The Shotgun Blog
« CBC election bias | Main | Adscam was organized and criminal »
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Too, ahem, "high profile."
Here's a worrying sign that the Tories are heading into this campaign as clueless and gaffe-prone as ever: They nearly signed up Rachel Marsden as a candidate. And not in some remote riding in Nunavat, where there's a chance that some Canadians, fluent only in Inuktitut, haven't yet learned of her criminal convictions, psychotic stalking episodes and false rape accusations. She was asked to run in Toronto Danforth, where the leader of the NDP, Jack Layton, will be squaring off against constitutional expert Deborah Coyne for the Liberals. A high profile race like that calls for a high-profile candidate. But, it would seem, Marsden was just a titch too high-profile for the unsuspecting riding association, after they realized what kind of a human minefield they were dealing with. From today's Post:
Political commentator Rachel Marsden was asked to run as a Conservative against NDP leader Jack Layton, but the party backed off yesterday after word leaked out.
Georganne Burke, a regional organizer for the Tories, approached Ms. Marsden after a former candidate in the last election suggested she would be a good fit.
"I am wondering if you might consider becoming a candidate in Toronto Danforth for us," Ms. Burke wrote. "Can we have a conversation about it? It would be a fun, high profile campaign, with Jack Layton and Deborah Coyne as your opponents."
But Ms. Burke's position quickly changed after she consulted Conservative advisors and was contacted by the National Post. Ms. Marsden is "too high-profile" for the race, she said.
"We're looking for someone who will help carry the torch, help to build the organization and not detract from that by being too high profile."
Up until last year, I lived in Toronto Danforth for some time, and I was probably one of the 10 non-socialists that did. It's full of CBC journalists, public school teachers, gay and lesbian couples and immigrants who came over 30 years ago but still think they owe Trudeau a favour for it. The Tories wouldn't stand a chance in that riding if Shania Twain was their candidate. But sticking a loose cannon who revels in making obnoxious comments about gays and Muslims, smack dab in the backyard of the Toronto media would not only earn the Conservatives no points in that riding, but would almost certainly ruin their campaign nationally. They dodged this bullet. But this is exactly the sort of clumsy behaviour that could see the Tories snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by Kevin Libin on November 26, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8345a58fb69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Too, ahem, "high profile.":
» Stupid Federal Election Tricks from The Vancouverite : Daily Hyper-Caffeinated Snarky News and Opinion
Over at the Shotgun there is a post worth reading. It would seem that the Conservatives, simply not satisfied that they are completely unready for governing this country thought it might be fun if they got explosive former local Rachel... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-11-26 10:21:36 PM
» Utterly, utterly hopeless from Tart Cider
From yesterday's National Post: The riding of Toronto-Danforth is problematic for the Conservatives. The riding association is in disarray; an annual general meeting is being held this weekend to elect a new board of directors. Yes, please. I suggest t... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-11-27 4:35:37 PM
Comments
Stephen Harper's party (because it is, so far) has no idea how desperately people want his party to make a go of it. Block Duceppe and Flakey Layton and their parties are non-starters in trying to bring this country back to where it should have been years (decades?) ago, which leaves Stevie's Boys & Girls as the option. In my case, after a voting lifetime now into the senior's end of the scale, I have, for the first time, joined a political party. However, incidents such as the one involving Rachel Marsden make me grit my teeth and wonder if I shouldn't have put my $10 membership fee on 649 tickets instead. Only the time until we know the election results will tell whether I still have any teeth left to grind.
Posted by: Johnson Mapple | 2005-11-26 2:59:13 PM
I'd be careful of stories like this; they might be, well, Just So Stories. Did it really happen the way the Post (now a Liberal machine) reported it?
Would Ms Burke really approach Ms Marsden ONLY on the word of a former candidate, i.e., without herself doing any research on Ms Marsden? Would she only consult with the national advisors AFTER she had approached Ms Marsden? That doesn't make any sense.
And - How did the National Post get to hear of it?
Hmm. I suggest we'll hear LOTS more of this type of propaganda, setting up the Conservatives as 'mistake-prone' and importantly, as basically 'scary wackos'. The Liberals have only one agenda - Power. And they will do anything, absolutely anything, to gain this power.
Therefore, we are going to see LOTS of fake stories, which paint the Conservatives as scary, wierd, far-right. Watch out for the stories about Conservatives as 'creationists'; watch out for stories about Conservatives as 'frothing Bible-Thumping fanatics'. Watch out for stories about Conservatives as pro-Bush, pro-USA and so on. The Liberals are not interestesd in the truth of anything -
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-26 3:18:31 PM
Disconcerning yes, but all parties make their gaffs. Unfortunately it seems that only the conservatives get airplay when they screw up. Don't fret to much on this, it was caught before it happened, yet it has made the news.
Remember, the NDP will likely have a self confessed thief (Svend) running in the next election, and the Liberals will have yet to be convicted theives running, yet none of it will be reported. We have to live with the media bias for the time being.
I myself am looking forward to static and fuzz, when, shortly after the next election I tune to stations previously used by the CBC on TV and Radio.
We must gut the CRTC soon after forming the government.
Posted by: BDT | 2005-11-26 3:24:00 PM
Sorry ET but nice try - the CPC did it to themselves and don't seem interested in distancing themselves from their intolerant past. Just take a look at the numbers and you'll see that Canadians didn't punish the Liberals for passing SSM. What does that tell you? It tells you Canadians would rather a bunch of crooks in Ottawa than a bunch of 'bible-thumpers' or people with a history of putting Alberta's concerns over that of the entire country.
Stick to your economic policies - fine - but get rid of Harper and replace him with someone Canadians can trust and you'll see that Canada will run to the CPC in droves.
Stop blaming the Liberals. The Gomery inquiry and all the Liberal corruption basically laid the election at the Conservatives feet but they've already kicked it away by running a candidate that Canada just doesn't like.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-11-26 4:10:15 PM
Justin - How do you know that the CPC 'did it to themselves'? What is your source of information that you (and not I) are privy to?
What 'intolerant past' are you referring to ?
We don't know if Canadians have/have not 'punished the Liberals' for SSM. There hasn't been a vote, and polls are notorious for being skewed by the questions.
Where do you get the image that the CPC are a bunch of 'bible-thumpers'? I'm an atheist; I wouldn't support such a party - and yet, I support the CPC. There is no evidence, to me, that they are 'bible-thumpers'. How do you arrive at such a conclusion?
Where do you get the conclusion that the CPC has a 'history of putting Alberta's concerns ahead of the country'? Could you provide proof? I support the CPC and I wouldn't support a party that privileges one province. The Liberals, as you must acknowledge, privilege Quebec. Is that fair?
What do you mean - 'stop blaming the Liberals'. Surely you aren't asking Canadians to reject accountability from their government. If the Liberals have laundered money, as the Gomery Inquiry revealed - shouldn't they be blamed? If the Liberals have set up a system of governance that ignores the electorate and instead relies on a crony-system of patronage - shouldn't this be criticized? Are you against dissent?
If the Liberals refuse to explore more practical tactics of health care - shouldn't they be critiqued? Are you rejecting the right of people to dissent?
Which candidate are you referring to, that has cost the CPC the election?
And - what is your proof that "Canada just doesn't like" this individual?
You seem to have excellent access to a LOT of statistics, private polls, data etc - that the rest of us don't have access to!!!! How do you acquire all this information?
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-26 4:28:50 PM
ET, considering the success the CPC has had post-Gomery I'm lead to believe that you're the Director of the party's Communications wing.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-11-26 4:54:23 PM
Justin- what is the point of your statement. Why would you state that I am 'director of their communication'?
I've asked you some reasonable questions. So far, you have been either unable or unwilling to answer any of them. Why is that? Are you someone who just pontificates and yells at people but refuses to interact, refuses to discuss anything?
My questions are based specifically on your statements. How about being accountable for what you wrote - and answering questions about what you wrote - or - are you someone who just insults people and then runs away? That's juvenile, Justin. It's childish to insult people.
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-26 5:15:20 PM
Poor little oooh, Justin. You always want the last word and you foam at the mouth when you slather it in print. How many years have you spent in your present state of mal function? If someone works for the government they are not going to SAY they support anyone but the Head Masters - The Liberano Party - because they could and likely would lose their jobs. Some people have morgages to pay.
No one knows how you vote when you get to the ballot booth thou' - or do they - do you know something I don't?
Posted by: jema54j | 2005-11-26 5:18:43 PM
ET: You make a decent effort to reason. Justin represents the methods of the Liberal Party. By which Canadians (outside Quebec) seem swayed. Pity.
Your thought might be useful at "Comments Please"
http://www.commentsplease.com/collection/client/index.cfm
e.g. at the post "So thats what they mean by the High Road". Insults ad nauseam. The Liberal way.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-11-26 5:21:21 PM
ET: Should have said "Canadians mainly in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces".
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-11-26 5:53:54 PM
Mark- I think it's useless to interact with people who resort to personal insults - as does that 'Don' on your link, or Justin on this blog (or DJ, Speller, etc also on this blog). 'Don' on the other blog is spouting polemic nonsense; Springer makes a lot of sense. But, Don isn't interested in 'reasons' or 'sense'; he just wants people to agree with him!
These are people who don't want to discuss an issue; they simply want their opinion to be accepted as The Truth. There's no discussion allowed, other than 'Yes Sir'.
What puzzles me, is their reaction to any questions, any suspicion that you don't agree with them - it's always the same. They are a 'type'. Any dissent is met with such anger, such hostility - and they instantly resort to personal insults. They never, ever, argue an issue right down to its 'bare bones'.
That type of individual - is beyond the reach of reason.
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-26 6:09:09 PM
Kevin's original post basically introduced the idea that maybe the CPC shoots themselves in the foot sometimes. I was agreeing and saying that it's incredible that even with the level of Liberal corruption being what it is Canada still polls pro-Liberal. Course instead of saying 'yeah, the CPC needs to take advantage of this opportunity and get more Canadians on their side' here's what ShotDumbers say:
1. Canadians are all Ontarions and Ontarions are evil and though they voted Mike 'I kill Natives' Harris in as Premier twice they are all Liberals.
2. The Press is run by Liberals. Ok this one you might have a point about but again maybe it just demands a little more vigilance (getting Rachel Marsden as a candidate is not very savvy for example).
3. Who cares Alberta needs to separate!!!!!
The third one leads me to this question: if you want to separate why do you even care what's happening in Ottawa?
The first one leads me to ask 'what do you think a Canadian is'?
The second one - well - like I said maybe you have a point. But the natural result of that kind of thinking is that all Canadians are stupid or misinformed except you people and well let's just say I only come here to feel really, really smart. Thanks for that by the way.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-11-26 7:56:41 PM
I never liked that Justin Trudeau- forget about him, ET, he's just a priviledged little child-of-the-cbc self-righteous etc.... And the little prick calls people names, I don't like that either. And he's a bad actor. And he thinks he's pretty, that bugs me too (becasue he's not).
Posted by: bushman | 2005-11-26 8:00:43 PM
Alberta has to threaten to seperate, get there numbers up to 55% (from 40%?) and they'll get what they want. That's the only way Ontario will take it seriously. Alberta would be a better more sucessful country without the rest of Canada, there's just a lot of sentementality holding it back. Threaten to seperate, that's how you get things done.
Posted by: Friendly Stan | 2005-11-27 2:02:10 AM
Justin- since you, for the first time, attempted to answer some questions, I'll attempt to discuss the situation with you. But first, don't insult people. Even if you consider yourself the smartest of all, don't insult people. Don't call this blog 'Shotdumbers'. All that term says is that you are someone filled with contempt for others. It doesn't say anything good about you.
Now-your points.
The CPC is trying to get more Canadians on their side. But, with a decade of Liberal rule, and that decade filled with propaganda and bias rather than facts, it is not easy. Don't expect people to switch their minds in an instant; if they did so, they'd be nothing but machines. People are not machines. It takes time.
1. You are quite wrong to state that the Shotgun thinks that all Canadians are Ontarians and Ontarians are evil. There is one individual, who obviously has personal problems, who says that on this blog. You cannot define one person as the norm. You are ignoring (that's your bias) everyone else who writes on this blog. Why is that?
It happens to be a statistical reality that the majority of House of Commons seats from Ontario are Liberal. Therefore, people on this blog recognize this reality (don't you?) and are concerned that it will continue. This is an important FACT. Ontario's votes can make or break a party, for the simple fact that it has the most House seats. It would be foolish to ignore this. The Liberals don't ignore it. And, the Liberals have a tremendous advantage that the other parties don't have. They have all the taxpayer money, which they use to bribe the voters.
2. The Press is run by Liberals. You admit that. Then, you bring in 'Rachel Marsden' - which was reported only in the National Post - and I have my doubts about the veracity of that story. I could equally say that the Liberal Party, with its support for Pettigrew and his expenses, for Volpe and his expenses, for Hedy Fry and her 'people are burning crosses', their support for the Health Minister and so on...have problems. The NDP - and Svend Robinson. etc.
3. That's a strange statement that you make - 'Who cares Alberta needs to separate'? Do you mean that you don't care? Then why don't you openly say so? Do you mean that all of Canada doesn't care? Then provide proof. Do you mean Albertans? Then provide proof.
4. Don't insult people. That's juvenile. Don't flit into this blog to sneer, to insult, to drop obtuse 'one-liners'...It is childish to say that you come to this blog only to 'feel really really smart'. If you need that kind of psychological lift from a blog - then, it's evidence that you feel incompetent the rest of the time outside of this blog.
So- either don't come to the blog (because you are really smart and don't need anyone to make you feel that way) - or, if you come - then come as an equal. Provide facts, discuss issues and - don't, don't, insult people.
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-27 8:07:17 AM
There is more to this than CP will tell. What is below the surface? More of AdScam Martin's "democratic deficit"? >>>
Ukrainian-Cdns protest Ignatieff's bid for T.O. riding
TORONTO (CP) - Toronto residents with Ukrainian roots are protesting Michael Ignatieff's bid to run for the Liberals in their riding.
The Etobicoke-Lakeshore riding is held by Liberal MP Jean Augustine but she has reportedly resigned so Ignatieff can run for election.
It was long thought that Ignatieff was being courted by the Liberals.
The 58-year-old celebrated academic, journalist and novelist gave the keynote address at the Liberal Party national convention last March.
Members of the Etobicoke Lakeshore Federal Liberal Riding Association claim the Liberals are trying to make it easy on Ignatieff at the expense of other contenders.
The group also claims Ignatieff has no ties to the Ukranian community and worse, has actually disrespected the community's heritage in one of his books. >>>
via cnews
Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Gargle search knows re Mikhail Ignatieff ( Ignatieff's father was a nobleman of the pre-revolutionary Tsarist Russian aristocracy, serving the Tsar as the last education minister; thus the learned Dr. M. Ignatieff). Welcome to the "Thrash Ukraine Club" Dr. Ignatieff. Did CP mention this to Canadians? (Answer to rhetorical question = Nyet). Note also the reference to Morley Safer: born in Toronto. >>>
Excerpt:
I welcome Mr. Klebnikov, who speaks Russian but not Ukrainian, to the Thrash Ukraine Club which includes such malefactors as Stephen Budiansky (who demonized Bohdan Khmelnytsky in U.S. News and World Report), Abraham Brumberg (who condemned "creeping Ukrainization" in eastern Ukraine in the New York Review of Books), Thomas M. Nichols (who compared Ukrainian behavior to that of Libya, North Korea, and Iraq in the Christian Science Monitor), Michael Ignatieff (who moaned on PBS TV that the children of Russians in eastern Ukraine were being "tyrannized" into learning Ukrainian in school), and, of course, that old miscreant Morley Safer, the 1994 winner of the Walter Duranty Award for Journalist Dissimilitude. >>>>
http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1996/379618.shtml
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-11-27 12:29:28 PM
Ignatieff supported the illegal invasion of Iraq which many of you US-government propangandists loved.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-11-27 1:10:16 PM
Justin- grow up. Don't insult people. If you come to this blog, be prepared to substantiate your comments, and treat people as equals.
First- a lot of people, including myself, supported the invasion of Iraq. It was not illegal. It is absolutely unthinkable for the nations of the world to abrogate their sovereignty and hand it over to the UN. That must never happen; i.e., the world must never set up a decision-making body that is only a bureaucratic body, without direct representation of the local population. Government must never move out of the hands of the people. That's what would happen if you handed over all decisions to the UN.
Furthermore, as a bureaucracy, the UN is not capable of ethical decision-making - witness its incapability of acting in Rwanda, the Sudan, Bosnia, etc, etc; witness its extreme corruption in its activities in Iraq.
The US war in Iraq was and remains, legal. Remember, the US Senate approved it. The US, unlike Canada, is a democracy and the president's office cannot make unilateral decisions. I hope you haven't become an apologist (propagandist?) for Saddam Hussein.
I was, and remain, a strong supporter of the war in Iraq and feel ashamed that Canada, which has shown itself as incapable of making its own decisions, refused to participate, abrogating all decisions to the UN - and we now realize that the basic reason was an underlying corruption scheme, where the UN/France/and Canada (Chretien and the Desmarais gang) were involved in the Oil-Food fraud in Iraq.
I won't repeat, here, my reasons for my support for the Iraq war - which have to do, apart from the ethics of standing by and allowing a vicious dictator to murder his own people - with population demographics and tribalism/fascism.
Justin- grow up. Stop zipping by here, with your one-line insults. Answer questions that are put to you and stop, stop, insulting people. That's the behaviour of a child.
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-27 1:33:57 PM
More defeatism from the MSM, alias "CTV" : To h*ll with you, CTV. Iraqis dodged bullets & death to vote for freedom and democracy. This Canadian says : Bring the election on: come winter snow, hail, freezing rain, sunshine, or Librano$ corruption. This freedom fighter demands his right to vote; stand up for the vote, Canadians. To h*ll with "CTV", Bell, CBC, Post, & Librano$$$$$$$$$ corruption. >>>
OTTAWA - Being unable to pound in lawn signs or encountering voters who don't want to lose heat by opening their doors are two problems politicians will likely face if they hit the hustings this winter. (CTV)
via primetimecrime.com
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-11-27 2:02:41 PM
"I hope you haven't become an apologist (propagandist?) for Saddam Hussein."
This proves you are a dumb idiot not worth my time.
"Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record, according to the country’s first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam’s regime."
Now shut your mouth ET.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-11-27 5:05:49 PM
Justin -again - stop insulting people. And stop presenting yourself as Superior. If you consider that we waste your time here, then, you shouldn't come to this blog.
You obviously don't want to discuss anything. You refuse to answer any questions!! I've asked you questions- you never answer; others ask you questions - you never answer.
I know you are a Liberal, but, you are presenting an image of "Liberalism' in a very bad light. You, a Liberal, refuse to answer questions; you refuse accountability; you constantly belittle and insult people; you constantly inform people that you are superior to them. This is the Liberal image that we see in Question Period, in the comments of key Liberal Ministers - but, it's an image of a political people who have become arrogant. Why do you prefer this type of behaviour? Why do you constantly insult people?
A key aspect of 'media savvy' is not to swallow, like a sponge, everything you read. Do you believe everything you read in the MSM? Why? If a defeated minister says X, does this statement automatically become truth? Because the ex-Iraqi Prime Minister said X, that doesn't make it true! Surely, you, who self-define yourself as wise, ought to know this!
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-27 7:20:01 PM
Justin WWII was a lot worse for the Allies in 1942 than it was at the start in 1939. At that 1942 point in time, would that mean the appeasing policies of Chamberlain were right and Churchill was wrong to declare War? Unfortunately this kind of a discussion is a waste of time because you won’t respond to an attempted dialogue.
We’re entering an election that’s partly about the Liberal crush of any dissention.
Not wanting to crush dissention without a fair hearing, the question is:
Is Justin a dissenter, a Liberal that we conservatives should tolerate?
Or
Is Justin simply a rude troll that doesn’t tolerate us therefore we should not tolerate Justin?
Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-11-27 8:00:19 PM
I'm not a Liberal you ShotDumbers but that's all you can think of cause you can only think in binary.
Don't like the invasion of Iraq? Then you must like Saddam! Don't like Harper - then you must be Liberal!
Well sorry but geo-politics is a bit more complicated than Coke vs. Pepsi but I'm never going to make you understand that since it's apparently in your genetic makeup to think simply.
I also love how it's all 'political ethics' with you people when it comes to the Liberals but with Mr.Bush whose admin is chin-deep in legal problems it's all fine.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-11-27 11:16:55 PM
Jaws... Liberal Jaws.... Librano$ sharks with big rotten Jaws... AdScam Martin's democratic deficit live, red in tooth and Jaws ******* Mikhail Ignatieff is shark-meat... eaten by his own Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Accusations of rigging
Etobicoke-Lakeshore nomination turns ugly
By KATHLEEN HARRIS, OTTAWA BUREAU, SUN MEDIA
Liberals set to fall
Grits pre-election spending soars
OTTAWA -- Liberal Party brass are under fire from rank-and-file Grits and Ukrainian-Canadians, who accuse them of rigging the nomination process to crown a preferred star candidate in a west Toronto riding.
Outraged Liberals protested outside the Toronto party headquarters yesterday over a "flawed" process in the Etobicoke-Lakeshore riding.
They claim the party is plotting to sideline local candidates to "parachute" in Michael Ignatieff, a high-profile Harvard academic and writer.
But the raging controversy doesn't end there. Members of the riding's sizable Ukrainian-Canadian community are also outraged that Ignatieff, who they label a "virulent Ukrainophobe," is even in the running.
Paul Grod, vice-president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, said Ignatieff, 58, has a long history of being "chauvinistic" towards Ukrainians, including a derogatory characterization in his book Blood and Belonging.
"As a community, we're quite uncomfortable he will be representing the Liberal Party and Canadians as a member of Parliament," Grod said.
LAST-MINUTE RUSH
Marc Shwec, a director of finance for the CIBC and potential candidate, believes he was shafted by a heavy-handed, undemocratic process.>>>
via cnews
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-11-28 7:42:40 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.