The Shotgun Blog
Monday, February 13, 2006
Hasn't anyone explored the issue of Garth Turner's criticism of Stephen Harper and David Emerson in terms of his being bitter at being over-looked for a cabinet post. After all, fellow Kim Campbell-era colleague Rob Nicholson is back in cabinet. Why might Harper have overlooked a GTA MP with previous cabinet experience? Could it be that Turner is not without controversy, if not actual small-time scandal, himself. Globeinvestor.com reported in 2002 (via TDH Strategies):
"As in his advertorials, Turner elides the distinction between advertising and information as principal owner of Millennium Media Television, which produces 250 shows annually, many of them broadcast on the Global and CTV networks. As the CBC-TV program Disclosure revealed, some of Turner's shows-company profiles-do not make clear that they are paid for by the featured companies, the aim being to enhance their investment appeal."
More information on the minor controversy at the CBC (2002).
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Garth Turner:
There's not a single politician alive who doesn't have a skeleton or two rattling around in the closet, eh?
At least Garth Turner isn't the Finance Minister.
Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle | 2006-02-13 9:29:02 AM
A Different Name: But Is The Political Brand Still The Same?
By Stephen Gray
Why all the fuss about the latest floor crossing politician. He is still a Liberal/Conservative and supports “liberal values.” He even said he joined a “moderate” Conservative Party. Surely everyone knows what “moderate” means by now? Translated it means no danger to the status quo. Just carrying on an old “principle” like appointing senators. And crossing the floor to take a cabinet position. Heck, its almost as if the Liberal Party is still in power. No wonder many big names are not running for the Liberal leadership. How can you run against a party that does similar things that you did and puts down the welcome mat for a political floor crosser, and also appoints an instant senator to an important portfolio. The appointed and the anointed take precedent over the elected party members. Hey, some of these real Conservatives must be wondering why they even bothered running for election, when a floor crossing Liberal, and an non-elected appointee from the most favored province, gets first class positions. Could these be called political compromising positions?
The position some people cannot understand is: Why are the people of this floor crosser’s riding upset? They voted for a Federal Liberal Party that has been accused of political malfeasance. Millions of theirs and our tax dollars are still missing over AdScam, so the question to them might be: If the Liberal Party was ethically and morally challenged, why are they surprised at this betrayal by a Liberal crossing the floor to the Conservative Party? Does this not show Liberal consistency? And why are they upset? After all the floor crosser did say he would be the “worst enemy” of the leader of the Conservative Party. So why are these people annoyed? They now have a guy on the inside. What could be better than that? Who knows he might even run for the Conservative leadership someday!! Hey, it doesn’t get much better than this. So be patient you Liberals in this floor crosser’s constituency. It’s only political business. In fact one talk show host was heard to say about the floor crosser: “He thought of this as a business deal.” To which a cynic might say, “monkey business” would be a more appropriate comment. And a defender of this floor crosser to the Conservatives wrote; “when the barnyard has to be cleaned up, everybody gets a bit dirty.” He’s right on the political farm with that one. Now both political parties are covered in manure. Still another big wig in the Conservative party had this to say about Mr. Floor Crosser: "I said to… [him], 'Listen, you have to look at it very simply. The premier of this province, every key business group and person has been on the phone, on the radio, to the media, saying, 'Hey, this is a great move.'" Wow, what does this say about the “ethics” and “principles” of the powerful? And another Tory politician who welcomed his new floor crossing colleague to the “conservative” party had this to say: “Loyalty is a scarce commodity in public life.” No kidding!! That apt comment surely sums it all up.
Anyway, one must not get too cynical, politics is one of the oldest and honorable professions, that’s why politicians get the title “honorable.” Mind you this election was supposed to be about a “fresh start” and a “new way” of doing politics. And it was said that “ethics” and “principles” would replace the old way of doing things. The election campaign was all about “change” and “standing up for Canada.” Well, this guy did “change” and he did “stand up,” he crossed the floor and joined the others who were “standing up for Canada.” He now has the title “honorable member” of the Conservative Party, but he did say, there was not much difference between the two parties and there is nothing “superficial” about that. Even though his “new” party has a different name from his old one, one wonders is the political brand still the same?
February 12, 2006.
[email protected] Website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-02-13 9:56:08 AM
His investment guru scam is the past. It's the future that matters most.
What Garth Turner is guilty of at the moment is letting his constituents down by shooting himself in the foot.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-02-13 9:56:24 AM
Bash the CBC or quote the CBC? Which ever works in your favour I guess.
Myron Thompson? Oh, he's from Alberta, so even though he SAYS he doesn't support Emerson's crossing, he must really support it. Garth Turner on the other hand? What a traitor!
Martin does shady things in office = outcry. Harper less than squeaky clean in the first week = "Standing up for Canada"
Yes, this is a great sense of morals, loyalty and reputability the Western Standard is showing. bWhich aisle are the flip-flops in again?
Posted by: Jarvis | 2006-02-13 9:58:56 AM
All conservatives voters should be ashamed. Goes to show Stephen Harper really could give a rats ass about democracy.
Posted by: Dean Loucks | 2006-02-13 10:06:00 AM
Has anyone thought that maybe Garth Turner is standing up for what he and his constituents believe in? And maybe that the Conservatives should practice what they preach?
Perhaps its only okay to "Stand Up For Canada" when it supports the status quo of the Conservatives in power. As a Liberal voter, I was going to give Prime Minister Harper a chance to prove himself... it took the Liberals 12 years to become that arrogant, it took the Conservatives just over 12 days, now wonder we have a cynical electorate.
Posted by: James | 2006-02-13 10:34:05 AM
I find it amazing that anybody can justify the Harper appointments. And the only thing Garth Turner is bitter about is the fact that his party is playing a "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" with Canadians. The constituents of Vancouver- Kingsway obviously voted against Conservative representation, so shame on Wonderboy for sheep-stealing from such a Liberal-rich riding (not to mention his crony appointment to the Senate - but that's another diatribe).
On the other hand, a movie could not have been scripted any better to encourage Liberal Party momentum, and in 18 months you guys are back to where you started. Too bad, so sad!!
Posted by: Sheldon from Toronto | 2006-02-13 10:35:02 AM
If you disagree with the message,shoot the messenger.
Posted by: James Young | 2006-02-13 11:03:58 AM
Hey can anyone tell me why the Western Standard home page is down?
Posted by: Northern Nut | 2006-02-13 11:13:02 AM
Northern Nut, my guess is that the site being down probably has something to do with the fact that the magazine published the dreaded cartoons of death. They are either being flooded by interested readers or falling victim to denial of service attacks.
Posted by: Crammed | 2006-02-13 12:38:37 PM
It looks like the rabble got a license to babble...
Anyway, I tend to look at like this:
We have just landed a $250,000 contract with a very large client, whom we have been chasing for 13 years. It is our first contract with this client, and has the potential to grow 10-fold this year if we perform well in this first phase. There is also the probability for a multi-year contract based on successful completion of the second ($2,500,000) phase.
The contract involves a project that will require a new computer. The project will run for 2 months, and I have specific OS and hardware requirements.
In addition, I have a time constraint - I MUST have the new hardware in place in 2 days.
It will take 10 days for my preferred supplier to deliver a new machine that meets my complete specifications.
It will take me one day to refurbish an existing spare machine, however the refurbished machine will not be a perfect match to the required specifications. It may exceed specifications in some cases, and will be below spec in others.
What do I do?
1) Tell my boss that I can not provide her with the required hardware in time and that we will have to cancel our contract with client. In that case, it is quite unlikely that we will land this client again in the near future. And it is certain that we will need to forgo up to $2,750,000 in revenue - a substantial amount for our small company.
2) Order the new hardware, AND refurbish the surplus machine. When the new hardware arrives, transfer the project to the new hardware. Tell my boss afterwards.
3) Tell my boss that I intend to order the new hardware, AND refurbish the surplus machine. When the new hardware arrives, transfer the project to the new hardware.
It seems that Garth Turner and most of the rabble would choose #1.
PM Harper seems to have chosen #2
I would probably choose #3 (although I used to do #2, but there was a problem where, if the boss finds out what I did, she gets very upset. It just seems easier to outline the plan before I go forward), since I have learned from my mistakes.
There are 2 important lessons here. First, there is practically no difference between #2 and #3, other than a "head's up".
Second, and more important, is that my boss afforded me the chance to learn from my mistakes, rather than firing me the first time I made a questionable choice.
I can do no less for my employee, PM Harper.
Posted by: Another Sean | 2006-02-13 1:16:29 PM
I can give you a hint as to why their website is down. It has something to do with the HUGE mistake they made publishing the Muslim cartoons. What were they thinking?! There is a fine line and there a few that wish to cross it, and Western Standard stepped up to the plate. I was very relieved to find out that this magazine is in Calgary and not here. Although, I am still embarassed as a Canadian, knowing that we as a country have always boasted about our multi-culturalism...and yet...some idiot has to cry for "freedom of speech" instead of "religious slander". Any magazine, radio or television station can report on the happenings in our world in regard to the current Muslim outcries, without printing the offensive caricatures. How can Levant possibly say that if the Jewish community were causing problems, that he would publish cartoons depicting the Holocaust??? Please tell me, have any of the Muslim community in Canada been burning down embassies or throwing rocks at any Western building? No, because they are Canadian just as you are. There have been protests, but they have been peaceful, just as any other group in Canada that has been slighted in the past. These comments and obvious disregard for other people say a hell of a lot about the editor of this paper, and the magazine itself...and not in a positive light either.
To Levant, please think about the black mark you have just put on Canada. I hope your one time windfall from the other idiots that buy your magazine is worth it. To the "cowboys" in our great country, thank you so much...unbelievable.
Posted by: Tammy from Edmonton | 2006-02-13 2:59:52 PM
Maybe this was why;
Posted by: Peter | 2008-02-10 8:54:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.