Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Time for you to meet Fenris | Main | Coca-Cola »

Saturday, October 21, 2006

The media's lunatic fringe

It's not only political parties that have a lunatic fringe. The media does, too, and regrettably, the fringe is a rather large faction. But since the media claim for themselves the role as the arbiters of normal, it takes courage to point out their deviance for fear of running afoul of peer pressure.

I refer to the media nuttiness over Peter MacKay's off-hand insult to Belinda Stronach. It wasn't a particularly witty remark nor was it particularly cutting. But the reaction to it has been absurd. Some papers, such as my beloved Sun, simply took a great opportunity for punny headlines -- "dog fight", etc. -- and a chance to mix some exciting romantic battles in with their political stories.

Others -- especially the Globe and Mail -- have actually managed to muster vein-popping outrage over this non-event.

Jack Layton, coming several days late to the fiesta, felt the need to trump everyone and call upon MacKay to resign his position as foreign minister over the matter. Yes, that would be proportionate, wouldn't it?

MacKay is not the strongest cabinet minister in Harper's government, but he has held firm to the party's conservative line on foreign affairs, acquitting himself well if not as a leader of Canada's foreign policy, at least as a faithful explainer of it.

Stronach has sunk lower and lower since the zenith of her political career -- switching parties (and simultaneously dumping MacKay as her lover) to prop up Paul Martin's scandalous Liberals, in return for a cabinet seat. Since then, her chief accomplishment has been to be simutaneously the chair of the Liberal "women's caucus" and the  "other woman" who caused the divorce of Tie and Leanne Domi.

Stronach complains that she is not taken seriously in Parliament, but she offers nothing other than a vanity and self-love that is rivalled only by Garth Turner. MacKay has some of those same attributes -- they were in many ways a perfect couple -- but he has gone on to head the foreign ministry with some success. He generally earns headlines by talking about and making policy. She only earns headlines today by wringing her personal life for tittilating gossip.

But, really, the prize for perfidy here cannot go to anyone other than Layton. Should MacKay really resign for muttering, under his breath, on the spur of the moment, that his treacherous ex-girlfriend was a "dog"? Is that a sufficient anti-feminist crime to have a minister of the crown resign? If that is Layton's standard, should he -- Taliban Jack -- not resign from the House of Commons entirely for his proposal to negotiate a surrender of Afghanistan and its women to the misogynist terrorists who for years denied women the right to go to school, let alone the right to appear in public without first putting on a one-woman prison called a burka?

Posted by Ezra Levant on October 21, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834be50a853ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The media's lunatic fringe:

Comments

oh my god, jack white feather is upset, i wont be able to eat my supper tonight. mind you i cant eat my supper whenever i hear his name. jackie boy wants to talk to everybody in the world, why doesnt he go talk to mckay. i thought jack didnt care about womens rights anymore. as for the media, is anyone really surprised

Posted by: john a. | 2006-10-21 6:08:54 PM


It's gotta be a full moon phase for sure with the lunacy going on.
The worst example of lunacy was on the Duffy show, hosted by twit Taber last night. She would make a good fill in for Jerry Springer with her gushing excitement over this non-story of silly crap that has nothing to do with running this Country and NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMEANING WOMEN.
Christie Blatchford has the right take on the non-story in today's Globe & Mail.

Liberals and Layton, all excited over an alleged comment during juvenile nonsense in the House of Commons, is pathetic in the extreme.
If they're that desperate to GET the Conservatives on something so petty, we know for sure they're in trouble on more serious fronts.

Let Peter apologize to our dogs and let's get back to important matters.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-21 6:15:50 PM


These same lame 'journalists' will pat each other on the back and call each other courageous for holding the government to account etc.

These 'journalists' are so sad it's pathetic, they're much like Belinda in that way, probably why they sympathize with her.

If the Liberals think women voters are going to flock to their Party because someone called their tramp a dog, they're mistaken. Canadian women are starting to realize that a Party without principles - like the Liberal Party - has no real respect for anything, everything is up for debate - including denying some people rights if the occasion suits them, not a good policy in the long term.

Posted by: Philanthropist | 2006-10-21 6:27:27 PM


How can anyone in Canada respect our elected members and their fan club, the media when they behave like a bunch of middle school newbies after a loud fart in the classroom.

That's about what MacKay is guilty of ... a fart in parliament. However Jackal Layton is guilty of taking a big greasy shit on the heads of all women who love freedom and in particular he has shit on the women of Afghanistan who are only now allowed to LEARN TO READ FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. He would reverse that in a minute if he thought it would win him a vote.

What a fucked up country this is. We are lucky to have Harper in charge at this moment. However the pack of mad dogs (not just Belinda) are yapping at the gate hoping to get another nip at our wallets.

For a laugh eh ... check this out.

http://tinyurl.com/agfqx


Posted by: Duke | 2006-10-21 6:53:40 PM


Re the link,

that completely unreliable Blogspot is not functioning as usual. Perhaps try later.

I am sure they are hard at it getting it up and running yet again.

Good thing it's free. I wouldn't pay a nickle to use it.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-10-21 7:07:19 PM


Is Bob a dog who can't hunt?


Bob quotes Ella Fitzgerald.

Wrong, Bob. It was Sophie Tucker. ...-

As for his single term as Ontario premier from 1990 to 1995, when the province's deficit and unemployment rate soared, Rae says he's learned

what he calls "the Ella Fitzgerald lesson:

`I've been rich and I've been poor and rich is better.' '' (voy forums)
...-


Boob boobs, again: the Rhodes scholar succumbs to the power[sic] of the Internet.

I've been rich and I’ve been poor -- and believe me, rich is better.
Sophie Tucker
US (Russian-born) vaudeville singer (1884 - 1966)

3w.quotationspage.com/quote/37611.htm

Posted by: maz2 | 2006-10-21 8:02:38 PM


Most media fail to realize the life jack is willing to leave the women of afghanistan with.

and as for Peter why is it ok to make cracks about his dog but if he shoots back thats bad?

We all know the MSM's would have never brought up the lefties comments re his dog as any insult towards a right winger is ok.

Only if they shoot back is it bad.

bang,

good catch ezra did any other outlet in canada note taliban jacks inconsistency?

Posted by: ghollingshead | 2006-10-21 8:29:03 PM


This "women's equality" thing, the way the Liberals, NDP, and the MSM are playing it, is such a crock.

Look, I'm a woman and I'm no doormat. I expect to be listened to the same way a man is listened to, I assume I have the same dignity of person as any man, and I figure I can do things pretty much as well as most men--and, if I can't, I don't get upset about it--but I don't play the "equality" card to push past men or to put them down.

If a woman is going to enter the political arena, she'd better be prepared to take the same heat as her male counterparts in the thrust and parry of Question Period. Belinda Stronach is launching a huge double standard when she insists on power playing, first as a Cabinet Minister, then as a member of the Opposition, but pulls out "the damsel in distress" hankie when another politician heckles her. She can dish it out herself, but she can't take it when it comes back at her.

Belinda, you're either "equal" or "a special case." If you keep playing the poor-me role--and if Jackie-poo and the crybabies in the MSM keep presenting us with this caricature--then you make a mockery of "equality." What you're actually advocating is that because you're a woman you should be treated differently, specially. This is not equality, it's special pleading.

So, knock off the "equality" talk and move on. You're wasting our time.

And pssst, Jackass Laydown: Get real. If you think this issue is even close to a legitimate reason for a Cabinet Minister to resign, you either need to give yourself a good shake and get on with serving your constituents or get the H*ll out of the political arena. You've lost it, man.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-10-21 8:33:31 PM


Taliban Jack bin Layton wasn't upset with the Liberals when they compared his wife to a chow dog...'course he was in bed with mr dithers at the time

Posted by: kelly | 2006-10-21 10:08:09 PM


If it was such a non-issue, why does the honourable minister continue to deny the event. Even the author of this blog admits the remark occured.

I'm just curious as to if it was 'no big deal' why would Mr. MacKay continue to deny it happened in the first place.

I'm also curious as to how such a well written and obviously well thought-out blog entry could fail to address this.

Posted by: From Toronto | 2006-10-21 10:09:15 PM


been around the block: Well said!

Belinda is not only amoral, she is also a disgrace to the female gender. Behaving like a traiterous strumpet means you are treated as such. And I am afraid that Belinda's hand-wringing, crying or pleas for sympathy will never change that perception.

Peter calling Belinda a dog, showed remarkable restraint. Frankly, he was kind in comparison to how I would describe her.

As for Taliban Jack...does anyone actually take him seriously. You must admit, he is good for a laugh during Question Period.

Posted by: gypsy4950 | 2006-10-21 10:15:07 PM


Speaking of lunatic fringe media check out www.dailymail.co.uk under BBC Admits Bias.The CBC is as bad,but like the traitors they they are will stick to their denials. Back here in cloud cuckoo land,maybe the "progressives" could come up with a new human rights offence called "Femcrime". There could of course be "Aggeravated Femcrime"-anything that makes a woman break into tears or that hurts her oh so exquisite politically correct feelings.

Posted by: Mister Right | 2006-10-21 10:19:12 PM


Oh my! In my youth Belinda would have been called the town bicycle!

Don't the media and our politicians have something more serious to worry about?

Dr. Tom

Posted by: Dr. Tom | 2006-10-22 12:05:33 AM


Two star-crossed lovers, swept apart by the tides of history, are enacting a Tennessee Williams dinner-theatre drah-mah, facing each other, and their own hurt feelings, from opposite sides of the House. So here's the opening line in a CTV Top Story:

"Conservatives are not only supporting Peter MacKay -- a handful of them are going even further in comparing Belinda Stronach to a dog."

Parse that for a moment. Note the slur against "Conservatives". Note how support for MacKay is presented as a self-evident flaw, through the phrasing that "not only" are Conservatives supporting him, a "handful" of "them" (Conservatives) are doing something *even worse*. Note how the comments of a few bloggers are subtly rebranded as "Conservatives", a "handful of them".

The Liberals are ever themmed. Think we'd see a top story that opens with: "Liberals are not only supporting Ignatieff's 'war crimes' comment -- a handful of them are going even further in comparing Jews to..." etc.?

No, but this is different, because nasty blog posts about Belinda Stronach ultimately originate from Stephen Harper's desk: "The websites listed at www.bloggingtories.ca have no *official* ties to the Conservative government. But in recent weeks, the sites have run the same media talking points as those issued by senior officials in government."

Ahh. So in other words, amateur grass-roots blogging citizens who support this government, and who therefore reiterate its rationales and stated objectives and announcements, are being accused by Lib-proxy pros, who have promoted Liberal talking-points until those talking points are the reporter's world view, of being a little too tight with the government.

Those Conservatives, "they" are scary, especially that handful of "them": "They have mounted fierce public relations campaigns against government programs that later wound up being axed or downsized, including the Court Challenges Program -- a fund that paid for legal challenges that won new rights for women, minorities, the disabled, and gays and lesbians since the 1970's."

See, it's not just Stephen Harper who's a threat to the Canadian way; bloggers who may have helped deliver him to power are also a threat to the Canadian way. The threat has been identified. More updates as new threats come in. As Stephane Dion said, "Liberals, we need to get back to power as soon as possible."

Posted by: EBD | 2006-10-22 12:39:53 AM


Ezra:

When you say the media's lunatic fringe ... are you being redundant?

The Ottawa MSM has lost its battle of ‘who asks the questions' with PM SH and is now looking for any little excuse to get even.

McKay responed to a question about how climate change was going to affect his dog with a flippant answer (she's over there).

That statement was taken completely out of context and made into something that had nothing to do with the original topic (climate change).

Another lesson learned on the tactics of the MSM.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-22 1:36:23 AM


"From Toronto", that's illogical and irrelevant.

Let me ask: if so many bad things for which the Liebrano$$$ are responsible are "not a big deal", then why do the Liebrano$$$ deny responsibility for bad things when we know they are responsible for them?

Indeed, there's a double standard between the left and regular folks ("conservatives). Leftists like the Liebrano$$$ and the Nudie Dippers get off the hook for all sorts of stuff whereas a non-issue (which doesn't have to be proven a non-issue to the reasonable person, not to suggest that you're not a "reasonable person", though you might be blinded by partisan extremism) is turned into a mountain when it involves conservatives.

Why is it perfectly politically correct to call men "pigs" as far as the biased, double-standard-bearing left is concerned, but should a conservative say "you have her", he gets accused of saying "dog", which he didn't, as if it was somehow worse than saying "pig"?

The left has no case. The left has nothing of substance whatsoever upon which to attack Canada's New Gov't, therefore they resort to brainless, simian poo-chucking.

It's going to backfire. Thank goodness for bloggers: the MSM won't have any perspectives critical of its own behavior!

No wonder the MSM is losing its audience and watching its bottom line worsen and worsen...

Eventually, some "invisible hand" will have rational folks take over the MSM to do the job its irrational leftist owners and submissive minions simply won't...

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel | 2006-10-22 3:20:18 AM


I agree with been around the block. Stronach's "poor little rich girl" personna is getting as old and tired as she looks these days.

Posted by: rosemarie59 | 2006-10-22 4:57:47 AM


Media attacks and negative comment on MacKay are in fact aimed at Harper and his Government. MacKay is the weak link in that thus far popular management of the Canadian political scene. In the Atlantic Region
there is no media support for MacKay whatever, and the cartoons in the Halifax Dailies in particular are devestating. From a practical political point of view MacKay does not set policy in his Ministry of government, the bureaucrats, hired by the Liberals many decades ago do that. MacKay in fact cannot even control that nebulous regime of political patronage, created by Brian Mulroney but
turned by Chretien and Martin into a Liberal fifedom. PM Harper is about to be the focus of a
highly focused and unfair media extravaganza attacking the Canadian presence in Afghanistan.
Next week, the Navy (formerly the RCN and Air Force formerly the RCAF) will be told to send many of their 'surplus" personnel up to Gagetown NB for infantry training because of the shocking shortage of trained soldiers in the Canadian Forces.Harper has more talented people in his Caucus than MacKay, time for a change. Macleod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-10-22 5:01:31 AM


Jack MacLeod:
Somehow I do not think the East can be considered Conservative territory.
Do you really think Peter is winging it and Mr. Harper has no input?
Let's just support the Conservatives in their efforts to bring our Country back to it's once proud status taken from us by too many years of Liberal shinanigans and recent outright corruption.
McKay is the least of our worries.
It's understandable the Liberals in the East will be after him, no surprize there, that's politics.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-22 6:44:53 AM


MacKay is indeed "winging it" In Fact the Atlantic Region has Conservative Governments in Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland, and until very recently in NB. Liberals have no real strength in the Region
thanks to Martin and his flunkies, and that Rascal
Chretien. MacKay, well known here is simply not smart enough to hold a major portfolio. It is bad enough that he is "responsible" for ACOA, a Liberal resource designed to provide employment for Liberal flunkies and hangars on. Would never pass a Forensic Audit by Ms. Fraser and her band of nosy parkers. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-10-22 7:17:03 AM


Jack: Let's hope the Conservative Party is privy to all ACOA info and sic,(no pun intended), Ms Fraser on it. It would be a smart way to dump It.

Still waiting to hear whether there is any truth to the idea of appointing Bernard Lord ambassador to France. It would be a great appointment, he's such a prolific spraker too.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-22 7:38:43 AM


This clown Jack will next be asking for a confidence vote on this issue. Well I be dogged !

Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-22 7:44:26 AM


OOPS! That should read "he's such a prolific SPEAKER"!

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-22 7:48:16 AM


I asked 5 women (obviously not statistically significant)and they all said they would never vote for Stronach, and I paraphrase, "...because she is such a sl-t." Don't flame me, I'm just the messenger, but this opinion of her will be held more so by women than men. Without the female vote, she has no future in politics. She has done far worse to herself than MacKay could ever do.

Posted by: mike s | 2006-10-22 8:35:31 AM


I doubt if Immigrant Billionaire Frank Stronach's Daughter will pursue a career in Politics since her future in the Liberal Party is and has always been somewhat limited, but I think despite the fact that she is a Single Mother, she'll do alright. If she resigns her Ontario seat, the Liberals will win it in the next Federal election in any event the Liberal owned media will play her as Belinda the Martyr, and talk to the "other women" in Peter the
dog lover's life, just ask Frank. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-10-22 9:19:50 AM


Belinda is a single Mother and somewhere out there those children have a single father.
It's been written and not denied that Frank liked Peter McKay as did the children.Belinda thought she could betray people and get away with it and it backfired.Loyalty and shame appear to mean nothing.

If Poppa Frank can buy a seat the shame is on the voters.
Won't bet on that one for sure.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-22 10:01:15 AM


Actually Liz, I was referring to the Ottawa based
Frank Magazine (Michael Bate) who will be focused
on the Peter and Belinda "thing" for some time I
would think, and seeking out Peter's former girl friends. Some how, the old ' Fifties Hit" How
Much Is That Doggie In The Window" keeps running through my mind. One of those ex "girl friends"
is the daughter of a former Conservative Cabinet Minister back in the days of now Senator John Buchanan Nova Scotia. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-10-22 10:48:46 AM


Liz J says, "If Poppa Frank can buy a seat the shame is on the voters":

Agreed, Liz, and word has it that Frank donated a $500,000 plot of land to a church in BS's riding for them to build a new church on.

Do you think Daddy influenced any votes there? He also went door-to-door in the riding--'saw it with my own eyes on an adulatory mini news-doc on the CBC just before the election. She didn't win by very much did she? Maybe just those doors that Frank knocked on.

It's not hard to see why the Bible says "The LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil."

When you think about what other worthy projects Daddy Frank could be putting his million$ into, it kind of makes you sick to see him spending it to buy votes for Belinda, probably one of the least capable, most amibitious, MPs to sit in the house EVER.

Posted by: too long in exile | 2006-10-22 11:10:03 AM


Stop being so focused on BS. She's not a threat to anyone, certainly not politically.

It would be much better for the Canadian non-left if the CPC MPs started to behave like MPs should, i.e. with honesty, integrity, consistency and class.

Posted by: Johan I Kanada | 2006-10-22 11:18:54 AM


Well, if Taliban Jack ever, EVER made it to PM, there'd be a lot more burning in the streets than just a few cars!

Posted by: bcf | 2006-10-22 11:43:49 AM


Listen up folks, whose making this a story? Have you watched any of our Media Twits or read any papers lately?

Jack, whose face will be imposed on that doggie in the window? It could matter to dogs.

As for Peter's ex's, it really is of no interest except to desperate, scandal ridden Liberals, who should have better things to do with the important task of selecting a new Leader of the Opposition.

Guess not though, it's let's trash the Conservatives, dont talk about policies, don't have any, don't need any.It's worked for years.

Slime, sleaze, lying, trickery, buffoonery, hatchetry, they work them all. If the people buy that, we have a problem.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-22 11:46:23 AM


They got the wrong person. They should be asking Belinda Stronach for her resignation given the way she has impacted the reputations of the serious woman sitting in parliament. A woman's issue I think not. Both men and woman can be accused of being the third person responsible for breaking up a marriage. Ms. Stronach has shown she does not have the morals of the women in Parliament nor the vast majority of Canadian women. She is in the vernacular a tr..p who uses her celebrity lifestyle for political advantage. I guess that helps when you don't have anything serious to say. The media in this country have been waiting for Harper and his government to make what they consider a serious misstep so they can malign them and call them all manner of things. They want their beloved Liberals back in power to continue with their socialist leanings. However, the Canadian people are watching. Let's see what happens in the next election when the Liberals maybe led by a citizen of convenience who is an intellectual snob or an ex NDP premier who single handedly destroyed the Ontario economy when he was in power. The choice is clear. Harper will win hands down despite all this noise we are seeing today.

Posted by: hollinm | 2006-10-22 12:15:12 PM


The Demise of Puppy Love
By Stephen Gray

For a time they had been so happy together in the world of Puppy Love. They were a twosome in the Kennel. But alas the doggone world of doggy politics caused them to part. She had differences with the leader of the Kennel and decided to join a more liberal dog patch, and also it was a slightly bigger kennel at that time. Her former partner in the world of puppy love was so upset, that some said he went ballistic and it was reported he said that he had a dog that was more faithful than his former puppy love.

Still, there was not much love remaining for her in her former Kennel that she had left. Instead there was barking and growling and much name calling in the doggy language of the day. Still, she did not care, for now she had found a doggy home that fitted her capabilities. She was even given a doggy bone of responsibility in her new canine home and settled down well amongst her new found canine friends.
Her former friends in the Kennel used to bark and growl insults at her. And some said she was a traitor to the world of doggy rule. But she was a capable canine and hoped some day to be top dog in her new doghouse.

Meanwhile in what was now the Big Kennel her former partner would sometimes glower and glare and snarl across the yard (the two kennels faced each other) at his former puppy love. Then one day all hell broke loose between the two doghouses. It was inferred that her former partner had pointed a dog like insult across the yard, and this caused much canine anguish and publicity in the Land of the Dogs. The howls and growls emanated across the land. There were calls for a public dog inquiry in the alleged doggy slur. Another dog who was leader of another pack in a very small kennel barked that the doggy offender should apologize and should be booted out of the Big Kennel. But, this pack leader was notorious for spreading doggerel. Other dogs of the female persuasion were even contemplating hate crimes charges against this dog who allegedly insulted female dogs. In fact, it was said her former partner was up to his neck in doggy doo over his alleged insult. The noise across the land was doggone awful and some people were so fed up with it that they wanted to call in the animal control people.

There was even a rumour going around that an Animal Rights organization was going to take the matter to the highest court in Doggy Land. It was all so doggone ridiculous!!!
The moral of this dog story is this: There will never be any sons of bitches from this former doggy union because of the demise of their puppy love.

Stephen Gray
October 22, 2006.
graysinfo@yahoo.ca Website http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-10-22 12:31:36 PM


The Media are focused on MacKay, not the Honorable Belinda Stronach PC, MP. MacKay is the story, because he has made the Harper Government vulnerable to attack from an already hostile media. I have pointed out many times that MacKay is in a Cabinet Post of very significant importance to the people of Canada which he is totally unsuited for and was promoted well beyond his capacities as a MP and more or less professional politician. MacKay has done nothing to clean up the anti Israeli and United States mind set of the too long established bureaucrats in Foreign (formerly External) Affairs, who are for the most part creatures created by Liberal Prime Ministers and their flunkies. The incredibly stupid remark he made in the House does in no way
color our opinion of MacKay, who is a real menace to Harper, but, in my opinion, Canada needs Harper
who is going to embark on a very rough time from the entrenched Left Wing Canadian Media. It would not be a positive move for MacKay to be dismissed or forced to resign, but he should be shifted to a portfolio like Amatueur Sport and Recreation.
MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-10-22 12:41:21 PM


I tend to agree with your comments, Jack McLeod, about Peter McKay's batting under capacity in his portfolio. PMSH obviously gave him Foreign Affairs to "appease" McKay's not getting the leadership and to, I suppose, try to gain some more seats in the East.

I'd like to see McKay in another Cabinet post too. I don't know who PMSH should appoint to Foreign Affairs, though he's got plenty of capable and hard-working MPs he could call on. It would be good if McKay offered to move, so that Prime Minister Harper isn't put in the position of being pilloried by the MSM for--what?--petty politicking, being "too controlling," or admitting that Peter M. shouldn't have said what he did/didn't?

"GOD'S TEETH!" as Glenda Jackson, playing Elizabeth I, used to shout when things at court were getting just too ridiculously out of hand. This whole media storm around Peter McKay's supposed remarks is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

I've made a decision that I won't write about it again.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-10-22 1:09:29 PM


Well said Jack, I agree with you and batb.

The reality is the MSM will always tilt towards utopianism and against conservatism, that’s just the way journalists seem to wired the world over. Since they are an obstacle for us, MacKay’s remarks are just that much more of an impediment to Harper who has a steep enough Hill to climb as it is.

When MacKay is replaced, Harper should but a Quebecer into either Foreign Affairs or Defence. Quebec’s MSM is even more pathetically utopian and cocooned than the ROC. But maybe with a Quebec Minister in one of these posts the CPC would stand a better chance of getting the message out in Quebec that there is a world East of Beauceville.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-10-22 1:13:59 PM


Not to change the subject totally, but I met Ms. Glenda Jackson MP some years ago in North London
-if you think she was splendid as Eliabeth I, wait until you see Dame Helen Mirren, as Elizabeth I
and more lately Eliabeth II (have not see it yet, looking forward). Agreed the media coverage of the MacKay remarks is totally out of hand, exerbated by the unthinking Socialist Horde, and the Leaderless
Liberals. But I suspect the Media and Opposition attacks on Harper about Afghnistan are going to be
really nasty and ugly. But, to repeat, Canada needs Harper. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-10-22 1:22:58 PM


To The Canadian Sentinel:

How exactly is denial of what seems to be perfectly evident illogical and/or irrelevant. I don't think 'just because the liberals did it' is a valid rebuttal. the tories are supposed to be better.

this is not a left vs right issue. to make it such shows how little we actually care about what is left/right and how much we align ourselves to rhetoric and dogma of a political party. they are not infallable. but once we stop ciriticizing them, they become so.

the comment of 'dog' didn't bother me, but the denail did. there's a lack of integrety, and that is serious.

i respect a man that takes responsibility for his/her actions. i'm sure you do too, if you can get over your dog-like devotion to a member of a party simply because he is a member of the party.

come on, let's think critically here, people...we're not americans.

Posted by: From Toronto | 2006-10-22 1:49:52 PM


I definitely plan to see Elizabeth II with Helen Mirren; I've seen trailers and her interpretation/impersonation of Queen Elizabeth is uncanny.

(A little OT, as well: My family spent a few weeks in a house in England eight years ago, just down the street from the house that was used as Detective Superintendent Jane Tennison's house/apartment in Prime Suspect. We had dinner with the family, as our children became friends, and every time I watched the show I tried to make out the house we'd been in. You could see only a wall, or a bookcase, here or there, but the family got thou$and$ of pounds for vacating their premises for a week or so at a time, so it could be used in the series.)

I agree with you, Jack McLeod, that the media frenzy is going to become "really nasty and ugly." Heck, it already is nasty and ugly--and so unfair. I despair for our country sometimes.

I also totally agree that Canada needs Harper. If we blow it, by putting the Librano$ back in power, then it's time to pack it in as a country. I don't want to be robbed blind any more by my government and treated as only a deep pocket.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-10-22 1:53:30 PM


From Toronto

As I am on record in another thread as calling for McKay to apologize if he did say this...AND...not to use the "they do it, too" defense, I hope you can explain the following:

"come on, let's think critically here, people...we're not americans. "

Are you now willing to apologize without reservations for such a cheap shot?
Why did you even think it necessary to drag the Americans into this Canadian only story? Aren't you essentially using the "they do it, too" theme?

I would remind you of your own objection to the "they do it, too" defense.


"How exactly is denial of what seems to be perfectly evident illogical and/or irrelevant. I don't think 'just because the liberals did it' is a valid rebuttal. the tories are supposed to be better."

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-22 3:50:58 PM


good for Ezra to actually admit that MacKay said this. It would allow the party to move on much quicker if MacKay had done the same. It was such a shame to see Helena Guergis being made to go on shows like Question Period today to have to defend MacKay, still clinging to the notion that he might not have said it, parsing their words so carefully.

Posted by: Hurclees | 2006-10-22 3:54:45 PM


Johann I Kanada

"It would be much better for the Canadian non-left if the CPC MPs started to behave like MPs should, i.e. with honesty, integrity, consistency and class."

I agree.

Now, if only it made a difference on the other side of the political spectrum.


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-22 4:02:34 PM


Toronto:

Where does it say McKay used the word ‘dog?'

The original question, in Question Period, was about how his (McKay's dog) would be affected by polluted air.

McKay responded: ‘she's over there' and allegedly pointed toward Stronach's vacant seat.

Original question: a stupid question about clean air that pushed McKay's button.

Answer: Unrelated to the original, but a response nonetheless. Is this worth wasting more than a few cheap laughs over?


Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-22 4:26:18 PM


As for peter mackay to resign over a remark ??? This little media generated shit storm is more about the cbc or globe than anything else seems to me there wasen't this much fuss when oliva was compared to a chow dog, hear that taliban jack???

Posted by: bubba brown | 2006-10-22 5:17:35 PM


The Liberals were making fun of Mckay and Mckay responded in jest. They got the worst of the tit-for tat, so of course, cried foul. Pathetic little people.

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-10-22 5:29:14 PM


Just listening to a repeat of the Adler show following the Clean Air bill.

This is what Adler said:

“The minister of the environment has been invited onto this program and no doubt one day will respond to the dog whistle.''

What do you suppose the Chuckster meant by that remark?

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-22 8:34:47 PM


From Toronto, 'we're not americans'; what a pity.

Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-23 7:36:36 AM


It is just so typical of Libranos, to fill up the air-waves, with pithy soapy shallow attitude. What a waste of energy.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-10-23 10:40:58 AM


I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you!
http://celtic-wedding-ring.110mb.com celtic wedding ring
http://2nd-mortgage-refinance.110mb.com 2nd mortgage refinance
http://www3.webng.com/acuramdx5/ acuramdx5
http://amy-winehouse.110mb.com amy winehouse

Posted by: vmend | 2007-08-05 11:43:16 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.