

And they are still at it!

I received this at a parent council meeting at our local school Apr 2, one week into the election campaign.

 
It is an outline of what the what the Alberta government (read PC's) are spending on education and includes the latest information from the 2012 budget, which bring up the obvious question: When was this printed?
The budget passed late on March 21st (BTW Redford was not in attendance and did not vote on her OWN budget) and the election call was on March 26th, with them being distributed and handed out only 1 week later!

Did the PCs again use government resources for free election advertising?  I think the answer is a definitive yes, the PC machine is more than willing to use not only their own ample resources to try to get themselves elected, but also tax payer dollars as well.


It is going to be an interesting few weeks as election day nears and PC election machine gets rolling and spends their money. The PCs have already gone negative ( pre-election attack ad, anonymous robo-calls pretending to be polls, election advertising claiming Danielle Smith is "not worth the risk") and if the last few days are any indication it is going to get nastier as the reality of the poll numbers start to sink in and have started to lash out like a cornered animal resorting to fear mongering and baseless smears as I called a few weeks back.


One more thing: Can we now ALL admit, given the ample evidence to the contrary, that Redford's oft repeated promises that the PCs will run a clean campaign are simply nothing but BS?  I think we are all getting tired of being lied to to our faces about this delusion.

Could 1 single tweet be the final nail into the Alberta PC coffin?

The tweet: “If @ElectDanielle likes young and growing families so much, why doesn’t she have children of her own?  #wrp family pack = insincere” – Amanda Wilkie, "Executive Assistant to the Executive Director of the Office of the Premier (Southern Alberta Office)". March 30, 2012 (via Twitter).

The response:

March 31, 2012 (Calgary, AB): Today Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith issued the following statement in response to comments made by a Staffer in Premier Redford’s Calgary office regarding the Wildrose Family Pack.
“In the last day the question has been raised about why I don’t have children of my own.  When David and I married in 2006 we intended to have children together. After a few years we sought help from the Calgary Regional Fertility Clinic. I appreciated the support and assistance of the caring staff as we went through tests and treatments, but in the end we were not successful.
“I consider myself very fortunate to have a terrific stepson, Jonathan, David’s son from a previous marriage.  I am also blessed to have grown up in a large family with four siblings who have given me the opportunity to be the auntie of 5 terrific nieces and nephews: Emily, Sam, Chloe, Seyenna and Logan.
“Family is very important to me and I consider this to be a very personal matter. I will not be commenting on it further.”



                                                               -----------

Say goodbye to the positive campaign: Redford:“We’re working really hard to make it a positive campaign & we’re going to keep doing that." as there is no spinning that one anymore and the PCs might want to think twice about the "scary" "angry" Wildrose meme they are using as well.

After the poor last few weeks the PCs had and now this, which will be covered by ALL the media, there will be no recovery.

It's over.

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.

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!

Marlene Jennings is in a class by herself. Video.

Marlene Jennings, Liberal MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine, was busy playing cheap political games (the kind that the Liberals say they detest so much) yesterday in the House of Commons and let Canadians get another glimpse of this MP at work.


Watch the video:

Read it in Hansard.

Stay Classy Marlene. You are a true treasure for Canadian politics and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Lots more from Jennings here.

Mark Holland faces reality and apologizes, something he said he would never do.

Liberal MP Mark Holland, of secret box fame, has issued an apology after asserting back in March 2008 that he would not: Mr. Holland, the MP for Ajax-Pickering, yesterday said his comments did not warrant an apology and said that no bullying or legal threats would stop him from searching for the truth...

OTTAWA, Oct 8 /CNW/ - Today Mark Holland made the following statement with regards to the legal action between him and Mr. Chris Froggatt:
In an interview broadcast on CTV Newsnet on March 5, 2008, I made certain statements regarding Chris Froggatt, then Chief of Staff to Canada's Minister of Environment, and communications between Mr. Froggatt and the Ontario Provincial Police. I have since determined that my concerns regarding Mr. Froggatt were unwarranted. I apologize to Mr. Froggatt and retract the statements that may have caused grief to him and to his family.
This action has now been settled to the mutual satisfaction of both parties.

Here is what Mark Holland said in the House (March 11 2008) on this subject and how he claimed it was his privileges being violated. In other words he had no clue and thought he could say whatever he wanted wherever he wanted.

I have repeatedly questioned the Minister of the Environment about his involvement in both the actions of Mayor O’Brien and his dealings with the OPP in this matter. It was those questions that led to the CTV Newsnet interview, of which Mr. Froggatt now complains.
It is clear that the primary goal of Mr. Froggatt is to prevent me from continuing to raise the very serious questions that I have about his actions and the actions of the Minister of the Environment with respect to the OPP investigation.
Mr. Froggatt is well aware that he is unable to directly control what I say in this House. As a result, he has chosen to attempt to intimidate me outside the House by threatening a lawsuit should I refuse to withdraw my earlier comments and refrain from accusing him of inappropriate activity.
I believe that the involvement of the Minister of the Environment in a bribery scandal and improper interference by the chief of staff to a minister are two issues that are clearly of public importance. Indeed, I have laid these issues before the House on a number of occasions. Mr. Froggatt’s attempt to stifle debate is clearly a violation of my privileges.

Smack down #1 from Peter Van Loan:

The fact that one is a member of Parliament does not give one licence to make reckless accusations that harm the reputation of any individual in this country, regardless of one's position or status.

     Any comments that are made outside of this chamber, outside of one's direct role in the House, are comments for which a member must assume responsibility, comments which they should recognize have risks and that they should have a basis on which they can defend the truthfulness and accuracy of those remarks...

  We protect members within the House to allow for freedom of speech but we also respect the rights of every citizen and recognize that there is a difference between what Parliament means and what the House means. It is by virtue of membership and participation in the House that those privileges exist. It is for the protection of what happens in this chamber that those privileges exist. It is not to give individuals licence to engage in reckless behaviour and destroy people's reputations without any basis, which is exactly the conduct that the member continues to engage in outside the House.

    On that basis, he must, as any other citizen outside the House, be prepared to defend those comments, not to cry like a baby that he is not allowed to say what he wants. He must assume the adult responsibilities for the truth of the comments he makes. If they are not true, then he should own up to the lack of evidence and own up to the lack of truth and be prepared to defend those words in court. That is all he is being asked to do.

Holland still did not get it:
 Mr. Speaker, my comments are very clear. I stand by what I say both in this House and outside of this House.

    The issue is when members of Parliament in trying to execute their duties as members of Parliament ask legitimate questions of the government about matters of deep concern to the country, matters that are well reported, are sued by individuals who try to do indirectly what they cannot do directly, to try to intimidate individuals into not asking legitimate, fair questions on matters of fact, in my opinion, that is a serious attack upon the privileges of members of Parliament.

     I believe the courts are being abused and used to try to stifle the abilities of members of Parliament to ask questions.

Smack down #2 From the Speaker: The complaint was all about statements he had made on a television program, and those are not ones that are subject to parliamentary privilege.
As has been pointed out by the hon. government House leader, a privilege exists in respect of statements that members make in this House, but also in committees. Something he neglected to mention is that comments in committee are also protected. Statements made outside the House are not protected. If the hon. member received a letter that alleges he said something that was defamatory of someone else–and that is what I sense from the segment he read–somewhere other than in the House, then the question of privilege is not available to him to have this matter somehow protected under that guise.


Now if only if he would apologize to Alberta for his remarks about nationalizing the oil sands.  Transcript of conversation here, Hollands letter denying his own words(and slamming Premier Stelmach) here.

Anyone see a pattern here?

ht The Phantom Observer 

Related:
Stephen Taylor gets letters (where is the media coverage?)


Update: October 15th (1 week later)   The Canadian MSM FINALLY picks up on the story.   What took them so long, and more importantly, if this was a Conservative does anyone really believe that the CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, etc would have not have been all over this story from day 1 as opposed to the ZERO coverage it has received by them? 

Globe and Mail Televison reporter angling for a different assignment?

Be afraid, be very afraid; because John Doyle, the Globe and Mail TV reporter (yes that really is a paying job) is on to us and our evil right wing ways. In his latest he goes on the attack of the proposed SunTV and happily smears a good percentage of the population in the process, and in typical lefty fashion does the same thing that he accuses others of doing, missing the irony of it all.

Some excerpts: (my comments in parenthesis)

..if it’s anything like the Fox News channel in the United States, it certainly won’t be a news outlet. It will be entertainment. Fluff. Frivolous opinion delivered as fact. That is, showbiz. (What was that you wrote about opinion delivered as fact again? To save me typing, feel free to apply this comment to the rest of Doyle's 'facts')

Right-wingers are as predictable in their news-babe preferences as they are in their conspiracy theories about the CBC. ( That is a mighty wide brush you are painting with there John)

The barking-mad Fox News Channel is something that most Canadians have only heard about. They could watch it, because it is widely available here, but hardly anybody can be bothered. Except, obviously, for those behind this new outfit – Quebecor Media President Pierre Karl Péladeau and its VP of development Kory Teneycke. (Seriously, Barking mad? And yes, only 2 people in Canada have watched Fox News)

Teneycke used to be “Our Glorious Leader” Harper’s snippity spokesthingamajig. Recently, he’s been a pundit on CBC News Network, doing his best to imitate a Fox News pundit, all drive-by sneer and shaky foundation. ( Doyle, all fact all the time. No time for hyperbole with him.)

Instead, I suspect, it will be Erickson swapping bons mots with a giggly Levant, while Rex Murphy, the Red Green of political pundits, waits off-screen to deliver a thundering denunciation of people who oppose catastrophic oil spills. ( Attacking Rex Murphy is never a bright move John. Rex shows more writing skill when addressing a letter than you have with this entire article.)


And my favorite:

An entire channel run by, and aimed at, people who believe that political or social dialogue is advanced by name-calling. The people who support Fox News – here and in the U.S. – must be the most uncivil and foul-mouthed creatures on the planet. They'd give soccer hooligans a run for their money. This is an informed opinion. (Again that rather large brush of smear comes out but this time it is more than just baseless slander, it is an "informed opinion". What is this informed opinion on supporters of Fox News "here and in the U.S" based on you ask? "E-mails from Fox News devotees in the U.S.", and none from Canada.)


And he wrote it all without ever watching a single second of SUN TV!


I look forward to Doyle's next column on the make up and thoughts of the people of New Jersey based entirely on his opinion and the Jersey Shore.

The coalition returns: It’s not hyperbole to state that on the outcome of the next election rests the future of Canada as we know it.

"It’s not hyperbole to state that on the outcome of the next election rests the future of Canada as we know it."

Um, yes it is, but don't let that stop you Glen Wheeler. Tell us more.

"In sum, we have social conservatives in government slowly remaking the country according to their own political vision."

"Despite the odds in favour of the most right-wing and reactionary government in living memory retaining its hold on power in a federal election likely in less than a year..."

"As a Liberal and executive member of a Toronto riding association, I have some fear myself of being labelled disloyal. My day job as in-house lawyer for a labour union may provide more fodder for accusations that I am an NDP interloper and not a true Grit." (Glad you said it and not me)

"Unlike career hacks, we peons have little to lose, other than the country as we know it."


Hyperbole much Glen?



My favorite line: "That way, coalition will appear to be an answer to public pressure rather than the last resort of losers."

Nice use of the words "will appear" as in it will look like, but in reality will still be, the last resort of losers.

Finally some truth.

Marlene Jennings cares about members of political parties.

Conservative Party members.

Marlene Jennings Liberal MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine and deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Canada must be concerned as she wrote a letter to the PM asking why Helena Guergis was removed from caucus.

The opposition Liberals have sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, demanding to know why Simcoe-Grey Member of Parliament Helena Guergis was booted from the Conservative Party.

Too bad that this is an internal party issue that Jennings, or any other Liberal for that matter, have absolutely no business concerning themselves with; but in Jennings defense she does seem to have a soft spot for people being allowed party memberships. She is on the record as saying that Liberal organizer and disgraced adscam figure, Marc Yvan Coté, should be allowed to return to the Liberal Party after having been BANNED FOR LIFE, even though Cote did not ask to be reinstated.

"I think that Mr. Dion is right,'' while speaking with reporters adding "There are people we would like to see back in the party." Jennings said the "public notoriety'' surrounding his testimony and expulsion from the party was punishment enough for Cote. "He's definitely paid for it."



Marlene Jennings, always thinking of the little guy. Her compassion for others is legendary!


Updated: Thanks to Martin in the comments.

Here is what Marlene was saying just a short time ago. (March 11th, 2010 / 2:35 p.m.)

Marlene Jennings Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, the calls for public accountability from the Minister of State for the Status of Women and Rahim Jaffer are growing louder every day. They are being called the Bonnie and Clyde of the Conservative Party. They are young, Conservative and above the law.

Members of the Prime Minister's inner circle, like Kory Teneycke, are saying that the minister owes an explanation and an apology and that Rahim owes the same.

Is what the Prime Minister meant a few months ago when he sang “I get by with a little help from my friends”, I get high with a little help from my friends?

Ignatieff: We didn't start the culture war, they did.

Ignatieff gets up in front of a paying audience and attempts to re-write history.

Ignatieff said the Conservatives have accused the Liberals of “trying to start a culture war’, but suggests it’s the Conservatives that have really done that. The Liberal leader said “let’s be clear: we didn’t end the 25-year consensus on a women’s right to choose. They did.”

Really? I could have sworn that it was Ignatieff and the Liberals that first played the abortion card with their criticism of the maternal health initiative; a program to help save the lives of women and vulnerable children in the developing world with such things as safer drinking water, inoculations, and improved nutrition.

The Liberals brought the subject of abortion up and they were the ones that tried to, and continue to, play divisive political games with abortion including their motion which ended horribly for Ignatieff and the divided Liberals.

But it is the conservatives who started this entire thing. Ya, right. (Springer has some thoughts on this as does Sandy here.)



And I bet Iffy said it all with a straight face. The same way that he said he was in politics to unite and not divide.

BS! Do they teach revisionist history at Harvard?

My sympathies to the suckers that paid for the privilege of having someone lie to them.


More arrogance from Iffy: He is now claiming to be more Canadian than the 99% of us who didn't live elsewhere for 34 years!

Edited for spelling. Thanks M!

The CBC Responds. Part 2.

The CBC has again responded to my calling out of Scott Reid back on April 1, 2010 when he said:

"He (Kory Teneycke) along with that, sort of, you know, paid professional brigand of ah, of ah bloggers that work for the Conservative Party; those guys can mobilize a grassroots movement in the snap of a fingers......"

Their first response can be read here.

This time the reply was from Esther Enkin, Executive Editor CBC News who notes that Reid's comment about conservative bloggers being paid was not factual.

"They are not, of course. He was wrong,...... We regret the error."

Enkin commented that the matter has been discussed with Mr. Reid, that my e-mails on the matter were brought to his attention, adding "I do not expect him to apologize, as you suggested he should. However, at an early opportunity, when the subject of partisan blogs comes up again on the program, I expect Mr. Reid will correct his earlier remarks."

So this being Thursday, the normal day for the "Point of Order" segment to run, it might be worth it to tune in to "Power and Politics" today and see what our good friend Scott Reid has to say. Even if the subject does not come up today, I hear that Frank "I told them to invoke a culture war" Graves will be on the show going head to head with Kory Teneycke. Which in itself should be well worth the price of admission to see.

So please tune in to P&P this afternoon on the CBC News Network.

Enjoy!


UPDATE: Scott Reid's error continues to live on as NO correction was made today.

UPDATE April 29th: Another week passes and still no correction. What exactly does "at an early opportunity" mean in CBC language anyway? If we are waiting for the caveat about the topic of partisan blogs to come around, I suspect that I will be waiting a long time as I have never heard that topic brought up since Newman left.

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

Blog related: I have decided to give Twitter a serious go. If you are interested you can follow me on Twitter here.

Ignatieff flip flops on Jaffer. More Liberal games.

7 months ago the Jaffer arrest was considered to be a private matter for Ignatieff and the opposition; they felt sorry for those involved and they vowed not to play games with it.

Today, not so much.

News that Rahim Jaffer was arrested broke Sept 16, 2009.

Michael Ignatieff had this to say Sept 17, 2010.

"This is an unfortunate matter," said Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. "This is a man who held public trust and it's before the courts and I have no further comment to make about it."

Another story (also Sept 17, 2010) adds this interesting bit of trivia.

An adviser in Ignatieff's office said he has instructed his MPs not to discuss or attempt to make a political issue out of the matter.

Don't make this a political issue the OLO says.

April 18, 2010. (Highlighting mine if that isn't already obvious).

"the key issue here is the prime minister's judgment."

After Jaffer's arrest in September, Ignatieff wondered about Harper's response. "Did he call in Helena Guergis? Did he say, 'what's going on here?' What is the nature of Mr. Jaffer's business relationships? How could he possibly be accused of cocaine possession? Is there any connection to you in any way?'"

"Seven months ago he should have been asking those questions," Ignatieff added. "We don't know whether he did. This thing has gone on for seven months with increasing questions about his judgment, his handling of the whole affair."

Well, I don't want to make false accusations, but you don't get cocaine at a corner drugstore, right. You have to get it from somewhere, from someone, and usually that means organized crime."


Then don't make false allegations you disingenuous "genius" and if you "wondered" about all of this back in September, why the hell didn't you bring it up then? Stop playing games.





Inspiration and ht BLY

That is a good question Mr. Ignatieff

Michael Ignatieff asked a good question yesterday.

“Well, who's the third party? I mean they've simply got to come clean here with Canadians,” Ignatieff told reporters outside the House of Commons.

When dealing with 'third parties' one can never be too careful; so what would you do Michael if you were Prime Minister?

Say you had an MP, lets use Wayne Easter as an example, who happened to receive allegations from a third party against another MP that some would consider serious enough that they would warrant a call for that MPs resignation.

So what would you do Michael? Would you demand that your MP come clean with Canadians and identify the third party making those allegations, as you currently are of the PM, or would you just ignore it and hope nobody noticed?


BTW Michael, we noticed.

I don't want to make allegations but......

Question (approx 8:15): 'It is all about her and no one else?'


Michael Ignatieff: 'I don't want to make allegations myself but that is an excellent question. In my opinion it's hardly credible to think that this does not touch other individuals in the Conservative Government. I repeat, I do not want to make allegations but there are 2 individuals, very well placed individuals, in the Conservative Party and in the current government, and so we can ask questions.'


2 individuals in the CPC and in the current government?

You got any names that you would care to name there oh great intellectual one?


Or is this one from the Scott Reid school of drive-by smear?

Carolyn Bennett's Greatest Hits!

Now available from Ardvark Records: Carolyn Bennett's Greatest Hits.

This is sure to go down in history as the definitive Carolyn Bennett Collection. So order your copy today!

This album has it all. From her latest single, A Real Job: "Women of Canada want to hear about early learning and child care; that is the key to their economic independence, to be able to get back to school, to get a real job, to be able to go to work."

to her very popular, Prisons for Children : "Well it certainly uh uh, the approach to child care is just spiteful its its its canceling the supplement for our most vulnerable children. There is actually no plan for early learning and childhood education . So its a good job they're putting more money for prisons in the budget because we're gonna need them if we don't get this early childhood right."

And who could ever forget Body bags: “This is an absolute disgrace. This is morally appalling. This Reform-Conservative government deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms for this insensitive and callous act,” said Dr. Bennett. “Instead of flu-kits, instead of preparing and planning to get the vaccine on time – instead of planning to save lives – they spent their time planning on how to deal with the deaths.” and the follow up to Body Bags: I am sorry. “We would never do anything to offend; we did believe that raising attention for the real dire needs that we saw when we were [in Manitoba] was uppermost in our minds.”

and what about this timeless classic, and my personal favorite, Bob Rae: The reason I got into politics was because of the mess Ontario health care was in "after five years of Bob Rae" .



But wait, that's not all. Buy now and Ardvark Records will throw in a sex toy (certified safe by Ardvark Labs) at no extra charge!


If you only buy one album this year make it this soon to be classic record of Carolyn Bennett's Greatest Hits. It makes a great gift for those hard to shop for Liberals on your list.

Hurry supplies are limited. Operators are standing by.

Update: Now including her latest singles:  PM Harper is a dictator and Canadians are too stupid to understand for themselves.

Breaking: Liberals want to overturn Nuremberg Trials.

Liberal MP John McCallum apparently believes the "I was only following orders" defense was valid.

"McCallum: "I think the bigger weight is bread-and-butter issues, jobs and getting your children to school and all of those things. But I also think Canadians do care about democracy and about the high-handed, undemocratic attitude and actions of this government, and I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr. Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime. And the fact that they're covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues."

Meharchand: "You know, we could digress here and talk about who's handing over, is it the Canadian soldiers who you're accusing of war crimes, is it the government, I don't want to go there in this interview."

McCallum: "It's the government."

Do you idiots ever think about the real consequences of your actions? You cannot have this both ways Liberals. You cannot say that this has nothing to do with our troops and at the same time claim that the government committed war crimes. No MPs were in the field handing anyone over, it was OUR TROOPS and as the title of this post suggests; the defense of only following orders does not cut it.




FYI John McCallum was the Minister of Defense from June 26, 2002 – December 11, 2003. What did he know? He should brush up because if an inquiry does come HE is going to be called to explain the lack of policy and thought on this from the Liberals who committed us to this war.

More on the Liberal star John McCallum here, here, and here he is helping out his boss Ignatieff.

More on McCallum: He became widely known and criticized in 2002 when he admitted, while serving as the Minister of National Defence, that he had never heard of the 1942 Dieppe raid, a fateful and nationally significant operation for Canadian Forces during the Second World War. Ironically, he wrote a letter to the editor of the National Post in response, but committed a further gaffe, confusing Canadian participation in the 1917 Battle of Vimy Ridge in France with the Nazi-puppet state of Vichy France from 1940 to 1944.

This WHILE he was the Minister of Defense!!

Ruby Tuesday Part 2

Tuesday December 15, 2009 otherwise known as Ruby Tuesday Part 2 for the Liberal Party of Canada. Only this time it was Jack Ruby and not Ruby Dhalla.

From the contest rules: "We’ll post every entry we receive in the coming days (as long as it’s not inappropriate)..."

The Picture that was deemed appropriate by someone within the Liberal Party of Canada and posted to the official website of the LPC.


Lucky Liberals get to choose the winner? (it is still unclear if the above was chosen by the Liberal web team as a finalist)


All was well until they were busted by the media.


As usual the blogosphere was ahead of them all.


The non apology. The photos here are created by visitors to our website, and do not always reflect the views of the Liberal Party of Canada. Though we continue to screen submissions before posting, we have removed certain images that may have been offensive to some viewers.

We apologize for any offence these images may have caused, and continue to strive to present a progressive and dynamic web experience for our site visitors.

Sincerely,
The Web Team



Warren speaks a truism: "Moral of the story? It's the reverse-Vegas principle: what happens online doesn't ever stay online. It seeps out, like water." ( he should know)

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

Is it over? Not yet and it will not be over until Michael Ignatieff grows a pair and shows some leadership by making an apology for the actions of HIS party to the Prime Minister. Attempting to change the channel will not work.




For fun: Have a listen to Steve Janke from Angry in the Great White North destroy Lib Blogger Jeff Jedras on Breakenridge yesterday. (Select Dec 15 @ 7PM. It starts right after the news.)

And because it is Christmas a free tip for those Liberals running around trying to compare the "bullet holes" going through Dion's Platform (done by his own party btw) with bullets going through the PM; give it up before you make an already bad situation much worse. Get your leader to apologize and be done with it.

No Puffin = No Media Coverage.

Do you remember that cartoon puffin graphic on a CPC website from last year? You should because it was in all of the papers and other media.


Compare the media coverage and outrage of that single puffin to this, (Peter Donolo approved) found on the official party website of the always classy Liberal Party of Canada.


Ok defenders of the MSM in Canada; do you have any rational explanations for the differences in coverage?


Update: December 15, 2009. They Liberals sink even lower, if that is possible.

The Liberal Party. The Debbie Downers of Canadian Politics.

The Liberal Party of Canada is all negative all of the time and they have been that way since 2006 when they were tossed from power by the good people of Canada.

Pick an issue, any issue, and the Liberals are out in the press bad mouthing the governments handling of it. The last couple of weeks it was been torture, this week I suspect it will be the environment, and 3 weeks ago it was H1N1. They claim that Canadians abroad are embarrassed to be Canadian because we have a conservative government, the PM goes to China and gets many things accomplished and these same Liberals, who were screaming all about torture and human rights, are more willing to criticize the PM than they are the human rights record of China, and who can forget the Liberals new found concern for the traditions of the Catholic Church and the entirely made up FAKE wafergate fiasco. (BTW the LPC line is STILL that the PM did not eat the wafer)

It is not that the Liberals are just criticizing the government, they are fear mongering as well. Think H1N1 when Bob Rae stood up and said people are dying because of Canada's slow response, think back to last summer when Denis Coderre spoke about how people would die unless changes were made immediately to EI, and of course we also had Caroline Bennett with the body bags and using native children as political props for the Liberal cause.


While all the over the top fear mongering is laughable on its own, there is something else that reeks with this Liberal strategy. They are not just smearing the government with their negativity, they are also smearing thousands of other Canadians in the process.

Some recent examples:

H1N1, body bags and the smearing of thousands of health care professionals in every province who worked tirelessly in the planning and implementation of the vaccination process.

Olympic logos: By making the outrageous and totally false claims that the government has influenced the creation of our teams logo the Liberals have smeared all of the people who had a say in the design process. The COA, the Bay, and the athletes themselves who were involved with the decision all falsely being called conservative dupes in the hopes of increasing Liberal fortunes.

Torture: while they claim that they support the troops the Liberals end up smearing every Canadian who puts on a military uniform as well as the hundreds of government bureaucrats involved with our mission in Afghanistan. For those that do not quite get this I ask you to answer these questions. What is the ultimate goal of the Liberals in perusing this line and what are the desired results? How can seeing some of our men and women in uniform being hauled to trial for war crimes be considered supporting our troops?

The Olympic Torch: See 'Olympic logos' above and add on the hundreds of others involved with organizing the route to the smear total.

Stimulus money: 1000's of gov employees at all levels in every province and territory were involved with the decision making process and the Liberals smeared each and every one of them with their claims of mismanagement and favoritism.

There are plenty more examples but I think you get the idea.


The Liberal strategy is simple; if it is positive or good news they down play it or just ignore it, and if it is negative or bad news they run with it as far as they can and rarely if ever offer up suggestions as to how to improve things and they think nothing of running down the country or smearing countless ordinary Canadians who are just doing their jobs, if those efforts offer them some kind of perceived gain.


Maybe it is just me but this Debbie Downer attitude of fear mongering, running down the country, and smearing 1000's of Canadians may not be the very best way to get those dismal poll numbers up. But hey, feel free to keep up the negativity Liberals, it makes that 'positive' message that your leader talks about even more laughable and besides there are still a few people left in this country that you have not got around to smearing yet.

Keep up the good work, it looks good on you.

I'm sorry, so sorry.....

NDP MP Pat Martin has apologized to the government. Earlier this week Martin called federal Sports Minister Gary Lunn and the Conservative government "crass" and "petty" and claimed that "There's clearly some political interference here" when a list of Olympic torch relay events released was heavy on Tory ridings and light on opposition turf. Martin went ballistic in the belief the list meant the torch wasn't going anywhere in Winnipeg fired off an angry letter to Lunn, accusing the Conservatives of using the torch relay to promote Conservatives. "I think your deliberate gerrymandering of the torch route to avoid opposition ridings is cheap, petty, and offends the Olympic spirit," Martin wrote. "Any reasonable person would route the torch through the corner of Portage and Main and if you are willing to do so I'll even agree to stay away if you're worried about having to share the glory with an opposition MP."

But once reality entered the picture, including the fact that the torch will be going through his riding, Martin had this to say: "I wish I had known this earlier, before I accused the (government) of deliberately manipulating the torch relay in Winnipeg to avoid NDP ridings," Martin said. "I apologize for these remarks and appreciate the invitation to participate in this exciting event for Winnipeg when it occurs in January."


Now the question is, will the MSM, who ran with this story in-spite of the fact that the head of VANOC has flat out denied any Conservative involvement. "At no time did anybody in any government, or any political party offer one iota of counsel or influence about that," John Furlong said. "We did our jobs the way we should have done them.", put as much ink or air time into the apology as they did with the original unfounded smear?

Ok, I know that the MSM really couldn't be bothered, has anyone seen any MSM outlet other than the Telegraph-Journal apologize for the fake wafergate coverage, but one can always hope.


.