The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, April 24, 2008
I wonder if they will thank me?
I don't like to brag.
But I would be remiss if I didn't point out an interesting fact: I am doing a better job of defending Prime Minister Harper over this Elections Canada mess than is the Junior Kindergarten class now operating the Prime Minister's Office.
By contrast, I have been in the media on an almost daily basis: in the National Post, in the Globe and Mail, on Newsworld, on Newsnet, on Global TV and on the radio, hammering home the point that Elections Canada might be carrying out a vendetta to hurt Stephen Harper.
And now, thanks to my almost single-handed efforts, the press is beginning to pick up on this theme.
Oh and if you guys at the PMO are reading this, put down your crayons because I have some free advice for you.
Use this battle with Elections Canada to mobilize your base. Shoot out a letter/email to your supporters explaining how unelected, biased bureaucrats are unfairly using their power to undermine the Prime Minister just so they can settle an old score.
If you need help writing it, just let me know.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on April 24, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I wonder if they will thank me?:
Ha, good job, Gerry. I wonder if Harper couldn't use advice in other areas from sincere, conservative critics.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-24 8:50:39 AM
"I don't like to brag."
The evidence of this post suggests otherwise, but whatever....
I read Hebert's column and noticed one interesting thing: She does not say or suggest that Elections Canada has a "vendetta" against the Conservatives. She does seem to think the EC rules are too strict and does say that given EC's actions, they had better be right that the Cons were up to no good or else the fall-out could be bad, but she says nothing to suggest that she thinks that the Cons are innocent and being singled out in any way.
If that is what you think amounts to single-handedly swaying the minds of the media, then you are really too busy patting yourself on the back to notice that no influence is evident.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-24 9:06:57 AM
I guess you must have missed this sentence.
A failure to make a persuasive case against the Conservatives would bolster allegations that vindictiveness played a part in its approach.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-24 9:24:54 AM
If by "pick up on this theme" Gerry meant that the press has noticed that some are complaining that EC is being vindictive, then sure, Hebert does that. But if by "pick up on this theme" he means the press gives it any credence, then he is wrong. Hebert decidedly does not do that. And if he DOES mean the former, then it is such a small "victory" that his request to be thanked looks quite pathetic.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-24 11:51:25 AM
Gerry noticed the phrase ‘bolster allegations that vindictiveness played a part' and ran with it.
The way I understood the post was that because he has been a much sought-after commentator on this issue, it has at least given Chantal Hebert a different perspective than the foaming-at-the-mouth opposition.
It's really quite that simple.
But since I do not speak on his behalf, perhaps he could clarify which interpretation is more accurate.
Thanks for your reponse.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-24 11:57:38 AM
Ain't nothin vindictive about the activities of Elections Canada, they just playin old fashioned Grit politics,I see the hand and eyballs of the master manipulator Jean, grab dem by da throte
Chretien. Chretien's God son Dominic whatshis name is now playin in da game, despite the fact that he is aHarvard trained Lawyer (you might ask: "so what?)
don't mean nuttin in ole New Brunswick, where thieves stole a rare South American monkey from
a Saint John NB ZOO, when apprehended they will say da Monkey reminded him of Chretien or perhaps their kids. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2008-04-24 12:09:47 PM
This is quite a ridiculous string of postings if you ask me...i'm sure no one did so i'll inject them here anyways.
I think someone should tell the CONservatives that the when you govern your forced to be accountable - like it or not. Often you find yourself defending the inner workings of running a country - can't make everyone happy all the time that's for sure. But what the conservatives have done is give everyone a reason to make them defend what they themselves are doing. None of what is happening has anything to do with running the country but at the same time has everythign to do with running the country.
What bothers me more than anything is the conservatives assume that Canadians, regardless of the right or wrong interpretation of Election law believe that somehow bulking up local candidates accounts with their money and then taking it back in order to garner a 60% refund doesn't amount to fraud. To me this has nothign to do with advertising and everything to do with integrity. (I'll be the first to admit - Libs haven't/aren't perfect either...thats whats so sad about all of this)
To believe that Canadian tax payers money should be reimbursed to conservative candidates for money provided from the National conservative party is ludicris.
Posted by: Jamie | 2008-04-24 12:30:43 PM
The conspiracy theory of a 'vendetta' against the HarperCONs is hilarious!
Which of the Harper appointees in Elections Canada has it out for the HarperCONs?
Or was it the Mulroney appointees they replaced?
Man up, CONs; you got CAUGHT cooking the books.
You guys are the Grant Devine crew for the 21st century.
Posted by: joe bleau | 2008-04-24 12:54:50 PM
You don't know nothin about how Elections are financed, maybe you believe in the Tooth Fairy.
The late George Hawkins, Lawyer, Businessman,son
of a Liberal Nova Scotia Senator forced the venerable Nova Scotia Liberal Party to account for monies they obtained illegally,for which a well known Liberal accounting firm saw one of their august corporation convicted of fraud. In fact those
illegal funds were discovered by the MacDonald Royal Commission on organized crime in Quebec.Who represnted the then Liberal government of Canada,Barrister Martin Brian Mulroney QC, later an all star Federal candidate who was elected mostly because of his hard hitting investigation
which focused on "tail gating" taking a stipend for the Party on each case of booze sold to the Province of N.S. -The Tories under Saint Robert Stanfield QC, did the same thing, but the Liberals of the period kept immaculate records, all of which were in the possession of fearless George Hawkins. The concept being: when in doubt; Cheat! jeez it's an imperfect world. I hope the Saint John Zoo get their Monkey back or a reasonable facsimile (the little rascal really does look like Chretien) MacLeod thanks for a good chuckle. They don't teach Election Fixing in Politcal Science 101, (at the moment).
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2008-04-24 12:55:24 PM
What your post needs is some time context, not self-righteous blather about an unrelated subject.
This is a dispute about accounting procedures which were generally accepted at the time of the last election.
The NDP has already said it used the same time of accounting processes and the Libs ... well, they out-and-out used stolen taxpayers money to fund their campaigns, as the Adscam inquiry clearly demonstrated.
Since the accounting procedure used during the last election campaign was the same for all parties and had been accepted practise, what's needed is a clarification of accepted accounting practises.
On the other hand, wasn't Elections Canada original purpose to ensure ethical election-day activities?
Why is it Elections Canada's business to set limits on how much a party can spend during an election?
If it's true that a party which spends the most money on advertising during election campaign always wins the election because of the mony spent on advertising, then the Republican Party in the US would always ben in power. Capiche?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-24 12:57:07 PM
Somewhere in Saint John there is a monkey cage missing its Jack MacLeod.
Posted by: Feces Eating Buddha | 2008-04-24 12:58:13 PM
So your the asshole that stole da monkey, probably looks just like ya, the big question in New Brunswwick is: Should da little Monkey be bilingual
-of course,never pass on an opportunity to provide a better future for our animal friends. Dos'ent take too much to get your Aids infected Socialists pissed off. Jeez where is Scotty Brison when the Party
needs him, he wants his own monkey, actually it looks like he married one. Tut Tut MacLeod Halifax Media will gleefully re publish the entire Tailgating" Scandel, can hardly wait. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2008-04-24 1:09:43 PM
LOL! CON stories are all about fraud, break ins, monkey nappings, sleaze, graft, crooks and thieves=CONservative politics! MacLeod has to be one of the biggest clowns around! Figures he is a gay Mulroney lover! He is a Pastor Ted Haggard denier! LOL!
Then there is Gerry Nichols! LOL! He so desperately wants to be thanked, he is even floating the idea himself, hoping Harper will pat him on the head and throw him a sausage! LOL! Pathetic! To read Nichols's version, he is a one-man storm that is changing world history by the persuasive power of his keyboard! If you randomly asked 1,000 people on any street corner in Canada if they had ever heard of Nichols or read anything by him, they would scratch their heads and say, "Nope." LOL! So some unappreciated scribe toils away in anonymity while deluding himself of his own greatness--a Napoleon at the keyboard, unheralded in his own time, hoping for van Gogh greatness in the years to come! LOL! That New Brunswick baby monkey is more famous than Nichols is ever going to be! LOL! Harsh but true! Oh the pain and anguish!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 1:45:58 PM
I don't like to brag, but I am the greatest! LOL! That about sums up poor Nichols's piece.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 1:47:19 PM
I think we all know who stole the monkey.
Roger, your girlfriend must be stopped.
Posted by: dp | 2008-04-24 1:51:22 PM
You must be mistaken.
Roger has no friends.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-24 1:55:13 PM
HARPER'S CORRUPTION NOW BATTLES IT OUT FOR AIR TIME with tales of monkey nappings! LOL! Harper is all monkey business! Will someone please give Nichols some peanuts and bananas in recognition of his service to the party? Maybe a toy medal from a novelty store could salve his wounded pride? Please, please throw him a bone! If everyone who reads Nichols's columns sends in a buck, there ought to be enough to buy him a burger and coke at McD's.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 2:08:36 PM
In roger's world women are not friends, they're work benches.
Posted by: dp | 2008-04-24 2:12:55 PM
Thanks Gerry. The PMO may listen, if not they'll be hearing from we little folks, the big supporters. They'll find out they can't fly without fuel.
'Do think Harper has a handle on things, we'll hear form him in due course on the matter. He will win this one too.
Is there anything we can do about the LOL'ing hyena while we deal with more serious matters? Asking he/she/it to STFU just won't be heeded but shunning would help.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-24 2:19:29 PM
LOL! Liz J wants only like-minded people here.
That Charles Adler On Line radio interview with CON MP spokesperson Pierre Poilievre is embarrassing to listen to--Poor Pierre was pummelled! LOL! Harper and the CONs are done! Toast. Done to a cinder! LOL!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 2:25:31 PM
HARPER SCANDALS ARE ERUPTING EVERYWHERE NOW. The CON artist Party response? Out of the Conrad the thief Black playbook: Sue everyone in sight to shut them up! LOL! Didn't work in the end for Black, won't work for Harper! Harper is probably trying to cop a plea bargain to shut down criminal charges! LOL!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 2:29:54 PM
Liz- Shunning only works on people who want to belong. Someone with absolutely no connection to society actually thrives on it. Why do you think some of the mainstream religious cults keep showing up at your door? The rejection reinforces their belief that they are flying above the people that shun them.
Oh my god. Roger's a missionary. Who could have guessed?
Posted by: dp | 2008-04-24 2:31:51 PM
Typical Nicholls piece. Everyone, including in the media, is laughing behind his back, and he thinks he is a big hero.
Remember this is the "economic brainiac" who decided to turn on all his lights, including those he never uses, during Earth Hour just to prove a "point" -- with the point being: "Hi, my name is Gerry, and I am more than happy to fork over even more money to the hydro company."
Posted by: Werner Patels | 2008-04-24 3:25:44 PM
Werner Patels, having the media laughing behind ones back is a bad thing?
Many of us did exactly the same thing Gerry did, turn on all lights for the appointed hour. Our hydro bill was not affected because the rest of the time we are careful users of energy. This was done to make a point and whole neighborhoods were lit up for the same reason. What is your problem with that?
If you're feeling mean, 100% bran cereal can help.
Again, thanks Gerry, you will be heeded, I'm sure of it in this case.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-24 3:55:53 PM
Jamie: "To believe that Canadian tax payers money should be reimbursed to conservative candidates for money provided from the National conservative party is ludicris [sic]"
The only problem with your "thinking," Jamie, is that both the Dippers and the Librano$ were reimbursed for the same kind of party financing. Maybe none of the parties should be reimbursed--I can go along with that thinking, which I would call "logical"--but not the idea that the Dippers and Librano$ are, somehow, special, which is why they got their money back, but the CPC need to be punished because they're not, uh, "special."
Posted by: batb | 2008-04-25 5:49:41 AM
Gheez, after reading all these anti- Lib/con posts a man could start to believe that they are all filth and that they don't deserve to make rules for me. Hmmmm
Posted by: abc | 2008-04-26 6:30:18 PM
PM's PR and Marketing group is a Crayola special.
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-04-26 8:08:21 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.