Prime Minister Stephen Harper should reconsider his vow to end the direct per-vote subsidy for political parties, says former prime minister Jean Chrétien.
Sort of arrogant, no? Having a former PM ask the current PM not to follow through on his election promises?
Thank you Jean, but cutting party subsidies was an election platform promise, in fact I would call it a major plank of that platform, and the Conservatives were elected on that platform. The Conservative Party of Canada is not the Liberal Party where promises to abolish the GST or the numerous times they promised a national child care system are never followed through on. This PM will follow through on his platform promise.
If a party's own members do not care enough to support that party with their own money, why should the taxpayer have to prop them up?
Monday, May 09, 2011
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Did Quebec reject the Bloc to make a coalition easier?
There has been lots written the last couple of days about the collapse of the Bloc and the NDP surge in Quebec and so far I have not read anything that really explains what happened. Did BQ supporters all wake up one day and decide to toss out a party that for years has enjoyed their support because of something Duceppe did or did not do? Were they all taken in by the guy from downtown Toronto with the big smile and equally big spending promises?
While I don't claim to know the answer I do have some thoughts and a possible piece of the puzzle as to why Bloc supporters decided to abandon their party and support the NDP.
The coalition.
Whenever the idea of a coalition has been discussed it has been quite clear that having Bloc MPs as part of any coalition was not to the liking of most Canadians. During the original coalition crisis both the Liberals and NDP were desperately trying to spin that the Bloc were not actually part of the coalition, only that they would be supporting it, and Ignatieff himself had this to say as to why he didn't enter into the deal he had signed: "I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up,"
Having separatist Bloc MP's either in or supporting a coalition government did not fly in 2008 and was never going to go over well with Canadians. Bloc supporters were as aware of this problem as much as anyone else but what to do about it.
The solution: Drop the Bloc and elect enough NDP MPs so that a coalition would not only be legitimate but it would have a much better chance of being accepted by the rest of Canada.
It makes sense and possibly explains why dedicated separatists tossed their own party and blindly voted for NDP candidates some of which were barely old enough to vote themselves, did not speak French, or have NEVER even been to the riding in which they were running in.
Your thoughts?
While I don't claim to know the answer I do have some thoughts and a possible piece of the puzzle as to why Bloc supporters decided to abandon their party and support the NDP.
The coalition.
Whenever the idea of a coalition has been discussed it has been quite clear that having Bloc MPs as part of any coalition was not to the liking of most Canadians. During the original coalition crisis both the Liberals and NDP were desperately trying to spin that the Bloc were not actually part of the coalition, only that they would be supporting it, and Ignatieff himself had this to say as to why he didn't enter into the deal he had signed: "I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up,"
Having separatist Bloc MP's either in or supporting a coalition government did not fly in 2008 and was never going to go over well with Canadians. Bloc supporters were as aware of this problem as much as anyone else but what to do about it.
The solution: Drop the Bloc and elect enough NDP MPs so that a coalition would not only be legitimate but it would have a much better chance of being accepted by the rest of Canada.
It makes sense and possibly explains why dedicated separatists tossed their own party and blindly voted for NDP candidates some of which were barely old enough to vote themselves, did not speak French, or have NEVER even been to the riding in which they were running in.
Your thoughts?
Friday, May 06, 2011
Some Local Campaign 2011 Musings.
Yesterday around noon I dropped off my last load of lawn signs officially ending, for myself at least, the 2011 election campaign. During the past 40 days I have run the gamut of emotions from depressing lows to exhilarating highs, with the added bonus of running myself to near exhaustion at times in the process, and now that I have some free time I thought I would put together a post on some of my election 2011 thoughts and experiences from the local level. From the time the writ was dropped until the last sign was removed, it was 40 days that I will not soon forget.
The early days consisted mostly of helping to get the local campaign office up and running, which in our case consisted of turning a rather large empty space into the hub of the local campaign, and getting the signs out. Desks and furniture had to be brought in, temporary walls/dividers had to be fashioned, equipment such as computers, phones, copiers, shredders and even TVs had to be located brought in and hooked up, and the volunteers organized. Aside from some early grunt work of hauling things around and some minor 'construction' work, the set up of the office was capably handled by many others; I worked more on getting the signs out.
When the writ was dropped on the last weekend of March there was 3 feet of snow in my yard, there were huge windrows along every road, and the ground frozen solid, not the best situation to be putting out election signs. The signs were being stored in a shed on a rural property in the riding and a Bobcat had to be used to clear a path through the snow just to get access. But we got them out and we got them up. Within 2 days all major and minor intersections in the riding had signs placed in all directions, but because the ground was still frozen they had to be placed in the deep snow and within a couple of weeks every single sign had to be re-visited and put solidly into the ground.
More on signs: There were plenty of stories during the campaign on sign vandalism etc and while there were some places more effected than others, I think it is fair to say that EVERY candidate had to face some type of sign vandalism. If you have ever dealt with signs in a campaign you can sort of tell who is going after your signage and why; when you see a bunch of signs knocked over or pulled out ( including those from your opponent) it is a good guess that it is just kids who did so as they walked by. It is when only your teams signs that get hit while the oppositions remain standing, or when your signs have be damaged or made non reusable ( no details but sign people know what I am talking about) that the political motive questions start being asked. Why people do it is beyond me, it is just stupid not mention illegal, but no matter the reasons when they knock 'em down, someone has to go out there and stand 'em back up. BTW there were more than a few times that I stood up NDP signs that were knocked down along side our own ( You're welcome Nadine).
Blogging: One of the regrets that I do have was not doing enough blogging during the campaign. You would think that blogging would be a no brainer as it is a political bloggers 'busy season', but the time and my energy level were just not there. I have to look at my drafts but I can wager that I have at least 10 blog entries sitting there in various stages of completion that I started but did not finish/publish for various reasons. I had a great series that I had planned on Ignatieff, aka Mr. Democracy, for the final week of the campaign but to be honest I felt that it was a waste of time and towards the end I started feeling sorry for the guy and didn't want to pile on. On the positive side I did follow closely much of the wonderful work my fellow Blogging Tories did during the campaign and when I had the time I did quite a bit of Tweeting (a quick tweet is much faster than writing a blog post). Also my long running issue with Scott Reid and the CBC was finally resolved thanks to the Ombudsman, but even there what should have been a few days worth of good material only made it into a single blog post.
Door-Knocking: While I did quite a few other things during the course of the campaign, it was door-knocking that took up the most of my time and provided some of the most enjoyable moments along with some of the most depressing moments of the 2011 campaign. It is my favorite election activity as I enjoy going out and knocking on doors meeting people face to face getting instant feedback, and one of the more memorable trips occurred in the middle of a spring snow storm when I met up in Millwoods with the candidate and blogged about here. The trips into Edmonton-Strathcona though were memorable for much different reasons. The first trips I made into E-S were great; lots of positive feedback and when we left there were as many Hastman lawn signs out as there were Duncan signs. But those first trips were in polls on the edge of the riding and as we got closer to the University area things became much different. Most of people I met at the door were polite enough, although having a door slammed in your face even just once tends to make for a bad day, but it was clear that most of those met were Duncan supporters and in these polls the Duncan signs were everywhere. On one particular street there were 15 homes, 9 of which had Linda Duncan signs on the lawn, and this was not an anomaly as it was near impossible to go to more than 5-6 homes anywhere in these polls and not encounter an Orange NDP sign. Needless to say that after a couple of days of that sort of thing that ones confidence goes down somewhat and you become unsure if you are having any impact at all.
Election night: When it was all over and the votes counted we had won in Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont, lost in Edmonton Strathcona, consumed an over abundance of chicken wings, and for the first time ever the CPC had enough seats to form a majority government, but all I could really think about was that we didn't have to do this again for another 4 1/2 years and that in 2015 my daughter will be eligible to vote for the very first time.
It was over but for the clean up, which would begin bright and early Tuesday morning.
The campaign started when the government fell on March 25 on a Liberal motion of non confidence ( Insert joke of your choice here) the political situation for the Conservatives was not great, the weather was cold and miserable, and there was still 3 ft of snow on my front lawn. 40 days later and we now have a majority government, the sun is shining, the snow gone, my grass is starting to turn green and flowers are starting to come up.
It was worth all of the work.
The early days consisted mostly of helping to get the local campaign office up and running, which in our case consisted of turning a rather large empty space into the hub of the local campaign, and getting the signs out. Desks and furniture had to be brought in, temporary walls/dividers had to be fashioned, equipment such as computers, phones, copiers, shredders and even TVs had to be located brought in and hooked up, and the volunteers organized. Aside from some early grunt work of hauling things around and some minor 'construction' work, the set up of the office was capably handled by many others; I worked more on getting the signs out.
When the writ was dropped on the last weekend of March there was 3 feet of snow in my yard, there were huge windrows along every road, and the ground frozen solid, not the best situation to be putting out election signs. The signs were being stored in a shed on a rural property in the riding and a Bobcat had to be used to clear a path through the snow just to get access. But we got them out and we got them up. Within 2 days all major and minor intersections in the riding had signs placed in all directions, but because the ground was still frozen they had to be placed in the deep snow and within a couple of weeks every single sign had to be re-visited and put solidly into the ground.
More on signs: There were plenty of stories during the campaign on sign vandalism etc and while there were some places more effected than others, I think it is fair to say that EVERY candidate had to face some type of sign vandalism. If you have ever dealt with signs in a campaign you can sort of tell who is going after your signage and why; when you see a bunch of signs knocked over or pulled out ( including those from your opponent) it is a good guess that it is just kids who did so as they walked by. It is when only your teams signs that get hit while the oppositions remain standing, or when your signs have be damaged or made non reusable ( no details but sign people know what I am talking about) that the political motive questions start being asked. Why people do it is beyond me, it is just stupid not mention illegal, but no matter the reasons when they knock 'em down, someone has to go out there and stand 'em back up. BTW there were more than a few times that I stood up NDP signs that were knocked down along side our own ( You're welcome Nadine).
Blogging: One of the regrets that I do have was not doing enough blogging during the campaign. You would think that blogging would be a no brainer as it is a political bloggers 'busy season', but the time and my energy level were just not there. I have to look at my drafts but I can wager that I have at least 10 blog entries sitting there in various stages of completion that I started but did not finish/publish for various reasons. I had a great series that I had planned on Ignatieff, aka Mr. Democracy, for the final week of the campaign but to be honest I felt that it was a waste of time and towards the end I started feeling sorry for the guy and didn't want to pile on. On the positive side I did follow closely much of the wonderful work my fellow Blogging Tories did during the campaign and when I had the time I did quite a bit of Tweeting (a quick tweet is much faster than writing a blog post). Also my long running issue with Scott Reid and the CBC was finally resolved thanks to the Ombudsman, but even there what should have been a few days worth of good material only made it into a single blog post.
Door-Knocking: While I did quite a few other things during the course of the campaign, it was door-knocking that took up the most of my time and provided some of the most enjoyable moments along with some of the most depressing moments of the 2011 campaign. It is my favorite election activity as I enjoy going out and knocking on doors meeting people face to face getting instant feedback, and one of the more memorable trips occurred in the middle of a spring snow storm when I met up in Millwoods with the candidate and blogged about here. The trips into Edmonton-Strathcona though were memorable for much different reasons. The first trips I made into E-S were great; lots of positive feedback and when we left there were as many Hastman lawn signs out as there were Duncan signs. But those first trips were in polls on the edge of the riding and as we got closer to the University area things became much different. Most of people I met at the door were polite enough, although having a door slammed in your face even just once tends to make for a bad day, but it was clear that most of those met were Duncan supporters and in these polls the Duncan signs were everywhere. On one particular street there were 15 homes, 9 of which had Linda Duncan signs on the lawn, and this was not an anomaly as it was near impossible to go to more than 5-6 homes anywhere in these polls and not encounter an Orange NDP sign. Needless to say that after a couple of days of that sort of thing that ones confidence goes down somewhat and you become unsure if you are having any impact at all.
Election night: When it was all over and the votes counted we had won in Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont, lost in Edmonton Strathcona, consumed an over abundance of chicken wings, and for the first time ever the CPC had enough seats to form a majority government, but all I could really think about was that we didn't have to do this again for another 4 1/2 years and that in 2015 my daughter will be eligible to vote for the very first time.
It was over but for the clean up, which would begin bright and early Tuesday morning.
The campaign started when the government fell on March 25 on a Liberal motion of non confidence ( Insert joke of your choice here) the political situation for the Conservatives was not great, the weather was cold and miserable, and there was still 3 ft of snow on my front lawn. 40 days later and we now have a majority government, the sun is shining, the snow gone, my grass is starting to turn green and flowers are starting to come up.
It was worth all of the work.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
2011 Election: What happened in Edmonton Strathcona.
The contest in Edmonton-Strathcona between Linda Duncan of the NDP and Ryan Hastman of the Conservative Party was considered a riding to watch by many because it was the only riding in Alberta not held by the Conservatives. Duncan won the riding in the 2008 campaign defeating Rahim Jaffer by a slim 463 vote margin and it had been no secret that the CPC wanted it back and that the NDP would stop at nothing to hold it.
The end results: Turnout: 48,763 out of 71,050 electors. 68.6%
NDP Duncan 26,134 53.6%
CPC Hastman 19,755 40.5%
LPC Sinclair 1,363 2.8%
GPC Fehr 1,127 2.3%
So what happened in Edmonton Strathcona?
The best summation that I can make is that the election was won by the Linda Duncan NDP campaign and that it was not 'lost' by the Ryan Hastman team. I know how that may sound like I am trying to blow smoke somewhere but it really is the best explanation of the reality in the Edm Strathcona race.
Full disclosure: On a few occasions during the 2011 election I actively campaigned (mostly door knocking) for Ryan Hastman in Edmonton Strathcona.
The NDP pulled out all of the stops in an attempt to hold the riding which they called "Battleground Alberta" in a national fund-raising campaign.They had volunteers from all over descended to do the ground work (there were rumours of paid door knocking crews but with the numbers of volunteers the NDP had at their disposal from provincial assets I have my doubts), and even Jack Layton came to town on two separate occasions to rally the troops and local dipper voters. They were funded, had the man power, were well prepared, and ran a smart and effective campaign.
On the CPC side similiar can also be said. They were well funded, had the man power, were well prepared, and ran a smart and effective campaign but they faced an uphill battle from the beginning as well as some obstacles and challenges that the Duncan campaign did not. Challenges such as the power of incumbency and demographics not seen in other Edmonton area ridings.
Getting rid of a sitting MP is not generally a easy task as people tend to re elect people they know and are 'familiar' with, and when that MP is believed to be doing a decent job it is even more difficult to accomplish. I heard it myself at the doors from people who would be considered to be conservative supporters that they thought that she was doing a decent job on the local level as their MP, they had issues with her and the positions she and the NDP took in Ottawa, but not her work at the constituency level. This is sort of a double whammy because one of the biggest reasons why voters turned to Duncan in the first place was because Jaffer was considered by many to be an absent MP. I don't want to go into the demographics too much other than the say that the riding contains the 'hipster' areas of Whyte Avenue and old Strathcona as well as the Campus of the University of Alberta. To say the riding is unique for Edmonton or even Alberta would not be an understatement.
It was an uphill battle to begin with and to make matters worse the Hastman campaign not only had to fight a formidable NDP campaign, incumbency and the unique demographics, they would have to face intangibles which nobody could plan for; namely the almost complete collapse of the Liberal vote and the unexpected surge of the NDP nationally. In 2006 the Liberal candidate received over 9,000 votes under the Paul Martin banner, in 2008 they received over 4000 while under Dion, (which many assumed would be the low point for the Libs and that under Iggy they would at least hold that vote if not increase it), but that was a very wrong assumption as their candidate received only 1,363 votes in total. As for the surge; I am not sure how many more votes were actually gained from it in the riding on the whole, I don't believe it was that many but one thing I am sure about is that it fired up their staff and volunteers and it galvanized the already existing vote/support in the only NDP riding in Alberta.
In the end Linda Duncan and her team deserve full credit for the victory that they worked so hard to obtain and Ryan can take heart in knowing that he and his team ran one hell of a campaign* against almost impossible odds.
* If there is one positive in this it is that Ryan has proven himself to be capable candidate and a tireless formidable campaigner. Having won a close nomination race in June 17th 2009 he had knocked on 9,000 doors before the one year anniversary of that nomination passed and when the writ was dropped hit the ground running, not stopping until it was over. He performed well in the campaign and even though it was not rewarded with a win at the ballot box, his determination, work ethic, and energy didn't go unnoticed; causing even the NDP to put extra money and resources into the riding into an effort to beat Hastman and hold the riding. I would say that is an accomplishment in itself.
The end results: Turnout: 48,763 out of 71,050 electors. 68.6%
NDP Duncan 26,134 53.6%
CPC Hastman 19,755 40.5%
LPC Sinclair 1,363 2.8%
GPC Fehr 1,127 2.3%
So what happened in Edmonton Strathcona?
The best summation that I can make is that the election was won by the Linda Duncan NDP campaign and that it was not 'lost' by the Ryan Hastman team. I know how that may sound like I am trying to blow smoke somewhere but it really is the best explanation of the reality in the Edm Strathcona race.
Full disclosure: On a few occasions during the 2011 election I actively campaigned (mostly door knocking) for Ryan Hastman in Edmonton Strathcona.
The NDP pulled out all of the stops in an attempt to hold the riding which they called "Battleground Alberta" in a national fund-raising campaign.They had volunteers from all over descended to do the ground work (there were rumours of paid door knocking crews but with the numbers of volunteers the NDP had at their disposal from provincial assets I have my doubts), and even Jack Layton came to town on two separate occasions to rally the troops and local dipper voters. They were funded, had the man power, were well prepared, and ran a smart and effective campaign.
On the CPC side similiar can also be said. They were well funded, had the man power, were well prepared, and ran a smart and effective campaign but they faced an uphill battle from the beginning as well as some obstacles and challenges that the Duncan campaign did not. Challenges such as the power of incumbency and demographics not seen in other Edmonton area ridings.
Getting rid of a sitting MP is not generally a easy task as people tend to re elect people they know and are 'familiar' with, and when that MP is believed to be doing a decent job it is even more difficult to accomplish. I heard it myself at the doors from people who would be considered to be conservative supporters that they thought that she was doing a decent job on the local level as their MP, they had issues with her and the positions she and the NDP took in Ottawa, but not her work at the constituency level. This is sort of a double whammy because one of the biggest reasons why voters turned to Duncan in the first place was because Jaffer was considered by many to be an absent MP. I don't want to go into the demographics too much other than the say that the riding contains the 'hipster' areas of Whyte Avenue and old Strathcona as well as the Campus of the University of Alberta. To say the riding is unique for Edmonton or even Alberta would not be an understatement.
It was an uphill battle to begin with and to make matters worse the Hastman campaign not only had to fight a formidable NDP campaign, incumbency and the unique demographics, they would have to face intangibles which nobody could plan for; namely the almost complete collapse of the Liberal vote and the unexpected surge of the NDP nationally. In 2006 the Liberal candidate received over 9,000 votes under the Paul Martin banner, in 2008 they received over 4000 while under Dion, (which many assumed would be the low point for the Libs and that under Iggy they would at least hold that vote if not increase it), but that was a very wrong assumption as their candidate received only 1,363 votes in total. As for the surge; I am not sure how many more votes were actually gained from it in the riding on the whole, I don't believe it was that many but one thing I am sure about is that it fired up their staff and volunteers and it galvanized the already existing vote/support in the only NDP riding in Alberta.
In the end Linda Duncan and her team deserve full credit for the victory that they worked so hard to obtain and Ryan can take heart in knowing that he and his team ran one hell of a campaign* against almost impossible odds.
* If there is one positive in this it is that Ryan has proven himself to be capable candidate and a tireless formidable campaigner. Having won a close nomination race in June 17th 2009 he had knocked on 9,000 doors before the one year anniversary of that nomination passed and when the writ was dropped hit the ground running, not stopping until it was over. He performed well in the campaign and even though it was not rewarded with a win at the ballot box, his determination, work ethic, and energy didn't go unnoticed; causing even the NDP to put extra money and resources into the riding into an effort to beat Hastman and hold the riding. I would say that is an accomplishment in itself.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
We did it: A Conservative Majority.
And now we don't have to do it again for 4 years!
A big thank you to all the volunteers from across the country that worked so hard during the campaign to reach our goal. Take a bow, as it would not have happened without you.
There will be much to write about over the coming days, including what happened in Edm Strathcona and of course on the future, or rather lack of a future for the Liberals, but first some much needed sleep and then there is a little matter of a few hundred signs that have to be dealt with.
A big thank you to all the volunteers from across the country that worked so hard during the campaign to reach our goal. Take a bow, as it would not have happened without you.
There will be much to write about over the coming days, including what happened in Edm Strathcona and of course on the future, or rather lack of a future for the Liberals, but first some much needed sleep and then there is a little matter of a few hundred signs that have to be dealt with.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Election Day 2011.
Get out and vote. Canada deserves a strong stable majority government and as the news from earlier this evening reminds us, we also need a proven leader at the helm in these difficult times. Go with the guy with the proven 5 yr record. See you on the other side.
Comments have been put on moderation and there will be no updates until after the polls close in BC.
Curse you and your archaic rules Elections Canada!
Comments have been put on moderation and there will be no updates until after the polls close in BC.
Curse you and your archaic rules Elections Canada!
It is as simple as this.
You only have to look at the last 5 yrs under a Conservative government and their record and compare it to the oppositions of 5 yrs of smear/fear while they accomplished nothing constructive for Canadians to know who you should be voting for come Monday.
A conservative majority not only means stability by not turning over the reigns of government with its taxation and economic policy powers to the big spending left leaning opposition Liberals, NDP, Bloc (or any combination of), it alse ensures that there is not another 350 million dollar election for at least another 4 yrs.
You know what to do.
Look around today at your own situation and that of your country, and get out and vote Conservative tomorrow!
A conservative majority not only means stability by not turning over the reigns of government with its taxation and economic policy powers to the big spending left leaning opposition Liberals, NDP, Bloc (or any combination of), it alse ensures that there is not another 350 million dollar election for at least another 4 yrs.
You know what to do.
Look around today at your own situation and that of your country, and get out and vote Conservative tomorrow!
Friday, April 29, 2011
Rallying the base: Thanks Jack!
If there is one thing that should gets conservatives out to vote on Monday it is the threat of Jack Layton as PM.
Please remind everyone you know or run into over the next couple of days just how important it is to get out to the polls on Monday, and if you are having trouble convincing them just have them repeat the phrase " Jack Layton as Prime Minister" a couple of time for it to sink in.
The post I put up the day the government fell still applies today, even more so.
This is nowhere near being over and there is still much work to do. Lets get it done.
Please remind everyone you know or run into over the next couple of days just how important it is to get out to the polls on Monday, and if you are having trouble convincing them just have them repeat the phrase " Jack Layton as Prime Minister" a couple of time for it to sink in.
The post I put up the day the government fell still applies today, even more so.
This is nowhere near being over and there is still much work to do. Lets get it done.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Jack Layton says his cap and trade carbon plan will not increase gas prices.
From Rosemary Barton with Layton on the campaign trail: Layton on cap-and-trade: will it increase gas prices? No.
He may be right in one aspect. The NDP plan won't JUST increase gas prices, it will increase the price on everything including home heating which he claims that he wants to reduce and is a major part of his platform.
Unbelievable.
Sorry Jack, but when business gets hit with any type of increase, taxes or otherwise, it gets passed on to their customers in the end, and someone who wants to be PM should know this and be honest enough to admit it.
Update: Jack Mintz has determined that the NDP policy will raise gas prices by $0.10/litre, rising by 2014 to an additional $0.18/litre.
Layton goes after oil companies.
He may be right in one aspect. The NDP plan won't JUST increase gas prices, it will increase the price on everything including home heating which he claims that he wants to reduce and is a major part of his platform.
Unbelievable.
Sorry Jack, but when business gets hit with any type of increase, taxes or otherwise, it gets passed on to their customers in the end, and someone who wants to be PM should know this and be honest enough to admit it.
Update: Jack Mintz has determined that the NDP policy will raise gas prices by $0.10/litre, rising by 2014 to an additional $0.18/litre.
Layton goes after oil companies.
I think it may be time for some Liberal EDA's to start worrying.
Rumors were circulation before the start of the election that the Liberal Party of Canada was having trouble obtaining a bank loan to finance any possible upcoming election campaign and that some of the financially better off Liberal EDA's had to co-sign and provide 'collateral' in order for them to receive a bank loan.
I personally do not know the details or if any of that is true but it sort of makes sense looking at it from the perspective of any bank. They were being asked to loan money to a political party with fund-raising difficulties and who were behind in the polls, in order to fight an election that if they lost would cut off their prime source of income. ( Proposed Conservative plan to stop taxpayer funded party subsidies) When presented with the above it is easy to see why a bank would be looking for some sort of collateral before approving such a potentially risky loan.
If those rumours are true, I think it might be time for those EDA's that may have provided collateral for the Liberal Party to obtain a loan to start worrying.
I personally do not know the details or if any of that is true but it sort of makes sense looking at it from the perspective of any bank. They were being asked to loan money to a political party with fund-raising difficulties and who were behind in the polls, in order to fight an election that if they lost would cut off their prime source of income. ( Proposed Conservative plan to stop taxpayer funded party subsidies) When presented with the above it is easy to see why a bank would be looking for some sort of collateral before approving such a potentially risky loan.
If those rumours are true, I think it might be time for those EDA's that may have provided collateral for the Liberal Party to obtain a loan to start worrying.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Albertaardvark 1, CBC 0. Scott Reid and the CBC correct an error
It only took a full year, many emails, and finally the big stick of the CBC Ombudsman to make it so, but Scott Reid and CBC's Power and Politics have finally corrected an error made April 1st 2010.
The original statement:
"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......
Here is the original post on the subject. With video.
Other related posts on the subject.
The CBC responds.
The CBC responds pt 2.
I would like to thank Kirk LaPointe, the CBC Ombudsman, for the work he did on finally getting this issue resolved and getting the record corrected.
Excerpt of the Ombudsman's finding: (pdf)
I am writing with regard to your complaint April 15, 2010, and request May 6, 2010, for a review by this Office concerning remarks made on the CBC News Network program, Power & Politics, on April 1, 2010.
Let me first apologize for the time it has taken to conduct this review. When I assumed this role last November, I helped my predecessor deal with a substantial backlog. Work on this continues, but that is of little consolation to you. Too much time has passed in dealing with this, and I regret the manner in which the complaint has been processed. Thank you for your patience.
Since your complaint, CBC has updated its Journalistic Standards and Practices. Given that your complaint preceded the update, the previous policy will apply to your request.
REVIEW
The complainant wrote CBC News shortly after he heard commentator Scott Reid on the CBC News Network program, Power & Politics, on April 1, 2010.
Reid, a former senior Liberal Party aide who appeared with Conservative Jaime Watt on the regular Point of Order panel in the program, was discussing the ability ofConservative Party supporters to mobilize support. In an animated exchange, he indicated those bloggers were paid.
“He (Kory Teneckye), along with that, sort of, you know, paid professional brigand of ah, bloggers, that work for the Conservative Party — they can mobilize support in the snap of a finger,” Reid said in the taped segment. He wasn’t challenged by Watt in their debate.
The complainant wrote CBC News to dispute the assertion that the bloggers were paid by the Conservatives. The managing editor of CBC’s Parliamentary Bureau, Paul Hambleton, wrote back April 13, 2010 to acknowledge the error and to thank the complainant for setting the record straight.
The complainant pursued his concerns, indicating that the remark violated CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices in effect at the time.
The executive editor for CBC News, Esther Enkin, wrote the complainant April 21, 2010, to note Hambleton’s email. She said that CBC regretted the error. She also said she did not expect Reid to apologize but that he would correct his remarks when the subject of partisan blogs next came up in the segment of the program “at an early opportunity.”
CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices policy in effect at the time of the complaint included provisions relevant to correcting errors. It said CBC would not “hesitate to admit and correct an error when it is established that one has been made. To do otherwise or to defend a program exhibiting poor taste or unacceptable ethics or containing errors would lead inevitably to loss of credibility by the CBC.”
The policy noted that the senior officer in news and information, or his or her delegate, should be consulted to determine the nature and time of any correction.
The complainant said it was possible that the subject of partisan blogs might not come up “until 2015” and asked if it “would be reasonable to wait that long for the correction to be made.”
Reid has since corrected his statement on the program. He said April 21, 2011, that he had looked into the matter and found no evidence the bloggers were ever paid. He retracted his remarks and apologized. Host Evan Solomon also apologized on the program for taking this long.
CONCLUSION
Mistakes are made regularly in journalism. Academic studies indicate roughly one in two stories contain a factual error, a rate that hasn’t changed much over the decades despite better educated journalists and more sophisticated and familiar guest commentators.
Live television debate — even when it is taped without editing — often leads to spontaneous hyperbole or overstatement to try to make a point or to respond.
What has changed, and for the better, have been processes to identify and correct the record for the public. CBC has a rigorous policy of scrutinizing its work, accepting public review of it, and holding itself accountable through transparent mechanisms to demonstrate its will to be accurate and fair-minded.
Even when contracted commentators make an error, CBC’s approach has been to acknowledge that wrong was wrong and for the program in which they appeared to address the mistake promptly. Its policy of acknowledgment is a virtue in contributing to overall integrity and often a distinguishing and differentiating feature in broadcast news.
In this instance, the statement didn’t receive a quick fix. Obviously, any error left untended only becomes more problematic to correct. Even when efforts are made by programmers to address the initial mistake, some of its viewers will never know it was corrected.
In correspondence with the complainant, CBC acknowledged the error and indicated it would make mention of the issue when the subject next arose on the program. Rather than wait indefinitely for the next discussion on partisan blogs, the program could have more quickly fulfilled its standards and practices with a correction at the earliest opportunity.
I am satisfied there was no intent to avoid addressing the matter. There was an expectation the opportunity would arise soon, and when it didn’t, the correction slipped into the cracks. It is noteworthy that host Evan Solomon apologized on the air for the time it took to address the matter. The correction was made amid an election campaign, when attention on politics is high and the correction’s impact might be greatest.
Sincerely,
Kirk LaPointe.
The original statement:
"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......
Here is the original post on the subject. With video.
Other related posts on the subject.
The CBC responds.
The CBC responds pt 2.
I would like to thank Kirk LaPointe, the CBC Ombudsman, for the work he did on finally getting this issue resolved and getting the record corrected.
Excerpt of the Ombudsman's finding: (pdf)
I am writing with regard to your complaint April 15, 2010, and request May 6, 2010, for a review by this Office concerning remarks made on the CBC News Network program, Power & Politics, on April 1, 2010.
Let me first apologize for the time it has taken to conduct this review. When I assumed this role last November, I helped my predecessor deal with a substantial backlog. Work on this continues, but that is of little consolation to you. Too much time has passed in dealing with this, and I regret the manner in which the complaint has been processed. Thank you for your patience.
Since your complaint, CBC has updated its Journalistic Standards and Practices. Given that your complaint preceded the update, the previous policy will apply to your request.
REVIEW
The complainant wrote CBC News shortly after he heard commentator Scott Reid on the CBC News Network program, Power & Politics, on April 1, 2010.
Reid, a former senior Liberal Party aide who appeared with Conservative Jaime Watt on the regular Point of Order panel in the program, was discussing the ability ofConservative Party supporters to mobilize support. In an animated exchange, he indicated those bloggers were paid.
“He (Kory Teneckye), along with that, sort of, you know, paid professional brigand of ah, bloggers, that work for the Conservative Party — they can mobilize support in the snap of a finger,” Reid said in the taped segment. He wasn’t challenged by Watt in their debate.
The complainant wrote CBC News to dispute the assertion that the bloggers were paid by the Conservatives. The managing editor of CBC’s Parliamentary Bureau, Paul Hambleton, wrote back April 13, 2010 to acknowledge the error and to thank the complainant for setting the record straight.
The complainant pursued his concerns, indicating that the remark violated CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices in effect at the time.
The executive editor for CBC News, Esther Enkin, wrote the complainant April 21, 2010, to note Hambleton’s email. She said that CBC regretted the error. She also said she did not expect Reid to apologize but that he would correct his remarks when the subject of partisan blogs next came up in the segment of the program “at an early opportunity.”
CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices policy in effect at the time of the complaint included provisions relevant to correcting errors. It said CBC would not “hesitate to admit and correct an error when it is established that one has been made. To do otherwise or to defend a program exhibiting poor taste or unacceptable ethics or containing errors would lead inevitably to loss of credibility by the CBC.”
The policy noted that the senior officer in news and information, or his or her delegate, should be consulted to determine the nature and time of any correction.
The complainant said it was possible that the subject of partisan blogs might not come up “until 2015” and asked if it “would be reasonable to wait that long for the correction to be made.”
Reid has since corrected his statement on the program. He said April 21, 2011, that he had looked into the matter and found no evidence the bloggers were ever paid. He retracted his remarks and apologized. Host Evan Solomon also apologized on the program for taking this long.
CONCLUSION
Mistakes are made regularly in journalism. Academic studies indicate roughly one in two stories contain a factual error, a rate that hasn’t changed much over the decades despite better educated journalists and more sophisticated and familiar guest commentators.
Live television debate — even when it is taped without editing — often leads to spontaneous hyperbole or overstatement to try to make a point or to respond.
What has changed, and for the better, have been processes to identify and correct the record for the public. CBC has a rigorous policy of scrutinizing its work, accepting public review of it, and holding itself accountable through transparent mechanisms to demonstrate its will to be accurate and fair-minded.
Even when contracted commentators make an error, CBC’s approach has been to acknowledge that wrong was wrong and for the program in which they appeared to address the mistake promptly. Its policy of acknowledgment is a virtue in contributing to overall integrity and often a distinguishing and differentiating feature in broadcast news.
In this instance, the statement didn’t receive a quick fix. Obviously, any error left untended only becomes more problematic to correct. Even when efforts are made by programmers to address the initial mistake, some of its viewers will never know it was corrected.
In correspondence with the complainant, CBC acknowledged the error and indicated it would make mention of the issue when the subject next arose on the program. Rather than wait indefinitely for the next discussion on partisan blogs, the program could have more quickly fulfilled its standards and practices with a correction at the earliest opportunity.
I am satisfied there was no intent to avoid addressing the matter. There was an expectation the opportunity would arise soon, and when it didn’t, the correction slipped into the cracks. It is noteworthy that host Evan Solomon apologized on the air for the time it took to address the matter. The correction was made amid an election campaign, when attention on politics is high and the correction’s impact might be greatest.
Sincerely,
Kirk LaPointe.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Advice the Liberals ignored. 3 elections in a row!
The Liberals are in trouble in the 2011 campaign and just like 2006 and again in 2008 they have decided to go negative and again trot out the The Campaign of Fear™ in an effort to scare Canadians into not voting for a Conservative government.
It won't work this time either and the Liberals were advised years ago by one of their top strategists as to why. The advice rings even truer today.
(Warren Kinsella)
January 5th, 2006:
"TO: LIBERAL CAMPAIGN BOSSES
FROM: YOUR REALLY GOOD PAL WARREN
RE: TOP SECRET AND SUPER CONFIDENTIAL STUFF
Dear guys: it won't work. Did last time, won't this time. Have a nice two weeks, and good luck in your return to the Liberian shipping industry.
One, every Canadian who is not comatose understands that Harper can't form a majority government, even if he wants to, and he does. Paul Martin's top-notch handling of the Quebec file means federalism is hooped in la belle province for the forseeable future. The numbers for a majority aren't there. Folks know that.
Two, (Shameless Book Plug Alert) as noted in no less an authority than Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics, in order for an attack ad to work, it has to be factual or, at the very least, plausible. The Liberals' planned Harper Is Satan™ campaign is not plausible. Canadians have now had a couple years to see how Harper operates. He isn't neceessarily(sp) someone you'd cuddle with on the basement couch to watch 'Friends' reruns, but neither is any other politician. In this case, familiarity breeds a comfort level.
Three, as my sage pal John Wright opined a while ago, Canadians gathered around family Christmas/Hannukah tables at the end of last month and came to a collective decision: we want change, and if Harper's the only way to achieve that, so be it. Pass the cranberries.
October 16th, 2006: "The problem is that Stephen Harper doesn’t really scare Canadians anymore, or possibly never did. That’s the Grits’ problem. "
But they didn't listen in '06, and again in '08. Why would they bother to listen in 2011?
Lies, fear and smear. It is all they got.
It won't work this time either and the Liberals were advised years ago by one of their top strategists as to why. The advice rings even truer today.
(Warren Kinsella)
January 5th, 2006:
"TO: LIBERAL CAMPAIGN BOSSES
FROM: YOUR REALLY GOOD PAL WARREN
RE: TOP SECRET AND SUPER CONFIDENTIAL STUFF
Dear guys: it won't work. Did last time, won't this time. Have a nice two weeks, and good luck in your return to the Liberian shipping industry.
...
As I related to a group of scary-smart U of T political science students last night, there are three reasons for this: One, every Canadian who is not comatose understands that Harper can't form a majority government, even if he wants to, and he does. Paul Martin's top-notch handling of the Quebec file means federalism is hooped in la belle province for the forseeable future. The numbers for a majority aren't there. Folks know that.
Two, (Shameless Book Plug Alert) as noted in no less an authority than Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics, in order for an attack ad to work, it has to be factual or, at the very least, plausible. The Liberals' planned Harper Is Satan™ campaign is not plausible. Canadians have now had a couple years to see how Harper operates. He isn't neceessarily(sp) someone you'd cuddle with on the basement couch to watch 'Friends' reruns, but neither is any other politician. In this case, familiarity breeds a comfort level.
Three, as my sage pal John Wright opined a while ago, Canadians gathered around family Christmas/Hannukah tables at the end of last month and came to a collective decision: we want change, and if Harper's the only way to achieve that, so be it. Pass the cranberries.
-----
Kinsella was right and again later in the same year he said almost the same thing. This time in a more concise way, but just as true.October 16th, 2006: "The problem is that Stephen Harper doesn’t really scare Canadians anymore, or possibly never did. That’s the Grits’ problem. "
But they didn't listen in '06, and again in '08. Why would they bother to listen in 2011?
Lies, fear and smear. It is all they got.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Liberal candidate praises Layton and says Ignatieff is questionable.
This past Thursday evening at a local all candidates forum Mike Butler, the Liberal candidate for Edmonton-Millwoods-Beaumont, had some interesting things to say not only about his own leader but also about NDP leader Jack Layton as well.
Here is what Mike Butler had to say:
On Layton: "I love Jack Layton. I think he is a good guy, I think he is a solid guy."
On the Liberal Party and its leader: "The people are good, Michael Ignatieff is questionable sometimes", before telling an interesting story about how Ignatieff wanted an election much earlier while we were still in a recession, "Michael Ignatieff wanted an election but our party knew it was the wrong thing to do and that is why we didn't call an election."
Not sure what to make of that last part about the Liberal Party stopping Ignatieff from forcing an election during the height of the recession, but from Mr. Butler's other comments it appears that he is not a big supporter or fan of the appointed leader of his party. A posting found on Facebook also seems to confirm this: "... our jaw dropped when Mike Butler came to our table and during conversation he stated he doesn't like or support Iggy as leader of liberal party, that he is to American with his ideas!!! Our table was floored!!! Lol"
It seems the the Liberal Party are not more united than they have been for a generation after all.
Was this a one off from a rogue Liberal candidate or the first of many more to come? My guess is that it is the latter but only time will tell; it is going to be an interesting final week of the 2011 campaign.
Here is what Mike Butler had to say:
On Layton: "I love Jack Layton. I think he is a good guy, I think he is a solid guy."
On the Liberal Party and its leader: "The people are good, Michael Ignatieff is questionable sometimes", before telling an interesting story about how Ignatieff wanted an election much earlier while we were still in a recession, "Michael Ignatieff wanted an election but our party knew it was the wrong thing to do and that is why we didn't call an election."
Not sure what to make of that last part about the Liberal Party stopping Ignatieff from forcing an election during the height of the recession, but from Mr. Butler's other comments it appears that he is not a big supporter or fan of the appointed leader of his party. A posting found on Facebook also seems to confirm this: "... our jaw dropped when Mike Butler came to our table and during conversation he stated he doesn't like or support Iggy as leader of liberal party, that he is to American with his ideas!!! Our table was floored!!! Lol"
It seems the the Liberal Party are not more united than they have been for a generation after all.
Was this a one off from a rogue Liberal candidate or the first of many more to come? My guess is that it is the latter but only time will tell; it is going to be an interesting final week of the 2011 campaign.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
The "Butler Mobile": A pictorial Metaphor of the state of the Liberal Party?
I first spotted the "Butler Mobile" shortly after the writ was dropped but did not have a camera or cell phone with me so I was unable to get a picture and had not seen it since in-spite of putting on many kilometers in and around the riding. I had many people tell me that they had spotted it driving around or parked in various locations, including a church parking lot, but I was unable to find and photograph it until it showed up at a local all candidates forum* a couple of days ago.
Ladies and gentlemen I present to you the "Butler Mobile", a pictorial metaphor for the current state of the Liberal Party.
Broken down looking with an attempt to spruce it up using a little bit of Iggy and some duct tape.
*Stay tuned. I have to verify and confirm a couple of things but I will having something very interesting up in the next couple of days on what was said at that forum.
Ladies and gentlemen I present to you the "Butler Mobile", a pictorial metaphor for the current state of the Liberal Party.
Broken down looking with an attempt to spruce it up using a little bit of Iggy and some duct tape.
*Stay tuned. I have to verify and confirm a couple of things but I will having something very interesting up in the next couple of days on what was said at that forum.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Edmonton Strathcona Update: Complaint filed with Elections Canada.
The Hastman campaign has filed an official complaint with Elections Canada alleging that 550 names on the Edmonton-Strathcona registered voters list are linked to addresses that don't exist or are invalid. It seems that many of these addresses are linked to businesses, including a gas station and industrial companies, an empty field, storage lockers and private mail boxes. "My team went through the entire voters list with a fine tooth comb and uncovered hundreds of illegitimate addresses," Hastman said. "It’s important that only valid addresses are included in the voters list."
And he is correct.
For those not aware: Edmonton Strathcona is currently the only non CPC riding in Alberta. It has been a political hot spot for some time and with the election has become a real political battlefield that I can guarantee you will show up on whatever channel you will be watching for election results May 2nd.
Spotted recently while door knocking in Edmonton Strathcona. The rare and elusive Liberal sign with the added bonus of it being in the same yard as a CPC sign!
And he is correct.
For those not aware: Edmonton Strathcona is currently the only non CPC riding in Alberta. It has been a political hot spot for some time and with the election has become a real political battlefield that I can guarantee you will show up on whatever channel you will be watching for election results May 2nd.
Spotted recently while door knocking in Edmonton Strathcona. The rare and elusive Liberal sign with the added bonus of it being in the same yard as a CPC sign!
On a more serious note: Here is what is happening on a daily basis to CPC signs in Edm Strathcona.
.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Strategic voting 2011 style.
We are all familiar with the concept of strategic voting where people don't vote for the candidate or party of their choice but rather vote against a candidate by choosing the candidate/party that is most likely to defeat them and cast their vote in that direction. During the last few elections most strategic voting campaigns have been directed at the conservatives in an effort to stop them from getting a majority but that was then and this is now.
With the recent NDP surge in the polls and particularly in Quebec I have to ask the following: How many Liberals are now going to support the Conservative Party in an effort to stop the NDP from gaining more seats than the Liberals and becoming the official opposition? (which is now a distinct possibility)
I know some Liberals will laugh at the suggestion of ever supporting conservatives but they should ask themselves what would happen to the Liberal Party of Canada if Jack Layton and the NDP ever became the leader of the official opposition in Canada.
Short answer: It would be all over for the LPC a party. Irrelevancy does that.
Welcome to strategic voting 2011 style.
With the recent NDP surge in the polls and particularly in Quebec I have to ask the following: How many Liberals are now going to support the Conservative Party in an effort to stop the NDP from gaining more seats than the Liberals and becoming the official opposition? (which is now a distinct possibility)
I know some Liberals will laugh at the suggestion of ever supporting conservatives but they should ask themselves what would happen to the Liberal Party of Canada if Jack Layton and the NDP ever became the leader of the official opposition in Canada.
Short answer: It would be all over for the LPC a party. Irrelevancy does that.
Welcome to strategic voting 2011 style.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Unanswered questions from November 2008 and some from today.
October 14th 2008: Canada holds a federal election resulting in a conservative minority government.
November 19th 2008: The Speech from the Throne.
November 27th 2008: The Government releases its economic update
November 29th 2008: The NDP hold a conference call telling their MPs about the secret coalition talks with the Liberals and Bloc.
In the taped conversation (highlights below in video, with complete version available here. pt1 and pt 2) Jack Layton speaks about the secret negotiations with the Liberals and the Bloc on a coalition and the NDP role. Calling it a "catalytic role actually" and bragging about how the NDP were the "glue" for all of this and how they had "prepared for the opportunity" and because they had made those preparations early they were ready when an opportunity came up.
Of note are the following quotes from Jack Layton:
"This whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn't been made with the Bloc to lock them in early." "The first part was done a long time ago, um I won't go into details."
To my knowledge Jack Layton has NEVER stated exactly when those negotiations with the Bloc first started and I am unsure if he was even specifically asked that question by our MSM at any time since Nov 2008. Thomas Mulcair at the time stated that his party started talking with the Bloc only after the government's Nov. 19 Throne Speech, but if you listen to Layton's words it seems clear that these negotiations had begun more than just one week (The first part was done a long time ago) before this conference call occurred and for all we know the talks could have started 1 month earlier during the election campaign itself.
So here we are 2 1/2 yrs later and in another election campaign where the MSM are following the leaders across the country and covering their every word. Isn't it about time that they asked Jack Layton to come clean on the 2008 negotiation time-line details and more importantly ask ALL of the leaders if ANY such negotiations ( by anyone within their respective parties) have occurred recently or are occurring at this time?
The MSM blew it on their coverage in 2008. Will they do the same thing in 2011?
Do your job and ask the damn questions that Canadians want to know about!
November 19th 2008: The Speech from the Throne.
November 27th 2008: The Government releases its economic update
November 29th 2008: The NDP hold a conference call telling their MPs about the secret coalition talks with the Liberals and Bloc.
In the taped conversation (highlights below in video, with complete version available here. pt1 and pt 2) Jack Layton speaks about the secret negotiations with the Liberals and the Bloc on a coalition and the NDP role. Calling it a "catalytic role actually" and bragging about how the NDP were the "glue" for all of this and how they had "prepared for the opportunity" and because they had made those preparations early they were ready when an opportunity came up.
Of note are the following quotes from Jack Layton:
"This whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn't been made with the Bloc to lock them in early." "The first part was done a long time ago, um I won't go into details."
To my knowledge Jack Layton has NEVER stated exactly when those negotiations with the Bloc first started and I am unsure if he was even specifically asked that question by our MSM at any time since Nov 2008. Thomas Mulcair at the time stated that his party started talking with the Bloc only after the government's Nov. 19 Throne Speech, but if you listen to Layton's words it seems clear that these negotiations had begun more than just one week (The first part was done a long time ago) before this conference call occurred and for all we know the talks could have started 1 month earlier during the election campaign itself.
So here we are 2 1/2 yrs later and in another election campaign where the MSM are following the leaders across the country and covering their every word. Isn't it about time that they asked Jack Layton to come clean on the 2008 negotiation time-line details and more importantly ask ALL of the leaders if ANY such negotiations ( by anyone within their respective parties) have occurred recently or are occurring at this time?
The MSM blew it on their coverage in 2008. Will they do the same thing in 2011?
Do your job and ask the damn questions that Canadians want to know about!
Monday, April 18, 2011
While Michael Ignatieff was telling Canadians that he was going to take the high road...
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.
"... 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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
