Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« An Unusual Survey | Main | Global warming will save lives »

Saturday, September 24, 2005


Greg Staples lists the panel members to appear on CPAC to discuss whether Stephen Harper should resign as leader, which Stephen Taylor mentioned earlier. Here it is:

Carol Jamieson, longtime Conservative Party member
Jason Kenney, Conservative MP (Calgary Southeast)
Tim Powers, Conservative consultant
Jamey Heath, NDP Strategist
John Ivison, National Post

Okay. Of course Jamieson will be there and I understand Kenney and Powers -- they're Conservatives - and maybe even Ivison, a journalist. But doesn't it seem odd that Heath, an NDP strategist is there? And if the NDP is represented, shouldn't the Liberals? Or are they, with Jamieson?

Posted by Paul Tuns on September 24, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Balance:


Isn't the media rep alwasy interchangeable with a Liberal?

I realize Ivison is not as bad as many journalists in his partisnaship, but he's still a journalist

Posted by: Two Cents | 2005-09-24 10:21:39 PM

Why should anyone care what carol jameison thinks? I've done stuff for the conservative party, that doesnt make me a "chief party staffer"

what a crock.

Posted by: me | 2005-09-25 12:55:31 AM

Carol Jamieson's "qualifications" equal John Tory's.

The Liberals were previously represented by the NDP, when Buzz Hargrove imposed their budget deal on Canadians ... what's changed since?

Posted by: RightOntarian | 2005-09-25 8:33:36 AM

This is slightly off-topic, but, refers to 'balance of ethics' and 'resignations' in the Liberal Party. Namely - Pettigrew.

There is no way that Pettigrew can provide accountability for taking his chauffeur on his many trips and expecting the taxpayer to fund these trips.

In an ethical political system, Pettigrew wouldn't even have passed first request for funding; it would have been refused because the job description didn't permit such travel. If the trips has slipped throuogh, an ethical system would require his resignation and repayment. The Liberals certainly have no ethics. Now- what can they do?

If they chasitize Pettigrew in any form, whether by demotion from cabinet or asking him to repay, they are presenting themselves, the Liberals, as 'continuing-to-be-corrupt'. Their tactic of dealing with Gomery's review is clear; Martin claims that 'all bad things were done by rogues and aberrants'. Not by Liberals. Liberals don't do bad things.
But, here we have Pettigrew. Very much a Liberal. And he IS doing bad things. Soooo?

They can't acknowledge what he did. Therefore, their tactic is, as usual, to utterly ignore it. It didn't happen. This is always successful. But, will they keep him?

I wonder if they are hoping that the electorate will remove Pettigrew at the next election; he didn't win by much in the last election. If he loses - problem solved. I think that's why Pettigrew is suddenly emerging from his Paris flat and acting very busy in the last two weeks; ranting against the UN, making this and that public speech. He knows the Party might not help him...and so, he's in election mode right now.

Notice that the MSM are focusing now on Harper and 'problems'. There is now, as in the Liberal Party, silence about Pettigrew.

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-25 10:37:31 AM

I watched Carol Jamieson on CTV's Question Period. She came across as an anti-democrat. She admitted that the party had chosen Harper as leader, but said that would not stop her from working against him.

She had her chance when she voted in the party leadership election for Stronach. Stronach lost. Harper was reaffirmed with 84 percent in Montreal. She needs to learn to live with it. She'll get her chance next time.

What is it about a democratic vote that she doesn't understand?

Incidentally, for those who still doubt that Jamieson is a Liberal plant, she stuck to talking poits on a piece of paper in front of her including getting in a dig about Harper depending on the church vote for his leadership victory. Don't let anyone tell you that won't be a key talking point for the Liberals in the next election.

Anyway, I'm not a church goer, but since when does going to church disqualify someone from supporting a political party in Canada?

I guess people with "Canadian (Liberal) values" don't include church goers?

Posted by: Two Cents | 2005-09-25 2:18:48 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.