“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald


Stephen Harper, chicken

Huge, huge mistake by the Cons. This one’ll come back to haunt them. With this, they have obliterated whatever they achieved with their $6 million, two-year campaign to depict Michael Ignatieff as an effete, gutless, intellectual wimp.

This is big.



120 Responses to “Stephen Harper, chicken”

  1. Ted says:

    Ted, didn’t you predict exactly this outcome yesterday, right here on Channel KCCCC, that Harper would chicken out and blame the broadcasters that he oh so loves so very much?

    Why yes, now that you ask, I did. I did predict that Harper would chicken out and blame the broadcasters that he oh so loves so very much.

    • JenS says:

      Now, it’s up to the Lib campaign to get out in front of this and ensure the Harperites don’t spin it beyond recognition.

  2. Lib says:

    This what you get when you stand up to the big bully that is Harpercrite, watch the Lib numbers surges while the Reformatories drop!

  3. fritz says:

    Harper confirmed he’s not interested in a ‘one on one’ this morning.
    First question by TM: ‘Why are you ducking Ignatieff in a one on one debate?’ Harper reply: ‘Well – eh ehh ehhh – it’s all the consortium’s fault. Next question.’
    Hoping to see the guy in the chicken suit at Harper campaign events soon.
    How to step all over your own message big guy.

  4. scot says:

    Looks like the con bullsh!t has hit the fan.

  5. Chris says:

    Harper didn’t want to be seen coming unarmed to a battle of wits.

  6. Robert says:

    Respectfully, Warren, the story you have is backwards. It was Harper that first proposed the debate: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110330/layton-may-debate-110330/20110330?s_name=election2011.

    • Warren says:

      Yeah, well, he chickened out of his own idea.

      • Harper may be channelling Dion now.

        Do you think it’s easy to debate?

        Anyway… best retweet of the day so far on Twitter:

        @scottfeschuk
        Final thought on a new name for Harper’s plane. Perhaps simplicity is the answer: Chicken Wings.

    • Ted says:

      Kind of makes it even worse for Harper then doesn’t it.

    • Namesake says:

      respectfully, Robert, the CTV story you’ve linked is how WK had it the first time, in an earlier thread, when someone claimed / pointed out there yesterday that MI’s team had laid down the gauntlet in a tweet first, before Harper responded.

      But on P&P yesterday aft., someone said that the Libs war room had been gearing up to do it, the night before, then that got leaked somehow, so Harper’s team decided to preempt the challenge by floating it publicly, first.

      Which turned out to be a bluff. By a chickehhhhn.

      • Robert says:

        The broadcasters nixed the idea anyways….. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/broadcasters-rule-out-one-on-one-debate-between-harper-and-ignatieff-confirm-mays-exclusion/article1964414/

        Regardless, Fife is completely incorrect….typical of him, however.

      • Douglas says:

        Actually, Kinsella is 100% correct. Ignatieff challenged Harper to a one-on-one the evening previous. The reporting was twisted the next morning to make it appear like Harper issued the challenge, so that he looked tougher. But now that he’s chickened out, the fact that he wanted the reporting twisted earlier, backfired on him.

        It seems everything Le Premier Menteur du Canada is doing blows up in his face: His coalition cries, his 5-year later tax plan, his total avoidance of the contempt issue, his plan to not take questions (journalists are kept 40 feet away from Stephen Harper behind a metal barricade according to Hannah Thibodeau of the CBC), his plan to stage events, his plan to keep May out of the debates, etc…

        All the scandals, day in and day out. Does anybody truly believe that Harper, the man who has his fingerprints on everything, has no more information than “he was a volunteer, now he’s not, that’s all I know” for not one, not two, but THREE staffers in 2 days?

        The wheels have fallen off the bus of his campaign… but then again, that’s what happens when you’ve been governing according to policy on the fly made on the back of a napkin ever since your 5 priorities went kaput.

        Harper thought that his lead and the coalition demon would be enough. But he screamed the word out so often in the first four days that he’s already out of ammo. And he has 31 days to go.

        He’s SO screwed.

  7. MontrealElite says:

    New Slogan

    “Harper, he didn’t come out to debate you!”

  8. Chris says:

    Stephen Harper is a totally normal guy: http://www.stephenharperisatotallynormalguy.com/

  9. Cat says:

    Fife’s spinning WK. Ted I’m surprised you didn’t catch that.

    Fife – could this be the same guy that you gave a solid “F” to in KAICP?

    “In just one “news story” about a mission early in 2000 by Prime Minister Jean Chretien to the Middle East, Fife wrote that the trip was “ill-fated”, and “disastrous” and that the prime minister, himself, was “past his prime”, “ignorant”, “embarrassing,” “flying by the seat of his pants,” “insulting” and “ill-informed.” For good measure, Fife sniffed that the prime minister had “tarnished Canada’s reputation.”

    “He has also long been regarded as a reporter who will eviscerate anyone from any political party, which means he knows how to be fair.”

    Same schtick no?

  10. Namesake says:

    Yup, he said in his presser that he’d only do one type, and that MI’s team supposedly insisted that it’d have to be the one with the other leaders, then.

    Like, he’s too busy talking to a few hundred people at a time to carve out an extra evening to address the whole nation in an extra free televised debate.

    So now he’s both officially contemptuous and unofficially contemptible — a bully and a coward.

  11. MontrealElite says:

    Amazing, Harper has our troops in Afghanistan and Libya where democracy wants to take root yet he squelches debate at home.

    What a coward.

  12. Rob says:

    Sad really. I hope this captures the public’s attention. I fear that sometimes, these things are too “inside baseball” for the less politically plugged in Canadian.

    Good prediction Ted.

  13. Cat says:

    Look what Wells said – Liberals wanted SH-MI debate in addition to 4-leader. Conservatives proposed replacing 4-leader with 2-leader debate. Libs declined.
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/30/the-debate-debate/

    this he said – he-said bull is turning more than a few off this whole frigging election….whose idea was it again??

  14. Cat says:

    another view – same issue

    ” Chantal Hebert:

    “A one-on-one debate between the Liberal and Conservative leaders would be completely divorced from the electoral reality of regions such as Quebec and the Prairies. In a pre-election CROP poll, the Liberals barely beat the Greens for support in francophone Quebec. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, shifting votes from the NDP to the Liberals is usually a formula for electing more Conservatives.”

    • fritz says:

      It doesn’t matter. Whether the debate takes place or not the perception will be Harper reneged. The story will be he’s afraid to debate Ignatieff. Period.

      • Cat says:

        not from my perspective….see how that all works?

        • Derek Pearce says:

          No, we don’t see how that works. From your perspective, you’re simply saying he’s not chicken, er, from your perspective. Please elaborate.

          • Namesake says:

            well, it’s clear Harper is the Cat’s meow… so there won’t be any more reasoning with either of them.

  15. Dave Roberts says:

    The debate wasn’t going to happen anyways with the broadcasters consortium rejecting the idea.

    • Ted says:

      That just means they won’t broadcast it live and give up all that ad revenue.

      No one is stopping Harper from having a debate with Ignatieff.

      • Dave Roberts says:

        I like the idea of 1 on 1 debates but I think all the party leaders should do them, not just the CPC and Libs.

      • Douglas says:

        Fully agreed.

        Don Martin offered to give up one hour of Power Play for it. I’m sure CPAC would carry it. And trust me, if there ever were going to be such a debate, it would be SUCH a ratings bonanza that were it actually going ahead, a few days before it were to happen, the media consortium would be ALL over it like Garfield on lasagna.

      • and why can’t some progressive university or organization sponsor a debate and stream it live – why do we need a broadcast consortium to tell us who can an cannot debate??

    • Cat says:

      so it was the broadcasters who nixed this thing? Thanks for the clarification.

      • Namesake says:

        As if CPAC wouldn’t do one for free! And about half an hour ago, a panelist said CTV’s Power-Play has already offered to host it. Face it, it’s just more Harpocrisy.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        The broadcasters were very categorical – their way or the highway on both the one on one AND the inclusion of the greens.

        The only way now would be to hold it on the new SunTv channel.

        • Ted says:

          TVO, CPAC could do it.

          At least one local station has already offered to host it.

          Nothing, absolutely nothing, is stopping Harper from following through on his offer.

          Except his courage.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            What would that mean re: heberts comments above?

          • Ted says:

            Gord: I’ve long said there should be one bi-lingual debate between the PM and the Opp Leader plus one for all parties.

            The reasoning Hebert gives is ludicrous. To suggest that Harper or Ignatieff can’t represent a region, or conversely that Layton and Duceppe (who attends the “national” debate) can moreso.

            Moreover, that is not precluded with my idea. You get both: a debate between the two who could become PM, and a debate by all parties who are going to elect MPs.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            Whether its ludacris in your opinion or mine is irrelevant. The arts funding cuts were a ludicrous issue in the last election, but the irrational xenophobia of many francophones in Quebec could make it a real issue. I defer most times to ms Hebert on that issue.

    • Windsurfer says:

      CHCH-TV HAMILTON, now an independent, has offered to run the 1-1 debate. Others (Rogers) showed interest today, as per news on 680NEWS Toronto.

      • Namesake says:

        Funny how so many of these made-up Either/Or choices Harper keeps trying to force on us keep falling flat on their ass, eh? (Guess that’s why he doesn’t skate in public, either.)

    • Of course someone would give them time.

      Peter Mansbridge has offered to moderate a one on one.

      Story not dead. PM’s plane deserves to be christened Chicken Wings… runs away from debate, hides from reporters, hides from real Canadians, only filmed around carefully screened supporters – props.

      Save the running away from the debate, none of this is new. He’s been hiding from hard questions and real questions his entire time as PM.

      • Now Don Newman has offered to moderate; no surprise there is great interest in this.

        So you’ve got any number of senior, qualified, potential moderators and a number of broadcasters who have stepped forward with offers of facilities. Consortium be damned, this could happen in an instant if Harper weren’t a chicken.

        Harper stepped in a big one and will be wiping the mess off his shoes for a while.

        • Big Old Goofy Man says:

          Don Burroughs has more credibility than Don Newman.

          • Namesake says:

            yeah, well, about that: that was the guy who told Susan Delacourt that a Conservative fundraiser called him in January saying they needed money because there was going to be an election at the end of March, and you conbots all jumped up and down and screamed, plot! fantasy! fiction!

            And what happened…. Harper introduced a budget at the end of March that he knew would be too thin for any of the Opp. to support, thus trumping anything they might have done on the Contempt issues, anyway, and thus the government fell.

            So, yeah, the anonymous minimum wage fundraiser got his projected dates mixed up as to when the election would be CALLED vs. when it would be HELD, but otherwise…. sounds like Don Burroughs was telling Delacourt exactly what he’d been told, after all.

            So, thanks for reminding us of what histrionic, bald-faced liars so many of you conbots are.

  16. Tceh says:

    http://yfrog.com/gyaaetwj

    “Harper event in Halifax begins. Media corralled behind metal fence more than 40 feet from CPC leader”

    Harper the coward. Scared of Iggy. Scared of the media. Scared of his record.

  17. Dave Roberts says:

    The post is gone from Fife’s Twitter feed.

  18. Michael says:

    Are you a betting man? How long before this guy goes mental in front of the cameras? He’s got meltdown written all over his face!

  19. scot says:

    Damn that Ignatieff looks good sitting with those little kids at that daycare centre. He looks natural and at ease and the kids are animated. What a contrast with Harper. You can’t con a little kid. They pick up on vibes.

  20. Ted says:

    Read elsewhere:

    Why did the chicken cross the road? It’s debatable.

  21. Robbie says:

    Harper shouldn’t debate Ignatieff 1-on-1 for the same reason evolutionist Dawkins won’t debate creationists: it looks better on the other guy’s resume, regardless of outcome.

  22. MontrealElite says:

    The media should just stop following the Harper campaign if he won’t answer questions.

  23. jenjen says:

    Did ya see this link below? I know someone who was there. Said it was ‘awkward’.

    http://blog.decisioncanada.ca/uncategorized/harper-refuses-to-explain-limits-on-media-queries/

    oh my!

  24. fritz says:

    Don Newman has offered to host a one on one debate between Ignatieff & Harper. Harper now has to say no, and explain again why he can’t find the time, thus taking himself off message, yet again.
    And yet ‘the Harpster’ is supposed to be this great political strategist.

  25. Patrick Hamilton says:

    Typical behaviour from a bully……but what would you expect from someone who doesnt know how to put workgloves on properly?…..boxing gloves probably terrify the man…..LOL

    • Ted H. says:

      I don’t think he likes having to campaign and actually work for the office he feels entitled to hold. Democracy can be such a bother.

  26. Michael S says:

    CBC is offering up itself w/ Mansbridge as moderator. Sun TV better up the ante!

  27. James says:

    Wow, isn’t everyone getting all lathered up over this falsh-in-pan news tidbit.

    Truth is, leaders debates don’t change most voters’ choice/decision. If anything, they just serve to reinforce their original choice.

    Okay, so it’s almost end of Week 1 of this campaign and the Libs haven’t put a dent into Conservative support. They’re now veering left to gobble up NDP support which is where all the poll gains are being derived.

    • Ted says:

      No, debates {cough – Kennedy-Nixon cough} never {cough – Reagan-Carter cough} change a {cough – Mulroney-Turner cough} thing.

      • James says:

        Wow, just one Canadian example from 1984!! Turner and the Libs were already on their way out; he was the Dion/Iggy of the time.

        • Namesake says:

          I don’t know why I bother, but, consider this:

          Roughly one in five potential voters is still undecided (probably much, much more).

          And what sorts of things help them to decide, pray-tell?

          Well, one academic study looked at the 1997 Canadian Election Study data, and reports this:

          “This study shows… that election campaigns may contain a large contingent of individuals who are susceptible to persuasion. In the Canadian case, over half of citizens say they made their voting decision during the course of the campaign, and they form a relatively interested, attentive, informed, and less committed group which is more likely to be reached by, to be receptive to, and to be responsive to campaign stimuli. The evidence shows that campaign deciders’ vote intentions are more strongly affected by campaign events such as leaders’ debates and media coverage. We thus grossly underestimate the strength of campaign effects by estimating them across the entire electorate, since
          they actually only concern a specific portion of the public.

          …Electoral debates are sometimes responsible for substantial shifts in vote intentions (Johnston et al., 1992; Blais and Boyer, 1996). It has been shown that the leaders’ debates in the 1997 Canadian federal election campaign had notable effects on the vote intentions of the entire electorate (Blais et al., 1999): they had a positive but temporary impact on support for the Conservatives, the party whose leader was perceived to have emerged victorious from the debates. Fig. 1 suggests, however, that the impact of the debates, which were held on May 12–13, was limited to campaign deciders. Conservative vote intentions increased substantially after May 13 only among that group.”

          from, “Time-of-voting decision and susceptibility to campaign effects,” by
          Patrick Fournier, Richard Nadeau, Andre Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil, & Neil Nevitte, (Journal of) Electoral Studies (2003) http://www.ces-eec.org/pdf/TimeDecision.pdf

          • James says:

            Namesake that’s a study based on 1997. I think in our electronic and social media age people aren’t all that interested in traditional, old-style political debates. People have short attention spans and absorb information in small, fast bites. I can’t imagine anyone under 40 who really cares about debates.

          • Namesake says:

            “I can’t imagine anyone under 40 who really cares about debates.”

            You might be partly right about that, alas — tho’ that’s probably just an old fogie stereotype on your part (there are plenty of politically engaged youth who follow things a damnsite more closely than you) — but it’s kinda beside the point, since the majority of (actual) voters are over 40, oh, imperceptive one.

          • James says:

            Okay, I’ll correct myself. I don’t think anyone under 80 really cares about debates.

            Yes, older voters form the majority, but they are also more fixed in their choice.

    • fritz says:

      Your missing the point James. It’s not about a Harper/Ignatieff debate.That was never goin’ happen. The point is making the Harper and the Tories answer questions about why the are ducking a debate with Ignatieff and not putting out whatever message they want to put out today. Lets see what the main topic of discussion is tonight on the news and political TV shows. My guess it’s the debate and not the Tories promising to support the Churchill Falls Power Project. Point Liberals.

      • Agreed. Point to Ignatieff. Harper is a chicken who can’t stand the heat. He doesn’t even perform well on the chicken rotisserie channel.

      • Yes, hasn’t WK been telling us over and over again that the job of the War Room is to throw their opponents off message and force them to react instead letting them go on the offensive? Of course that requires an assertive pack of journalists willing to hold feet to various fires…Also, the Conservative do not have a blitzkrieg of rolling daily policy announcements like Bush did way back when. They have very little ammo for an offense.

  28. reformatory says:

    Check out this article but more importantly- read the comments section to get a sense of what is happening on the ground.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/966583–how-many-harper-taking-only-five-questions-per-day-from-media?bn=1

    Do you sense it? I can.. It’s coming.. hold on to your hats folks.. the bad 5 year dream is almost over.

    • Namesake says:

      and get the visual: “journalists …were kept more than 10 metres away, penned in behind a yellow fence.”

      Shades of the G20. Still think the PMO had nothing to do with kettling — and then kenneling — those equally inconvenient (to his glorious leader photo-op) peaceful demonstrators?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

  29. Cat says:

    busted
    From Small Dead Animals
    The Liberal Party of Canada Broadcasting Corporation

    CBC Vote Compass creator was on Iggy’s leadership team.

    • Ted says:

      Folks, we have finally found our ballot question!!!

    • Namesake says:

      Gasp. A political scientist, now a professor, was active in political campaigns while a grad student! Call in the RCMP! CSIS? The SS?

      Here, go investigate everyone else involved on that project, then, conbots, and report back to us in, er, 34 days. (And do keep ignoring the fact that they provide footnoted quotes from the various Party platforms at the end, to justify why they tie the results of each question to each party, as they do.) Way to keep your eye on the ball!

      Credits (at http://federal.votecompass.ca/colophon/

      Founder and Executive Director
      Clifton van der Linden

      Advisory Board

      André Blais, University of Montreal
      Elisabeth Gidengil, McGill University
      Richard Johnston, University of British Columbia
      Neil Nevitte, University of Toronto

      Directors
      Jennifer Hove, Director of Research
      Peter Loewen, Director of Analytics
      Yannick Dufresne, Associate Director of Analytics

      Analysts
      Andrew Ahern
      Joelle Dumouchel
      Gregory Eady
      Adam Senft
      Gilleen Witkowski

      Research Assistants
      Subuhi Abubaker
      Liat Aharoni
      Michael Faubert
      Colleen McKeown
      Sujeetha Moorthy
      Prachi Patel
      Rajin Singh
      Julia Varshavska
      Shahin Yamin

      International Monitors
      André Krouwel, Founder and Director, Kieskompas BV
      Matthew Wall, ELECDEM
      Jasper Laros, Kieskompas BV
      Monaa Quartey, Kieskompas BV

      Application Development
      Martijn Dragt, Project Manager, Hoppinger BV
      Korstiaan de Ridder, Program Developer, Hoppinger BV
      Tom Knippenberg, Program Developer, Hoppinger BV
      Pieter Beekman, Front-End Developer, Hoppinger BV
      Jermaine Lievendag, Support, Hoppinger BV
      Ad Russ, Flash Developer, Hoppinger BV

      Application Design
      Celina Fischer, Art Director, CBC News
      Thomas Rudmas, Designer, CBC News
      Ralph van Tongeren, Project Manager, Newid
      Emiel Efdée, Designer, Newid

      Sponsors
      CBC News
      Radio-Canada
      Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship
      Department of Social Sciences, University of Toronto at Scarborough

      Special Thanks
      Canadian Web Hosting
      The Mark
      Samara
      Student Vote
      University of Toronto Department of Political Science
      University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance

      • Ted says:

        I know Peter. He’s a good guy and knows his stuff. After the leadership race, he really lost interest and support for Iggy. I don’t think he has been in politics at all since then.

  30. catherine says:

    This will make a good attack ad. Short and to the point. Splicing the twitter and direct quotes, showing Harper lied, and also with the message of what’s Harper afraid of? No one wants to vote for a coward and liar.

  31. Les Miller says:

    You want a coward? Jack Layton opened his campaign here in Edmonton. Today in Montreal, he mentioned for the first time that if he’s elected Prime Minister, he will stop all subsidies to Alberta’s oil sands.

    It doesn’t matter, now. Linda Duncan will be lucky to avoid being tarred and feathered, let alone winning her seat back.

  32. bell says:

    Can anyone on here reconcile the latest Nanos numbers on leadership? Today the uncomfortable, unmotivated, gaff filled, coward’s numbers are up to 105 while the energetic, in his groove, passionate, everyman, tough guy remains flat at 46.

  33. Aidan Hayes says:

    Ignatieff moved into second place for the first time in months just the other day. Nanos’ leadership index is hardly bad news for him.

  34. Michael S says:

    If this election was in intrade I’d be shorting the Cons right now.

  35. well says:

    Harper does not want majority right

    he wanst majority of Canadian follow his minority government and
    it menas minority be boss majority

    majority like a lamb get folow with him no question asked

    that is real rich capitalism ideas

    otherwise he knows how to become majority vote for him he does not want it to change

    he thinks majority of Canadian are dump people

  36. [...] CPC and LPC), or the fact Harper has decided to chicken out of a 1 on 1 debate with Ignatieff that HE OFFERED, but backed away from once Ignatieff accepted. But, I’m going to instead pass along this that [...]

  37. Cat says:

    “another NDP candidate has defected. Mustafa Rizvi has withdrawn his nomination in the riding of Mississauga-Erindale, and thrown his weight behind Tory incumbent Bob Dechert.”

  38. Chubsy Ubsy says:

    I remember the Tories depicting Ignatieff as a tourist. I don’t remember the Tories’ “two-year campaign to depict Michael Ignatieff as an effete, gutless, intellectual wimp”. But thanks for clearing that up for us, Warren. I think?! :-(

  39. [...] ADDED: This is BIG. A “chicken and a liar”. The media is catching up to me. It’s hard for some to [...]

  40. Ron says:

    Warren old boy
    In the interest of balanced reporting
    why no mention of the CBC’s vote Compass poll
    I just entered in neither agree nor disagree for all thirty questions
    then when it asked the questions on party leaders
    I entered answers for Green, Bloc and Ndp
    Results
    I am closer to Liberal and the farthest is NDP
    and have you seen the headlines over at that ex aquaintance of yours Bourque
    What is he on the Liberal NDP Coalition payroll?? Have you seen all the negative headlines
    I wouldn’t speak to the reporters either
    By now I’m up to at least 2.50 in payments owed hee hee
    have a good night my man

    • Aidan Hayes says:

      You know the Tories are getting worried when they start lashing out at internet political spectrum tests. Did it occur to you that giving it neutral answers would give you the profile of a centrist, and thus it made good sense to put you closest to the most centrist party?

    • Namesake says:

      yawn. This was all hashed out here and elsewhere yesterday: no opinion, left or right on polarizing political q’s — which is also the option one chooses in this tool if one genuinely is neutral on the issue, the way the q has been put — puts one in the middle of the political spectrum, which in Canada is: the Liberal Party. And it appears the way they weight it is to give the ISSUES more weight than the leaders to determine where one actually fits on the political spectrum, which only appears biased to those who belong to a party that’s actually a cult of personality and lets him dictate what opinions one should hold. And, surprise: it’s the CPC who are in charge of the CBC, not the LPC, so it’s THEIR instrument, if anything, so why the Hell are you whining about it here?

    • Two points you’ve made, neither are a story. First off, who is Bourque, really? Nobody. I’m as plugged in as anyone and somehow I manage to live my life without visiting his page and editorial embellishments not to mention ads. He still does ads, right?

      Secondly… for sake of argument, if the CBC project just happened to be less than fairly constructed, that’s a story about the CBC and nothing else. That said there is no evidence at all this is the case. It’s just a wildly popular self-assessment tool which was designed with the input of dozens of people.

      Besides… look at what that ultra-lefty Andrew Coyne (sarcasm in case you don’t recognize it) has to say about the accusation being levelled at the Vote Compass project:

      @acoyne ~ 10:37pm ET March 31
      There isn’t a more conscientious and open-minded political observer than Peter Loewen. I found the Voter Compass to be exceptionally fair.

      @acoyne ~ 10:36pm ET March 31
      This is a complete and utter bullshit story. RT @dejrabel: CBC vote quiz creator worked for Ignatieff

      Now *thats* balanced reporting.

  41. Ron says:

    Warren old boy
    In the interest of balanced reporting
    why no mention of the CBC’s vote Compass poll
    I just entered in neither agree nor disagree for all thirty questions
    then when it asked the questions on party leaders
    I entered answers for Green, Bloc and Ndp
    Results
    I am closer to Liberal and the farthest is NDP
    and have you seen the headlines over at that ex aquaintance of yours Bourque
    What is he on the Liberal NDP Coalition payroll?? Have you seen all the negative headlines
    I wouldn’t speak to the reporters either
    By now I’m up to at least 2.50 in payments owed hee hee
    have a good night my man

  42. Ted says:

    I looked at the Liberal bloggers aggregator and here are some of the topics covered:
    - an interview with Bob Rae on the election
    - several posts on Harper the control freak
    - a couple of daily campaign update summaries
    - an odd interest in the poultry industry today (about 10)
    - a post about campaign laws
    - several posts on the early learning fund announcement
    - 2 posts announcing Iggy’s platform is to be released on Sunday

    And so on. Only one single post about a non-campaign issue (the Wisonsin anti-union law)

    Now if we mosey on down to the Blogging Tories, it’s almost the reverse:

    - 3 posts on polls
    - 5 or 6 posts on Obama
    - a post on Amnesty International
    - 3 posts on the debates/poultry industry
    - 2 posts on the NDP
    - a post on David Letterman
    - 2 posts on coalitions (one critical of Harper, incidentally)
    - 1 post, one lonely post, criticizing an Ignatieff policy
    - 2 posts describing a rally held by Harper
    - 0 posts on Conservative policy
    And about a dozen or so on this bizarre and irrelevant conspiracy theory about CBC’s Compass!

    Which to you seems like the party enjoying this exercise in democracy? Which one seems focused on the issues? Which group seems happy about the state of their election campaign?

  43. Harper will only answer five questions from reporters per day. I guess he has contempt of voters. I guess he has contempt of Canadian citizens.

Leave a Reply

*