01.15.2011 07:30 AM

Sucky sucky babies

Boy oh boy, this’ll set the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons.

I should be able to speak my mind on political issues, but I’ve found members of the Conservative party seem to be more sensitive to criticism than other parties,” she says. “They make it very personal.”

That was much-quoted political scientist Heather MacIvor speaking to my friend Linda Diebel, and it got me nodding my early-morning head, big time.

It’s true.

More than any other partisans, Conservatives can’t take a punch without crying about it. They can’t. They will flood your inbox, or your comments, with angry and abusive emails.  They’ll call others a “Lie-beral” and a “leftard” and whatnot, for sure, and they do that sort of thing a lot. But if someone like me actually gives them some of their own medicine in a column or on a TV panel or what have you, they’ll start shrieking like babies about the “lamestream” media’s “left-lib” bias, how they are always being unfairly targeted, blah blah blah. Happens without fail.

I’ve been doing this web site thing for a decade, and I can tell you that it is very, very rare for a Conservative to actually say “yeah, you’re right” when they are on the receiving end of a criticism. Most of the time, they go completely apeshit – Hell, all the National Post does, most days, is rush to soothe the hurt feelings of conservatives, and defend every bloody thing they do, no matter how idiotic. It’s like Prof. MacIvor says: they can’t take it.

When it comes to criticism, partisan Conservatives are sucky sucky babies. They’re the Touchy Tories.©

Now, let’s see how they react in comments, shall we?  This will be interesting.


  1. Scott Tribe says:

    It’s not just your website Warren.. Read any number of Liberal or Progressive blogs comments sections dealing with an attack on their Conservative heroes.. and you’ll see a long line of angry retorts.. or 90% of the Blogging Tories blogposts.

  2. smelter rat says:

    Cue: wilson, ridenrain, canadiansense, paul s, et al.

    • PETE says:

      Those names are synonomous with the WK “attributes” about them. I know that Canadian Sense, for one, has several other aliases including a Zachary Smith that I’ve seen on Nanos’ site. Most posters accuse them of actually working for the reformatorts.

  3. Steve says:

    What kills me, all the former white knight Cons who were going to bring transparency and openness to Ottawa are now DEAD QUIET, even though their government is the most secretive, controlling, NON TRANSPARENT, NON OPEN, NON DEMOCRATIC in relevant history. The ability to toss all their supposed core beliefs aside so they can cling to POWER is absolutely amazing.

    Biggest charlatans I’ve seen following politics, on either side of the border.

  4. Ted says:

    As Josh Marshall put the other day about Palin: “Today has been set aside to honor the victims of the Tucson massacre. And Sarah Palin has apparently decided she?s one of them.”

    You think comments on Liberal sites are bad. Try commenting, and being deliberately over-the-top civil and courteous, on a conservative site! They’ll even reverse their own views just to attack.

    I actually don’t think the vitriol of leftwing or rightwing bloggers is, overall, that much different, but the thin skin, inability to take a punch is absolutely and definitely a hallmark of the strong conservative. Just as much a core identity as deficits, squandering international relations, dividing the nation, throwing people in jail and tax cuts regardles off finances.

    • If you look at the political map from 1970-2008 dividing up Canada has been by the norm for a very long time. Today the Liberals have been reduced to Vancouver, GTA, Montreal Island for the bulk of their seats while the NDP, Bloc and CPC have been growing. The Liberals were able to take advantage of the destruction of the PC’s by the Reform and Bloc for a period of time in the 1990’s. Warren was correct to worry about the centre right getting its at together again. The result is we find the LPOC in dire straits with the potential loss of the political subsidy may end up closing their doors in 2012 when the CPC gain a majority.

      The Liberals future depends on the NDP repeating their mistakes with minorities of PET and Martin. If the NDP work with the Conservatives the Liberals will cease to exist as a federal party.

      Will Layton repeat the past or learn from them.

      • smelter rat says:

        Right wingers also like to try changing the channel.

        • I have been told we are too sensitive, more secretive and divisive than previous governments. The political map, accountability act does not reflect those talking points. We don’t have the corruption and scandals that we had during the Liberal – PC decades.

          We had an AG report praise the work in Afghanistan and at home regarding the largest stimulus program in Canadian history.

          Many of us thought we would have serious problems with the rush to spend and the size.

      • James Curran says:

        I wonder which party gets the most subsidies at present. Oh. That’s right. The Conservative party. Funny that.

        • James,

          It does not change the fact the opposition parties rely on it more heavily from 50-70% of their revenue. For the CPC is accounts for 33%?

          The CPC earn ten million and have decided they can give it up but the Liberals earn seven million and will not survive without it.

          If I am wrong why is no party stating they can do without the taxpayer welfare that was criticized by many Liberals at the time and some have said it was done to destroy the Martin legacy?

          • Bob C. says:

            CanadianSence…… The majority of CPC funding, and for that matter all other parties funding, comes from the Consolidated Revenue Fund either directly or indirectly. As the majority of CPC financial contributors donate small amounts (under $400.00 per year), they get 75% of that back as non-refundable tax credits. In 2009 the CPC received $17.7 M in donations which resulted in lost tax revenue of over $10M for Canadians in general. So to say that the CPC get only 33% of its revenue in subsidies is totally false (better still it is an outright lie). The percentage of taxpayer subsidies that the CPC gets would be closer to 75%. Ya need to look at the whole picture there buddy boy!

          • Ted says:

            When you factor in the far costlier, less democratic tax deduction subsidy, it soars way above 33%. When I get the chance I will actually sit down and calculate the amount, just to burst this silly little talking point falsehood.

          • Keith Meisenheimer says:

            70 % of Canadians don’t buy RRSPs or private pension plans because they can’t afford to .

            harper expects 70 % to contribute their money to political parties ? NO

            harper is a Straussian elitist . Government by the top 30 % of society .

      • hugger says:

        What does any of that have to do with the points made in the post you were responding to?

        The only thing I see that is remotely close was a reference to dividing the nation, which was referring to CPC efforts to divide Canadians based on regional, cultural or language sentiments. An area where the right wing blogs fit in nicely.

        • The disconnect of Liberals appears to be the problem. If Toronto-GTA+Montreal 37 seats out of 77 account for 48% of your seats and you refer to your party as a credible national alternative how logical are the other talking points raised in Ted from 9:03 post.

          I picked up divisive comment because if you can’t get figure out Toronto-Montreal don’t make up the majority of Canada than the rest is pointless.

          • hugger says:

            1. As Josh Marshall put the other day about Palin:
            2. You think comments on Liberal sites are bad.
            3. I actually don’t think the vitriol of leftwing or rightwing bloggers is,
            4. but the thin skin, inability to take a punch is absolutely and definitely a hallmark of the strong conservative.

            How are those talking points? They seem entirely relevant to the thread to me, unlike your post.

        • Keith Meisenheimer says:

          Strassian elites don’t want government supporting political parties of the rabble and they certainly can’t take criticism from these ignorant little people .

          THATS WHAT these points have to do with Warren’s post

  5. Anne Peterson says:

    Oh, how right you are about that. If you need proof anyone, read the Progressive Bloggers site and then read the Blogging Tories site. LIke different species. The tories are trying to emulate the US right, I guess, where venom and nutsy rhetoric rules.

  6. James says:

    But Warren, you seem to be a big fan of Kory Teneycke, and he’s the prototypical Tory whiner; I don’t think I’ve heard anyone disclaim the “lamestream” media and”Liberal bias” more than Kory.

  7. An interesting analysis on “touchy tories”. The current government runs a tight ship with very few leaks or internal squabbles becoming fodder. The government has pushed back on the PPG and has by passed them for local, ethnic media. Some believe it has hurt them fighting with the press.

    The media obsession of the “Holy host”, arriving 120 seconds later behind Obama for a photograph for G20, stating prorogue is a threat to democracy for a 17 sitting day break during the Olympics?

    That letter read in parliament about the security breach and witchunt after Helena by the left calling for her head, Ignatieff on CTV Question Period linked organized crime to Jaffer “contents” because you can’t buy that stuff in the convenience store.

    I am impressed by the name calling for not agreeing with transfers of billions in carbon taxes to dictatorships, buying giant bird choppers and having my hydro rates jump by 30% for not buying into CAGW.

    • James Curran says:

      And right on cue…..

      • James your non rebuttal is on “right on cue”. We both had our little back and forth a few months ago about the Liberal math need another refresher how that worked out?

        Today the Liberals are in their most vulnerable state of affairs. If the CPC win a majority the funding will be stripped and as much as 50% will not longer be available for the Federal Liberals. Your own posts reflect the problems of leadership-dictatorship at LPOC.

        I could produce a series of quotes from active Liberal MPs that share your views of the current direction and leadership. The party is divided still and airs their laundry in public.

        The government is framing the next election and the Liberals can’t stop it. Canadians will have a choice a majority CPC or a coalition of the Lib-NDP with the Bloc MPs. If the Lib-NDP were to win more seats most of us would have NO objection. The spoiler is the Bloc, delaying democratic reform in adding seats to BC. AB, Ontario to keep the Bloc onside.

        I suspect many “fiscal” conservatives don’t like the spending and speed of undoing the Liberal-PC decades of damage. I don’t think they will ever be happy with our PM but many of us are not tied to any party but we toss them out when they behave badly.

        We are not there, partisans like yourself are way ahead of the majority who are not paying attention, realistic and not pissed off.

        • James Curran says:

          your math is f@cked pal. see Bob C. above.

          • BOB C. moved the goalposts to all funding. (Funny that)

            I have ONLY raised the political party subsidy: a policy that Conservatives have promised to campaign against keeping. The $2.00 per vote subsidy. If you like I can provide a link to Elections Canada, balance sheets that demonstrate the opposition parties are much MORE dependent on it the CPC. A recent article also has that math.

            Stage II

            The Conservatives have also begun to move on restricting loans for leadership so it won’t be abused again by the Liberals that have failed to repay their debts since 2006.

            Elections Canada is trying to block the GST overpayment issue. I am confident taxpayers will support the Conservative in reducing monies to all political parties.

            Times have changed and money matters more for campaigns and running political parties. National campaign around $ 20 million. Compare Liberals 2009 vs 2010 fundraising. (Red Flag?)

    • Jan says:

      Talking points by scatter gun. SOP.

  8. Philip says:

    “More than any other partisans, Conservatives can?t take a punch without crying about it. They can?t. They will flood your inbox, or your comments, with angry and abusive emails. They?ll call others a ?Lie-beral? and a ?leftard? and whatnot, for sure, and they do that sort of thing a lot. But if someone like me actually gives them some of their own medicine in a column or on a TV panel or what have you, they?ll start shrieking like babies about the ?lamestream? media?s ?left-lib? bias, how they are always being unfairly targeted, blah blah blah. Happens without fail.”

    Quoted for truth.
    Conservatives are never ever wrong. They have never been wrong about any single thing ever. It is really a thing of beauty to behold.

  9. Paul says:

    hello pot?? this is the kettle!

  10. Rick T. says:

    From a Con with very thick skin.

    Slow day Warren? Stirring the pot I see.

  11. VH says:

    Tory whining aside, Warren, the most important lines in the article were:
    Asked about Liberal tactics, caucus member Lee responds: ?We generally go into things being nice and we’re not used to being elbowed in the corners … I think the hope is that it will all go away . . . Maybe we are being na

  12. Dave says:

    When the Conservatives first became government, one thing that struck me was that no cabinet minister, and no Conservative back bencher, could sit down without first praising as a second coming the Prime Minister. I had come to respect a number of Reform/Conservative MP’s when they were in opposition, but it was embarrassing to see them having to laud and demonstrate adulation for the PM every time they stood to speak. This fit with all the secrecy/control/demonizing of the opposition leader that the regime showed. I though of cartoons from the early 1950’s making fun of USSR: whatever was in the foreground of the cartoon showed, in the background was always a wall picture of a fellow in military officer hat, flowing moustache, medal around neck, and caption ‘#1 HERO.’
    In the 1960’s I remember listening to a translation of a poet from USSR (might have been Yevtushenko) expressing the fear that stalinism was still in the shadows, waiting its chance. At the time I began to think that we know that ‘stalinism’ is a choice that any of us human beings can make, no matter where on this planet we form communities.
    There are all kinds of us who don’t really care that much about politics, parties and such. All we want is a government that keeps things going. And if it is a tightly controlled, secretive PMO with a figure head that is either feared or adored, who cares, as long as the infrastructure works.
    Stalinism is a real temptation for power junkies, and the present PMO seems to me to be power junkies.

    • Stalin was responsible for millions of deaths from his policies including genocide and you think it is historically accurate to compare him to our PM?

      • Dave says:

        You’re right that there is no comparison at all regarding the brutal outcomes of the regime in USSR in those years.

        And I know it can be tough to get by the ‘It could never happen here’ attitude, especially when we have had such a good run of economic well being and lack of immediate military threats to our existence.

        I am suggesting, though, that stalinism is a style of government which is centralized, secretive, power hungry, and which relates to the governed only through carefull controlled propaganda that, among other things, heaps adulation on the figurehead. The propaganda also tries to marginalize any other points of view.

        And I think it is a good idea for us to be wary of such tendencies because they can lead to brutal outcomes.

        And I still do not like the powers that our anti terrism legislation gives to our police – including CSIS.

        • How many Canadian reporters have gone missing or dead after writing a critical report on our Federal Government?

          You appear to not understand the VAST differences in the corruption between the two countries.

          I suggest you speak to some people who have emigrated from ANY eastern bloc country to Canada and see if they share your views in repeating your talking points. It might provide you with some interesting FACTS that apparently have eluded you.

          • dave says:

            Here in North America, most of us have the attitude that ‘It will never happen here.’
            As I said, I do not see the substantial differences between the way the politbureau was set up (the secrecy, the centralized power, the impunity) and the way our PMO is set up.
            I do not see the difference between the counter-revolutionary legislation of the early 1930’s (that gave the CHEKA its powers that they unleashed in the later 1930’s) and our anti terrorism legislation and the powers it gives CSIS and the RCMP.
            You say the outcomes are different, and I would agree.
            But I do not like our PMO’s secrecy, centralized powers, and impunity. It seems anti democratic to me.
            A couple of books that I read by Moshe Lewin, a historian of USSR, have the phrase ‘absolutist bureaucracy.’ to describe the government of USSR.
            It is a system that some people like as long as their guy is running such a system.
            Right now, Conservative party apologists seem to like it fine. The reason that hey are thin skinned about criticism, is that they know that it is as I describe it, and do not want to admit it.
            Now that I have agreed with your points about the outcomes in USSR, this frees you up to address my main point about a secretive, centralized, unaccountable PMO that fosters a personality cult

        • Niall says:


          You are an ABSOLUTE idiot.
          Stop talking about Stalin:Politburo=Harper:PMO
          You are only embarassing yourself and your cause.


  13. Bahahaha says:

    Agreed. The only time I’ve seen CPCers be “sensitive to criticism”, is when the Liberal geniuses like Warren here are accusing all conservative’s of being racist rich folk who eat the poor.

    Unless he’s simply talking about CPCers defending their positions, which it seems to me is what debate is all about. But I wouldn’t expect someone who moderates as many comments as Warren to understand that.

    • I was impressed with Frank Graves calling the angry old white man personally. A few months back we had an author suggest some vast right wing evangelical movement that wanted to see “end times”.

      Clearly the Conservatives are not desperate or panicking as they are prepared to cut of 33% of their funding to help the other parties become more self reliant.

      The election framing is starting to sink in and the opposition parties are going to be unable to defend themselves from the coalition plans to seize power again. Ignatieff does not have credibility he would not repeat the same mistake.

      • hugger says:

        Is this a thread on the party funding issues?

        • The post refers to Conservatives being overly sensitive and unable to withstand criticism. I don’t agree.

          Several posters than chirped in with examples why this government is bad and will lose the next election. I have simply offered a rebuttal that the Liberals are in critical juncture in their history and they in fact risk political oblivion. The political subsidy which represents nearly 50% of the funding for the Liberals is going to be a campaign issue that will be used to bludgeon the opposition. Several of the issues that were used on the Hill will fail at the ballot.

          Campaigns matter and the opposition combined can’t match the Conservatives in raising funds. Funds are needed for television, research, communications. staffing etc.

          Which party do you think is demoralized today the Liberals or the Conservatives? Which party has jumped on every small issue and tried to make it a serious scandal?

          Which party is not fighting amongst themselves in public on a regular basis?

          You don’t have to like Conservatives, the government to be objective on the reality on the ground.

          Conservative supporters like myself don’t think the Liberals are a national party any longer. I believe they will drop another one or two per cent when an election is called.

          I don’t see any advantages for the Liberals in regards to Vision, leadership, financing or campaign success since 2000. The trend has been going in a straight line from 177-77 in eight years. (General Elections)

          New Brunswick and Rob Ford was the writing on the Wall. Ignore at your own peril. I don’t know many pundits who are bragging about Liberals returning in BC, ON or QC as majorities do you?

          The steady hand of our federal government will be rewarded with a majority. (Just my humble opinion)

      • PETE says:

        As they say, and I repeat, elections matter:
        The very fact Harper has not really ever come close to majority territory and no sitting PM has ever won a majority after two minorities the following may apply to Igy and the Libs right about now…..as they itch to get back into power and rightfully so

        Here’s where the CS BS doesn’t meet the road in terms of his election so called “Stats”:

        Saturday, July 16, 2005 Page A4


        Stephen Harper moved yesterday to revive his political fortunes in the electoral heartland of Ontario even as a new poll shows that 59 per cent of Canadians want him replaced, including more than one-third of his own supporters.

        The poll also found that the difficulties of the just-completed sitting of the House of Commons have left Canadians with an increasingly negative image of Mr. Harper, with 41 per cent saying their opinion of the Conservative Leader has worsened. But the survey, conducted for The Globe and Mail/CTV by the Strategic Counsel, also finds that popularity difficulties plague Prime Minister Paul Martin, with 52 per cent of voters saying he should be replaced.

        “Clearly, Harper’s numbers have moved starkly to the negative,” said Tim Woolstencroft, managing partner with the company. “And Martin’s looking like his negatives are starting to soften, although it’s important to note that they’re no different than Harper’s.”
        The poll, which found that the Liberals continue to maintain a nine-point lead on the Tories in voting intention, came yesterday as Mr. Harper glad-handed in cottage country north of Toronto. The Conservative Leader is touring Canada this summer to build party support in preparation for an election next winter.

        • Interesting tidbits. The 59% includes the opposition? What about his base? Compare the base support for each leader and explain to me again which leader is the weakest and most vulnerable from within his own party. On our ballots we have only one choice and we don’t get to mark coalition.

          In 2004 Martin decided to follow Jean Chretien and pull the plug early to take advantage of the short time at the helm of official opposition exiting his May convention with Stronach and Clement. It backfired and Martin was reduced to a minority. Ontario kept the Liberals in power.

          Ignatieff did not win his party’s nomination. Leblanc and Rae both stepped down because the party would not allow another ‘contest’ time was too short?

          My stats involve the political map and how the left leaning voters have moved out of the Liberal tent. The NDP have recovered. The Green won nearly 7% of the national vote in 2008. This was NOT the case during the 1990’s-2004 decade of darkness by the Liberals.

          Anything is possible PETE in a campaign, but the money and experience do not support the Liberal branding recovering. Everyone else has run a national campaign. Ignatieff has not been effective and is placing behind Layton in every leadership poll. Ignatieff has been at the helm for 2 years and is 1/7 in by elections. They won against the NDP.

          It is possible or likely to predict another drop of 1 or 2% for the Liberals based on the pattern to date. It would be unlikely to suggest the Liberals will regain 4% from 2008 General Election results.

          That 4% swing would bring them back to Paul Martin results in 2006 strategically in every seat or be wasted on safe seats?

    • Warren says:

      What the Hell are you talking about, Gord?

  14. Sean says:

    I’m basically as lefty pinko as they come…. Government employee with an arts degree who rollerblades in public streets… Rob Ford’s worst nightmare etc.. However, when I read your headline I honestly thought you were talking about the Liberals, Profs and bureaucrats being “Sucky Sucky Babies”. Honestly, when is the whining going to stop? The Liberals lost in 2006 and again in 2008 b/c they ran ridiculous campaigns that were completely out of touch with average Canadians. I don?t agree with the Tories, but you?ve got to hand it to them?. These cowboys road into to town and damn it they meant business. You know what the Tim’s crowd thinks about stuff like this? ?A bunch of overpaid union flakes are mad because they have to do what there boss tells them?. Boo hoo. By the way, what kind of politics prof. actually gets upset with Tories shooting their mouths off? Isn’t that exactly why they got into the business in the first place? Stephen Harper’s Death Star Government should a Political Science Prof’s wet dream.

    • Mr. Chamberlain says:

      Seems you should be wearing a helmet with those rollerblades. (Good God that was transparent.) Back to Con Pinko Comment school for you.

    • Is it possible they don’t get it? They think the rise of Green, NDP and CPC are mistakes and voters will return to the big red tent if they find the right leader?

      • PETE says:

        The Libs have a leader and he can win. its the cons who need one to take them over the top. This curent guy, mr. Angry, is too polarizing by a bunch.

        All the praise heaped on Harper comes from his own war room ultimately. They simply try and overwhelm and steam roller everyone in their path and it ain’t working for the most part.

        • nearly 50 per of liberal voters don’t share your opinion. They want him out. Ken Dryden also does not share you view on our PM. He states Dion, Ignatieff looked tired and worse for wear. Read his book.

          I could list several Liberals who talk about the Liberal misfortune but apparently name calling is more important.

          Senator Colin Kenney and Romeo Dallaire support the F35. Kenney supports tougher UAE. So many Liberals have openly spoken against the policies of the leader.

          I like Ignatieff and I think he has done wonders for the Conservative party. I can only hope Liberals allow him to keep his job as leader is he loses a few more seats than Dion. Ignatieff deserves a better pension for the BS he has taken from fellow liberals.

          • Namesake says:

            The Senators also want to ban the CanadianPenny: can we all at least agree on that? Can I get an ‘Amen’?

          • Namesake says:

            Imagine… Senators thinking for themselves (albeit w/o all the relevant facts, which almost no one has on those two files). Funny that you didn’t mention Mad Max speaking out against the National Securities Regulator or condemning the very idea of funding a QC NHL hockey stadium, tho’, or Peter MacKay with his “Fly Emirates” cap, both undermining _their_ leader, too.

  15. Steve T says:

    It is interesting to see the comments thus far. The “conservative” posters that I’ve seen on this blog are either silent, or have made very measured and logical responses (like CanadianSense). On the latter point, we have SmelterRat and JamesCurran trying to goad the author into reacting. The bait isn’t taken, so more goading. And, interestingly, no meaningful debate on the points raised – just ongoing prodding.

    Sorry folks, this one is a dud. No stereotypical wild-eyes conservatives raging incoherently against criticism, despite the attempts to prod a reaction. Try harder next time!

    • Namesake says:

      Well, except that this run-by-a-well-known-Liberal forum isn’t really the best or even a particularly good test site for that hypothesis (that CPC supporters are more thin-skinned than the other fed. parties’ supporters),

      because the CPC supporters who regularly haunt this partic. site (such that they’re johnny-on-the-spot on an early Sat. morn. post) are relatively thick-skinned, self-selected outliers among their breed, to be Christians walking into the lions’ den, trying to nick them/us with a thousand cuts.

      But what the Political Scientist was talking about was how the crits that come from a relatively neutral person (like herself), or, I’d add, someone more committed to a political philosophy than a political party (like the small c conservatives Barbara Yaffe & Andrew Coyne) on a public & not so identifiably partisan media site like a newspaper…

      triggers far more vituperative responses from aggrieved CPC supporters even for completely legitimate crits (like, hmm, that contradicted what they promised/said just weeks before) than they saw when they made comparable crits against the Libs when they were in power, e.g.

      A better test of that might be a “Pepsi Challenge’ type test, where the political affiliations (if any) of both the test subjects & various columnists, analysts, or spinners are identified first, and then the subjects are given different excerpts from the pundits to read, blind (w/o the names of their authors), and asked to comment, including what Party they thought they may have worked or been rooting for, if any: and then see how wildly off those resposes are & how that correlated with the subjects’ Party / cult of personality leanings.

  16. Peter says:

    Speaking as a con, I completely agree we are far too touchy. We were much better in the old days when we would guffaw at the jibes and then burn you at the stake.

  17. new says:

    Harper is in power since Feb 6 , 2006
    Ahmadinijad is in power since Aug 3, 2005 while he was mayor of Tehran previous for extra 2 years

    we can put thump up for Ahmadinijad of Iran president is much longer in power and run the city than Harper

    I was wonder if Harper stayed more than 6 month ad PM for Canada
    who knows may be he has more spending wiht his finanace minister to made atomic bomb like Ahmadinijad—lol

    If we look one step background
    you know what I mean

    Harper never ended story of Afganestan remind me of Ahmadinijad of Zionism Israeli war never ended for 63 years of generation
    who can believe Palistinian and Israeli who kill each other for years and others was watching can really find peace in thier heart for forgiveness for what they did in long to each other and peace in mind and forget it

    as review all war criminal one lesson all we can get how many killed or fight years proof of hate and flesh back was not only solution

    back to our PM Harper
    we see him in past 5 years keep cuting even energy bill and all moragage high and others and we see
    what is increasing is war bills buying of him buying war helicopter or fight with UAE for more war flight
    with war soldure passing to care about regular tourist visa passing and UAE regular passenger fly

    I do think Harper also care like UAE for better tourism better immigration entry or better financial systme and better economic trade systems internationally loosing all UN seat for Canada turn us to more angry Kathy Sheile talk show to show nice polite Canadian people soon we must hide our passport and deny we are Canadian when we travel out of country for security purpose especially when we travel to UBA put our second passport on the table thanks god I did not born in Canada but still Canadian citizen
    If Canada beat up Muslim in and out I know where to escape out of Canada I am sure Atomic Ahmadinijad let us in… may be safe up there!

    I am sure as we more length Harper stay mother of PM must be proud when PM Harper was kid never bought him any
    war toys ever he is testing and using our country money to waste to buy more US army to spend it inside country for us thanks for Flaherity







  18. Mr. Chamberlain says:

    “Gerry Nicholls, consultant, blogger and author… argues: “Harper never does anything off the cuff; it’s always carefully calculated.”

    PROPAGANDA! That’s how he keeps losing majority governments!

  19. Mr. Chamberlain says:

    “Still, accounts of intimidation are more numerous. MacIvor’s experience suggests an escalation of a war against anyone who is seen as critical of Harper and his government.

    ‘It’s approaching a state in which people are paralyzed by fear,’ says political scientist Henry Jacek. ‘I’m talking about civil servants, MPs, cabinet ministers — they all have to be careful. They’re all expected to read from the same script.’

    Jacek, who teaches at McMaster University and runs the Ontario Legislature Internship Programme at Queen’s Park, says politicians confide in him. ‘MPs and cabinet ministers resent having to read from that script. I’ve had members of Parliament tell me they’ve come to hate public meetings, even in their own ridings, because they can’t be spontaneous.’

    Examples of what critics see as Harper’s ‘my way or the highway’ control include the firings of a long list of government watchdogs who are supposedly independent of interference… Funding has been slashed for human rights, women’s and aboriginal groups that have incurred the disfavour of the government.

    Before he died in 2007, former Supreme Court chief justice Antonio Lamer warned Harper that he threatened even the independence of the judiciary by telling the Commons he expected judges to follow his “law and order” agenda.'”

    Mr. Harper’s legacy. Who or what has he opened the door to?!

  20. jon evan says:

    I think you are right: some partisan conservatives are very touchy. But you need to go further to ask why….

    Many (most) have seen their society change so much in the last number of decades that they can no longer recognize it and nor do they like it. They long for the older days where society was much less secular and open. They attribute all these changes to the LPC which brought us the Charter which opened up a bottomless pit of “freedoms” many which they see as undesirable.

    And so “they” are almost pathologically touchy (myself included) suffering a sort of post-traumatic stress syndrome so to speak. No, it isn’t healthy or mature. It leads to unpleasant vitriol and in a previous post I have called for less of it. Partisan conservatives need to recover and need not go the way of our Southern cousins.

    • hugger says:

      I think this is one of the most intelligent offerings I have read in some considerable time.

      I would add, I find that many who are committed to far left causes are equally guilty of angry responses which for the most part are based on their personal demands for societies acceptance and change to occur. Forthwith. Those demands are not always particularly well thought out.

      Interesting how a forum free of vitriol can bring forth thoughts of such high value.

    • Namesake says:

      Thanks for your candour, Jon Evan, but which of the Charter’s freedoms would you just as soon stuff back into the bottle:

      Freedom of: conscience, religion, thought, belief, expression, the press & other media, peaceful assembly, or association?

      (or which freedom(s) _from_ would you repeal: unreasonable search and seizure, or arbitrary detainment or imprisonment?)


      And if Social Conservatism’s your thing, how do you feel about the way the Reform-cum-CPC has just been stringing you along these past 5 years, doing naught but wresting ever more money out of you regarding those aspects of Canadian society you so strongly disapprove of and would prefer not be open to us to do? Thus, I can’t help but wonder whether some of that anger is misplaced.

  21. Dave says:

    Just wait till the writ is dropped and suddenly we see video of Stevie having an “impromptu” jam session with his buddies in Nickelback..

    Actually, it would be nice to see him perform with musicians at the same skill level as his – might sound a little bit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj7pDNDuoJ0

  22. I thought Conservatives believed in independent thinking, not collective communist control. If Harper wants to tell his supporters to drink some Kool-aid, that’s what they’ll do. Harper has his Conservative Borg supporters under his control.

    “We are the Harper-borg, resistance is futile.”

  23. Warren says:

    You guys slay me.

    • Namesake says:

      Wow, you Swiftboat types really ain’t too swift, are ya? The point is, a party & leader’s polling numbers can really suck while they’re toiling in obscurity in the Opposition, but then they can seemingly come out of nowhere mere months or even just weeks later in the hurly-burly of a good campaign. Don’t count your fat chickens until they sing, and all that.

      • Oscar says:

        Absolutely, Namesake, but what do you foresee in the future that will launch the Ignatieff Liberals to victory, perhaps in an election campaign as soon as this February or March?

        What issue or issues will electrify and energize Canadians to flock to the Liberal and even the NDP side? I hope you are not depending on a miracle happening during the election campaign, like an RCMP investigation or devastating leaks from the civil service and broadcast on the CBC.

        Elections are not only fought on policies, but also perceptions, particularly on leader character issues. How do you think newbie Ignatieff will do against proven Canadians like Harper and Layton? Seems like Ignatieff doesn’t command much credibility amongst Canadians, and a leader who cannot effectively deliver the party message will be a handicap to the Liberal party candidates in the field. The Dion debacle is a case in point.

        Do Liberals even have any chickens to count??

      • Namesake says:

        Hey, elections are mostly lost, not won, by gaffes & flourishes of pique & anger that your guy flashes only too often: witness how he almost lost half the SK caucus by his reflex & tone-deaf Potash stance; and how he shot himself in the foot in QC by slagging the arts in the last election, and is doing it still on the peek-a-boo stadium funding issue.

        And I wouldn’t count out some RCMP investigations &/or court decisions bringing some CPC chickens home to roost, just yet, whether on the In & Out scandals, or the Cadman affair, or leaking Committee reports to lobbyists, or any of a number of Public Works & contracting scandals.

        Plus there’s another Auditor-General report or two on the way, on where most of the EAP projects ended up (gee, mostly in Con ridings) & on how the job creation numbers were totally exaggerrated, which sure makes that $50-B that was blown on it a lot harder to take, for actual Conservatives.

  24. Brian says:

    Thank you for your skilled used of the modifier “partisan” in graph 7.

    Since you added that caveat, I won’t be needing a tissue after all.

  25. In spite of what the Conservative supporters think of the Liberals, I do think that the Liberal Party will rise again after the next election. I don’t know how Michael Ignatieff will do in the next election. I do see several strong potential leaders that could take Ignatieff’s place someday. In 1984, the Liberals had 40 seats; in 1993, the Liberals under Jean Chretien’s leadership won the election with a majority of seats.

    While I think that the economy will be the most important issue in the campaign, I do think that the opposition leaders can frame the issue such as “Your local Conservative candidate doesn’t matter. Harper doesn’t let them think independently. If Harper controls how his MPs think, there is no need for any local Conservative MP to listen to you. If your local Conservative MP won’t listen to you on how you struggle to pay your taxes and support your family at the same time, do you think Harper would actually want to listen to you? Probably not.”

    • Mr. Chamberlain says:

      Yes. That is an issue they can run with. Just don’t get too philosophical. Keep it simple.

    • It was funny our PM was asking Liberal MPs in Montreal why they are against high paying jobs from the F35 purchase. The Bloc already voted in favour and defeated the Liberal -NDP motion.

      Can you compare 1984 political parties (PC, Lib, NDP) vs ( Ref, PC, NDP, Bloc) and don’t forget to include the splits and the very low support for the NDP and Greens in 2000 for context. Do you think the NDP and Green will return to the Big Red Liberal tent anytime soon?

      The collapse of the Bloc?

      Did Chretien have only 50% of his own base behind him when he ran in 1993, was he trailing Ed Broadbent? Compare the support for John Turner’s leadership. Is Ignatieff closer to repeating John Turner or Jean Chretien?

      • Jan says:

        It’s like Con headquarters has planted a chip in your head. When a sensor senses an attack, off goes the canned responses. Amazing technology.

        • Jan how does this help Warren with his theory about the adult conversation about “touchy Conservatives” if Liberals bring up Stalin, non-human (borg, robots) metaphors?

          Why do you think the Liberals were reduced to 77 seats with nearly 50% from GTA Toronto/Montreal? Are you going to accept bad television coverage from CTV or bad timing by the RCMP in Income trust leak?

          Martin and Dion had 36 days to convince in a national campaign why they deserved to lead the country. They both failed. Both of them agreed to step down and made graceful exit speeches.

          If you disagree with my history of how the political landscape has changed perhaps you can make a qualified rebuttal next time instead of a personal shot.

          I think Warren is curious about the Liberal ranks onlines ability to respond to Conservatives responding to his post. I would be shocked if he found it encouraging.

          • Namesake says:

            And Windy has stor-my eyes
            That flash at the sound of lies…

            Who’s reachin’ out to capture a moment
            Everyone knows it’s Windy

          • Jan says:

            As Ronald Reagan said – ‘There you go again’. Are you that programmed you are unaware of what you’re doing?

          • PETE says:

            Here you go CS..it should really be Canadian nonsense as others have called you:

            And here?s one more on the subject of pre election popularity:
            Also not unrelated, some other polls:
            March 1979: LIB 26%
            June 1979: LIB 28%
            September 1979: LIB 30% [2 weeks before Clark lost confidence vote]
            ELECTION FEBRUARY 18, 1980: LIB 44%
            ELECTION NOVEMBER 21, 1988: LIB 31%
            LEADERSHIP CONVENTION JUNE 23, 1990: LIB 28%
            October 1990: LIB 20%
            January 1991: LIB 20%
            April 1991: LIB 21%
            July 1991: LIB 23%
            October 1991: LIB 24%
            February 1992:LIB 25%
            May 1992: LIB 27%
            August 1992: LIB 25%

            August 1993: LIB 24% [2 weeks before election called]
            ELECTION OCTOBER 25, 1993: LIB 41%

            Q4 2004: Con 23%
            Q4 2005: Con 25% [2 months before Martin lost confidence vote]
            ELECTION JANUARY 23, 2006 Con 36%

            Elections matter, no tthe phony stats you dream up.

    • keyrocks says:

      “Skinny Dipper” might be looking through adifferent window than I am…. I don’t see “several strong potential leaders that could take Ignatieff’s place someday”… within the LPC. Most of those that might be potential Lib-Leaders have been MPs for so long that anti-incumbent votes may well give them an opportunity to bone up on their resume writing skills before the end of 2011.

      As far as the Harperites are concerned, I think it’s high-time we stop calling them “Tories” and “Conservatives” which they aren’t. Reformatories perhaps… or wannabe ‘White North Republicans’… but not Tories or Conservatives… and certainly not Progressive.

  26. Mr. Chamberlain says:

    How about the cons undertaking an elevated discussion INTERNALLY with themselves about how everyone is afraid to speak their minds? That would be a start. The cons think they have something to say to the other parties and yet can’t say anything to themselves for fear of reprisals from on high. (Reprisal: retaliatory action from an enemy in wartime. Key words: enemy and wartime.)

  27. Jan says:

    Try wandering off the orthodoxy over on the Blogging Tories forum.

    • hugger says:


      Mr. Sense is engaging in revisionist blogging. Right from his first post he was engaging in thread jacking and now won’t come clean.

      If I wanted to read a list of CPC talking points I would go to appropriate sites, say…his for example. What I think Mr. Sense, is that you should stick to the topic and address the criticisms in a substantial manner rather than pointing to things like the “Progressive Conservative” win in NB. That has nothing to do with Harper except in the minds of select blue hairs.

      • I disagree with the NB not having the CPC finger prints all over it. The PC spent years in the woodshed and fixed their organization and prepared to compete with government. They presented a clear alternative to the incumbent and sent them packing for the first time in NB history an incumbent was not returned.

        Fredericton (gov’t employee) ridings did not send back any Liberals. The rout was only beaten by Rob Ford.

        Ford was attacked by all three branches of the Liberal-left coalition.

        Ignatieff suggests Rob Ford voters will be voting for him in the next election. He also suggests and has used “gravy train” in attacking the Conservatives in Ottawa.

        Do you think the Quebec arena or funding for the EXPO in Edmonton would qualify as “gravy” in this environment?

        My first post was to TED at 9:03 feel free to re read his post and mine.

        • PETE says:

          CS., always dancing to his/her own drum and no real lyrics to the song

        • hugger says:

          Maybe you had best brush up on that election in NB and the major issues which basically guaranteed a PC victory. Not a Reformatory victory. a PC victory.

          Ignatieff may well be correct, time will tell. Given the reception to things like Ford’s demand for a 5% cut, by the Police Dept. and others it should be interesting to watch Mr. Ford’s fortunes unfold.

          I don’t recall criticizing the Quebec arena concept, but rather your attempts at thread jacking and avoiding the topics presented in this blog entry. Those things being the hateful and often down right nasty reactions by CPC members and supporters to criticism. Personally I am less focused on arenas at this time than I am on G8 G20 boondoggles, extraordinary wasteful spending by faux conservatives and the Harper governments attempt to ram the F35 contract through without a proper bidding process nor due oversight. The trade agreement with the EU as well.

          I believe it is important to keep ones eye on the pea.

  28. new says:

    Harper problems does not see detail and people demand and analyse that detail
    harper only see big picture out of Canada

  29. Philippe says:

    That entry is so bang-on Warren. You said it better than I ever could but man did you ever hit the nail on the head with this one. They can dish it out but can’t take it, so naturally let’s ratchet up and keep giving it to’em. They deserve no less for their idiotic ideologically-based policies (nation of criminals – more jails! more jails! … buy the Jets, the Russians are coming!).

  30. Raymond says:


    Just kidding.

    Right wingnut,
    One of THOSE people from Alberta,

    Have a good weekend, All.

  31. Namesake says:

    that’s what I’m talking about: the reflex to attribute all crits of the CPC as ipso facto emanating from “left wing liberal partisans.” Do you say the same thing when Andrew Coyne bemoans how (real) Conservatism is dead in Canada… that he’s a left-wing Liberal?

    • Jan says:

      I don’t see him criticizing the pace, he criticizes the abandoning of conservative principles.

    • Namesake says:

      ok, so that was a soft-ball; please, don’t go on about Coyne, now.

      My — and, I take it, the Professor’s — point is that the default for most CPC supporters seems to be to completely ignore the actual substance of a criticism and automatically lash out at its source (sometimes by doing a bit of cursory research, first, as you did on this Prof) about their obvious biases, etc., and then trotting out the litany of failings of whatever they’re allegedly sympathetic to, as the Bad Penny keeps doing.

      Do Lib supporters do it, too? Sure. But the point of the article is that those who’ve been punditing for decades are reporting that the blow-back is far meaner & scarier from the CPC zealots than they recall ever seeing from partisans of other stripes.

      ‘Course, that might just be attributable to it being so much EASIER to blowback now with email & online comments instead of mailed or faxed letters to the editor — that’d be a fair rebuttal.

      But just pointing out that YOU don’t meet that profile avoids my point above, http://warrenkinsella.com/2011/01/sucky-sucky-babies/#comment-22804

      that the anecdotal evidence from the handful of more moderate, thicker-skinned Cons. that stick it out here don’t really refute MacIvor’s wider generalization.

      • Namesake says:

        What’s this “we” shit, kemosabe? don’t put me anywhere near your views on global warming or on pretty much anything else, for that matter. And where I’ve argued that ad hominems can _sometimes_ be legitimate for undermining the credibility of a source as a preliminary to examining their argument, you’re endorsing and constantly modeling doing it as the default & often sole mode of argument against identifiable critics. And Prof. MacIvor wasn’t purporting to have done a poll, she was relating her experience in receiving feedback from different types of partisans, and just because that wasn’t documented in the article hardly means she has “zero…zilch” evidence.

  32. Norman Spector says:


    As you note, we all get nasty, disgusting e-mails. It hasn’t deterred you from speaking out and writing forcefully. Why would it deter a tenured professor?


    • Mr. Chamberlain says:

      Wow — good point! It really must be bad…

    • Mr. Chamberlain says:

      Like I said, it must be bad. By the way, you don’t consider it to be a bit… unusual for you have read about how students rank her? Surely there are more pressing demands for your time? Family, PERHAPS?

    • Namesake says:

      Maybe the better q., Mr. Spector, is what is it about _you_ that makes you so impervious to reams of both legitimate criticisms and outright hate-mail when you write something ill-advised, misleading, intemperate, or overly provocative?

    • hugger says:

      Maybe her shit quotient is full? Maybe she is tired of hate mail? Stories about slashed tires and some MP’s who have complained of death threats. Given recent occurrences, I can understand how she may feel.

      • hugger says:

        Chivalry is dead Gord?

        I was referring to comments from Garth Turners blog. You may have me on this one, as I won’t go back through all of his blog posts to provide you with proof but I remember him claiming things of that nature. I also remember him writing that he moved to another area in order to try to escape from the variety of threats being directed toward him by angry CPC supporters.

        Now I suppose you will respond on behalf of Ms. Rait that he conducted a fixed interview.

        Yes Gord, I have been following the bouncing ball off and on for a while now. All the way back to Dominic LeBlancs Dad’s first nominating convention. It gave me some insight on Canada’s political process.

        Also, I live in one of those ridings where a donkey could could be offered for the party of choice, and it would end up sitting in parliament.

      • hugger says:

        Should I give you more time to offer an appropriate response?

  33. new says:

    When some person always keeps wining and never loose
    Smell fishy it means something wrong here
    Just watch out
    They are wining in what cost
    Can we change winner sometimes to accept they lost and they were wrong too to admit it
    Or fix themselves for sake of profit of all nations
    No way they like million dollar winning ticket other is not matter

    Toronto can get fix like Dubai instead they help Dubai house built and sell and more tourist go to their place
    And we are in war zone

    They can easy transfer Toronto and Ontario to Dubai UAE
    But they said NO complain in Toronto no way



    They can change Ontario lend people money buy and sell land and lease land
    Instead million acre land in Ontario are vacant and nobody able to buy it because
    Bank is not lend money for it if they go only for house half of price of house
    And if you get loan to fix land sorry not available or come with 10% interest
    Look how much money invest in small less than size of Toronto is Dubai
    How the money transfer beauty to their land
    And tourist
    Oh we like to go war with Afghani to buy helicopter instead to buy Air Canada airline get fix

    We look looser as we lost UN seat now not winner I guess
    Who care about out of Canada as much we care about our security and ethic of some hunger or trade
    We must focus in Canada first others are second

  34. JF says:

    Don’t listen to Michael Campbell (Gordo’s brother on CKNW): apparently “the left” are the worst hate-mongers of all. Nice editorial from a huckster.

  35. Warren says:

    Holy cow. More than 125 comments. We’re rivalling the famous Kraft Dinner post, guys.

    • hugger says:

      Again taking advantage of a slow moment, and inspired by;

      jon evan says:
      January 15, 2011 at 1:04 pm

      I offer Bellamy Brothers; He’s an old hippie


    • Cath says:

      no kidding. The number of responses doesn’t count when the
      same people post pretty much the same message. Ironically, could
      the number of responses from who I’d say are mostly Liberals…or
      trying to be under a poor leader, prove that Liberals can dish it
      out and feel a tad sensitive in their defense when the ass-kicking
      begins from all sides? I think you pretty much fed the sharks with
      this post Warren. Headed back to my sick bed with an ear infection
      from hell!! How do little kids stand it!

      • Namesake says:

        Ear-ache-a! You found it! That’s what you get for banging the drum for such a toxic crew.

        • Cath says:

          It’s really too too bad that sensitivity and being a little too touchy something odd. Hey, but it’s ok and understandable – maybe the conservatives have more at stake to defend? At least we have a leader. Grass root Liberals sadly…..not so much.

  36. smelter rat says:

    As Canadian Cynic used to say, “Conservatism isn’t a philosophy, it’s a diagnosis”.

  37. smelter rat says:

    What’s your alternative? 4 more years of Gord’s

  38. Lipman says:

    And they are often thin-skinned years after being defeated. Steve Paikin had the egregious Mike Harris on the Agenda last year and he spent a great deal of time whining about unions and other detractors. It is not their fault he couldn’t carve out a legacy and deliver sound policy: that is his problem.

    • hugger says:

      First they came for the socialists,

      Take your sick bullshit back to Small Dead Animals

      • hugger says:

        You presume to speak for Warren? Somehow?

        I certainly don’t.

      • hugger says:

        This is what you wrote;

        “I’ll give you a prediction:

        Over the next ten years the deconstructing of union power will be one of the very top issues throughout the industrialized world.

        It will be integral part of unwinding the damage that started circa 1917 – 11/9 1989 was the climax of the struggle, but it was not the end of it.”

        Need I remind you?

        The damage that started in 1917? I don’t quite know how to address that. Can you for a moment imagine being one of Czar’s troops in WW1 or prior to?

        You are a representative of the white Russians? Then switch sides.

        Your obvious hatred for Unions is in keeping with the rest of your New World Order views. Straight from the book of Murdoch and the views of other misc. billionaires.

      • Jan says:

        If this what Harper plans if he gets a majority – a war against the better paid working class?

      • Mr. Chamberlain says:

        OK, all is fine in the world, or at least, especially fine for those enjoying the ultimate “entitlement scheme” cooked up by the banksters. You really have not thought it through.

      • hugger says:

        Is that so? I threw a guy out of a wedding once. He was accosting other guests, and the bride and groom came and thanked me afterward.

        Don’t tug on Superman’s cape Gord.

      • Namesake says:

        Speaking of which, here’s the counterpart of some kryptonite or a garlic, er, cross, to weaken the Incredible Tulk’s bluster and knees:

        the prospect of millions of union-built, battery-operated cars driving the asphalt patch and its CPC glorifying minions out of business.


  39. allegra fortissima says:

    If only Rick Mercer could provide the Canadian Version:


  40. Mr. Chamberlain says:

    I am angry. I am angry that I need to register my firearms. I am angry that I have to fill out a government form so that it knows how to direct its fiscal policy priorities. I am angry that there are so-called “experts” that will challenge what I say, while on the public’s dime, with so called stats that I paid for. I am angry that there are people who don’t think or believe what I think and believe. I am angry that there are actually people out there that won’t vote for my party. I am angry at them for not supporting the great country we have under our great leader. I am angry and I will bitch, whine and complain about my rights and needs and sulk until I receive all kinds of accomodation, while all the while complaining about socialists, far lefties and commies. I am Republicanada!

  41. new says:

    Ask UAE to buy 6 jets and when we need it they borrow to us I gurantee this

    Tell Harper breach contract ask your money back or pay some fine and come out of jet buying at this time
    unless profitability proof is there
    who needs all those 6 jets

    if we need we can ask and borrow from USA tor UAE who has lots of money they give us free we donot need to buy and help Pentagon funding
    we need this fund to fix Ontario land economic growth and more building and tourism

    I 100% sure Harper’s mom never bought his son any toys when he was child

    6 Xjet( F-35)

    The federal government estimates the deal will cost $9 billion, with maintenance contracts possibly bringing that total to $16 billion.

    But Garneau said that cost could balloon to more than $20 billion over the life of the aircraft.

    The government has poured $168 million into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program since joining the U.S.-led partnership in 1997.

  42. Tiger says:

    She’s right that right-wingers are very sensitive, and often overly so. It’s a fair criticism.

    On the other hand, isn’t she the one who effectively just went off crying about it?

    • Namesake says:

      Not really: as the article (sort of) explains, the Prof. didn’t contact the reporter to complain about it; the reporter contacted _her_ to get her to dish dirt on the Harper gov’t, and was surprised not to hear her say something harsher, and MacIvor explained she was choosing her words more carefully these days to minimize the amount of hate mail, which she’s found has been increasing nasty from Cons. supporters.

  43. PETE says:

    Harper has not BEEN ABLE TO DISTANCE HIMSELF from the opposition in terms of poll popularity which is definitely a bad sign for him. He has porkbarreled more money and created more patronage than other PM ever and can’t get much respect. That’s why the Liberals know they don’t need a coalition to beat them.

  44. There’s the rub, not since May 2009 was Ignatieff or the Liberals favoured in the Polls. The balance sheets and numerous tours demonstrate a brand that is failing. The crowds are small and getting smaller. The donations are dwindling and the lack of substance or adult conversation from the party is destroying them.

    I can’t imagine it is easy to trash our military, our economy. our country on a regular basis in order to win seats or raise funds. I don’t envy the opposition who have been left to chase fabricated stories because the history of corruption and scandals was not repeated by this government.

    • smelter rat says:

      More canadian nonsense. Do you actually beleive the crap you spew?

    • PETE says:

      the scandals will appear don’t fret. As for the polls, check and see how often Chretien was above 25% in the 3 years before before he was elected. Check Harper’s score as well.

      You spew USELESS garbage just to see your own writing. Everyone knows you are a reformatort muppet.

    • Mr. Chamberlain says:

      This kind of line will work up to the moment that Mr. Harper again fails to achieve a majority government. Tell me, PLEASE, do you actually believe there are no unfavourable books about working under Mr. Harper waiting to be written and published BY HIS OWN CABINET members as soon as he is no longer party leader?! Do you actually believe nothing will come forward?!!! It will be an industry unto itself! A common theme for con posters here, you obviously have not thought it through.

  45. Cath says:

    “we all know Harper is a poor performer in campaigns.”

    really DL – I don’t believe he’s even been tested that much – certainly not in the last campaign at least. I don’t believe we’ve seen Steve in full-campaign-mode and off the cuff which he’s way WAY better at that Mr. Ignatieff.

    • PETE says:

      How do you know that he’s better than Iggy at off the cuff remarks?
      Has Iggy been up against him yet?
      We can’t wait for Steve, Mr. Angry. in full campaign mode. That perfromance will cost them 25 seats just on its own let alone anything else.

  46. Anne Peterson says:

    When they are called on their nastiness – which is real, read their blogs – they resort to lies and revisionism.

    A woman from Chili said to me once, “You think it can’t happen to you. You think you can’t go to sleep one night in a nice democratic country and wake up the next morning in a military dictatorship. Well, I’m here to tell you, you can.”

    She was a teacher and she had to run. This has haunted me ever since and made me very suspicious of those who want to exert too much control, partly because Canadians have been so comfy for so long that they are complacent.

  47. Mr. Chamberlain says:

    There is nothing wrong with Mr. Ignatieff, he’s ten times the person and leader Mr. Harper is. Take an objective view of him. We would do well and much better to have Mr. Ignatieff as PM. You and I both know it. The Liberal caucus would be ten times the CPC caucus too.

    The problem is with Liberals who are second guessing themselves, and their party leader. They’re off balance. Which is why this country would be better off for there to be an election this spring. This country needs a strong Liberal party. Time for Mr. Ignatieff to meet Mr. Harper in a campaign, time for Mr. Ignatieff to prove himself in a campaign. The simple fact is, he will have a hard time developing support for himself and the Liberals until he is in an election. Fighting an election actually would make it a lot easier for him to lead his party going forward.

    The strategy must be to show, accurately, that with Mr. Ignatieff you get a party with a capable team — with Mr. Harper you get a Party of One.

    • Namesake says:

      “Just kibbitzing”

    • Mr. Chamberlain says:

      Oscar, I think Liberals and Canadians in general have gotten stuck, playing by the CPC’s rule book and that is the Liberal party leader has to be somehow the most perfect candidate for PM that you could ever hope for. Anything less and the party has its shorts in a knot about how to manage the attack ads, real or imagined. If Mr. Ignatieff served in the Canadian military, he would be judged for not having seen combat, or if he did, not as much as others, and you would have those willing to step forward and say he wasn’t much of a commander and on and on it would go. You are dealing with an adversary with the Harperites who are not acting in good faith, and so nevermind trying to find someone they would approve of and not slam in a dirty way. It really is the stuff of the bullied wanting to be respected by the bully. Won’t happen until you 1. dismiss the bully’s power and 2. take him on. Don’t expect to get out of it without a few bruises, but you will be at least in a position to lead the people who too are bullied — some of whom belong to his gang. Which is all to say, you might have to “lose” a battle (the next election) to win the war (a viable centre Liberal party) to take on future governance in a dangerous, quickly changing world.

      • Oscar says:

        Mr. Chamberlain, reality is that Ignatieff is quite vulnerable not only to bullying in the HOCs but also should he face Harper in an election and that is most likely why Liberals will “lose” the election battle and thus rid themselves of Ignatieff, a flawed and obviously failed political leader.

        The Liberal party must reinvent themselves because the “centre” has been not only occupied but also shrunk by Harper and the Conservatives. Canadians are more polarized than ever before, and voting groups are sliding all over the place. Liberals recognized this when they sent Ignatieff out on his summer and now winter bus tours to “connect” with Canadians, Canadians who the Liberals lost contact with in the last 5 years.

        It’s no use “crying’ over “Harperites who are not acting in good faith”, because politics is a blood sport and who better to know that than Warren Kinsella “… a modern-day Machiavelli, the mastermind who ran war rooms for Jean Chretien and Dalton McGuinty…”. It’s a bloody shame that Warren has been relegated to the Sun TV by the current group controlling the struggling Liberal party. It will all come out in the wash after the next election.

      • Mr. Chamberlain says:

        Oscar, I’m mostly in agreement with the thrust of your post but my comment is Mr. Ignatieff is in fact capable of filling the role of PM especially if the Liberals figure out how to sell the notion of team and stand it up as an alternative to the Party Of One. Liberals are their own worst enemy in all of this, and the sooner they signal that the usual spin isn’t working any more the better. They need to force some internal Con issues forward but this won’t happen until they truly feel vulnerable under Mr. Harper.

  48. James Curran says:

    See what you started Kinsella. 169 comments. This could rage on for at least another week.

  49. Warren says:

    I’m no fan of his, and vice-versa. Got no answers for you.

  50. new says:

    UAE vs. Harper who is winning this game? I think Harper again

    Conservative is only favour business for minority group and they never wish to help that friendly small group turn to become majority or choose the best one randomly at all.

    I think UAE need help and soon UAE especially Dubai used as city of prostitu…. for Arab all nonmuslim or muslim pretending and all famous Tiger golf player who keeping going there I am sure Canadian Bay watch Camilla Anderson name should not forgotten made UAE as much look nice one of dirty city shamefully can call it Muslim country it worst then other nonmuslim country if already UAE did not turn the same do not forgot UAE population and employee majority are muslim while tourist are not muslim come and go and decision maker are done by mostly Muslim Arab wear dress and then having understand what they may want and help them to turn face may help two countries heal their conflict and find better solution for future growth of their country yes Canada built their land but they are the owner not Canada. When you go to first class hotel in Canada usually you order alcohol but there in Dubai in enter in hotel room you can see fridge small full of alcohol and made lots of money from tourist to sell to them too. Do not forgot long-distance bill for telephone and internet use all thing is expensive for rich people welcome, These some suggestion to made UAE and CANADA relationship ok soon:

    Stop sending all supermodel and bay watch to Dubai made area more like prostitute house for rich people, Hire Muslim work in embassy of Canada in Dubai get some Muslim to help them too, Do not made fun of Arab accent or their dress and know culture before you travel, Do not ask Dubai to fight Iranian trader or other since business of Dubai to work with everybody as security important for them, Do not make hotel in Dubai full of alcohol, Nobody can owned land in UAE only for 90 years and must have one UAE as silent member work with share of business location buying or leasing I think I heard ,UAE only look for money which is fine and they have money again this is fine,The draw line majority of Dubai is Muslim while their government never care sooner and later this tourist from nonmuslim may bring problems, You need to adopt with neighbourhood who are Muslim people live there and neighbour with Dubai, Cut alcohol in airline and cut pork food out of menu certain flavour like pork or pepperoni or bacon can produce using mix chicken and veal meat and using spice can people think this is pork while it is not, Next replace alcohol with alcohol taste fake drink and energy drink do not mess any more with Muslim country one day this will hit you as Shah of Iran did it, Do not used Fagan Dubai and Canada USA and Mexico as road of drug trafficking and alcohol trafficking for tourism pleasure so Afghanistan only need money fast one and need to cut their country crime , Majority of alcohol from England and Paris and Italy Canada I know G8 will come to Dubai and they transfer to Iraq and to Kurdistan and enter it to Iran and ell 100 times more profit over it illegally and if we see face of all young Kurdish less than 23 years old are group who got lots of money to enter illegal alcohol and drug inside Iran and if they arrested for sure they will get executed all human right blame illegal England and Paris and Italy alcohol trafficking through Dubai is , And Afghanistan used for tunnel of drug while Afghanistan can be used as mineral sources or as brilliant jewellery or handmade carpet and all other thing but made cheap drug can ,Mad prositt Arab and other party complete just cut that nonsense there made as family tourist more, Send halal food to Dubai and cut McCain food and Ball turkey with no halal certificate to Dubai

  51. Stewart says:

    Modern Canadian Conservatives live in a constant state of fear. Rather than rationally responding to this fear ( a fear that is faced by many as things in the world are truly unwinding in some very bad ways) they instead raise their mental drawbridges and choose to dwell in their own fantasy worlds where Harper is an effective economist and a real conservative. He will protect them from what they fear, he will set things right like a big stern Daddy.

    The recent study on the enlarged amygdalae of conservatives will be replicated again and again. The work that Altermeyer has done on Authoritarians and Authoritarian followers is also critical in understanding how these folks will lash out at anyone or any view that challenges their perceived safety. That is why they are happy to pay for all the security theater at airports and give away all of their civil liberties if the Conservative government says it will make them safer.

    Thuggish behavior is part of this desire to protect the levers of power from any other party. I’m not surprised that this professor is worried about inflaming these people, they are fully capable of violence. I don’t believe that there is any significant difference between Canadian Conservative supporters and Republican supporters in the US. And things are going great down there.

    Do any Con supporters have children? Do they think that ignoring the evidence of Global warming will help their children? Do they care? I don’t think that they do. They are too busy thinking only about themselves and how they can continue to feel safe.

    They are supporting a party that intends to de-fund any publicly supported program that exists, that was the Reform position and it remains the Con position. Arizona is a great example of a state that is reaching the end of this idiotic Libertarian bull.

    Con supporters don’t seem to get the proven thesis that more equal societies are safer societies. And they’ll be the first to whine when petty thefts start to rise as their government enacts their ‘Law n’ Order’ agenda and criminalises a much greater percentage of the population.

    I have to ask Gord, do you support the Harperites? You keep claiming (me thinks a little too much?) that you are a “fiscal Conservative” and a “social Libertarian”. So by that position you can’t then support any expansion of the prison system, you will support legalizing all drugs and certainly Cannabis and you must be horrified by Harpers fiscal irresponsibility.

    You must also support Gay marriage and must be truly angered at the untendered purchase of the unsuitable F-35 jets. You must hate the porno-scanners at airports.

    So what are your real positions Gord? I suspect that you are just a good ol’ run of the mill Reformatory supporter who likes to use fancy labels to descibe himself.

  52. Mr. Chamberlain says:

    Oscar, Let Mr. Layton be on record for his stance regarding Canadian professionals who work abroad. I imagine a few from his party’s membership also worked, even taught abroad. So, if he wants to adopt CPC propaganda as his own, let him own full responsibility for doing so as well. The quote from Mr. Layton should be seen and used as a gaffe on Mr. Layton’s part. Shame on him! Liberals must stop apologizing for having the best educated and likely Canada’s best respected political leader outside of Canada.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.